Adolf Hitler, Darwinism’s “Black Eye”

My dialog with “onein6billion” on my entry titled “Atheist Scientists in Uproar over Movie Showing…” continues on a different issue:

onein6billion said:

“The other point about the movie is that it wants to link Darwin (evolution) with Hitler. This is wrong in so many ways. There is a web site with a lot of information about how Hitler used Christians and Christianity as part of his anti-Semitism.

One analogy – Einstein (physics) should be blamed for Hiroshima. Quite similar to evolution should be blamed for the actions of a megalomaniac.

So do you really want to see this lying political propaganda movie?”

__________

onein6billion,

Your reasoning is flawed – you are comparing apples (Hitler’s “natural selection” ideology) with oranges (Einstein’s discoveries and subsequent inventions). You fail to understand that “ideas” (or philosophies) have ideological consequences.

Evil people pull triggers, but it is ideology that shapes their decision making…

And by the way, of course Hitler used the Church as well as everyone else. Evil men will use anything at their disposal (Christian theology calls that sin of course) just like today, and because many in the German church accepted higher criticism (liberal theology) they were ripe for error, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

This “higher criticism” ideology (which had consequences of its own course) darkened the minds of many in the German Churches to Hitler’s real agenda.

This apostasy of the liberal German Church still does not prove that Hitler’s ideological presuppositions were not shaped by the darwinian doctrine of “natural selection”, they absolutely were! Also, remember today just as then in Hitlers day, there were faithful and true Christians, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessing_Church

To prove the point, have you ever heard of “eugenics”? Creating the “Master Aryan Race”?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Evolutionary “natural selection” in its purest ideology, when it is accepted, has a certain trajectory that leads to certain kinds of conclusions. Natural selection (as a doctrine) is about raw power, power that leads to the strong killing the weak so that only the best will survive  (and this need to happen, for the survival of the race according to Darwin and Hitler) .

Christianity too, in its purest ideology, has a certain trajectory that sees the “image of God” in even the weakest of human beings. Christianity in it purest ideological form, leads naturally to Compassion for the weak which is why it will always win the masses.

To prove the “ideological trajectory”” point further, very recently – one of the high “religious” priests of Atheism, Richard Dawkins raised the ugly issue of eugenics once again, proving where the darwinian world-view leads to (certain conclusions):

http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php

Now, I’m not saying that “all” atheist’s follow their world-view to it’s logical ends, because like everyone else (including Christians) people do not always act consistently with their world-view. Never the less, Hitler did act consistently, with his darwinian world-view, and his ideology lead to certain undeniable consequences…

In regard to this issue, if this is what the movie presents, like it or not, it will be presenting the truth.

Sorry my friend, the truth will set you free…

Lar

Advertisements

13 Responses

  1. “if this is what the movie presents, like it or not, it will be presenting the truth.”

    No, no, no. “evolution” or “natural selection” is just an “idea” about reality just like the theory that extra neutrons could cause a nuclear fission chain reaction. So if an evil person misuses an idea, should we blame the person or the idea?

    “You fail to understand that “ideas” (or philosophies) have ideological consequences.”

    Well, I understand that. But evolution is the truth, so it’s really hard to make the following argument:

    1) Hitler used “evolution” to justify his evil actions.
    2) Therefore evolution is “wrong” and should be suppressed.

    Why not:
    1) Hitler gained the atomic bomb first and conquered the world.
    2) Therefore atomic theory is “wrong” and should be suppressed.

    In a world of 6 billion people, you’ll be at a competitive disadvantage if you suppress the scientific truth. And, as evolution teaches, those at a competitive disadvantage have lower chances of survival.

    “So does Christianity, in its purest ideology…”

    leads to the Crusades? the Spanish Inquisition? the Wars of the Roses?

    Now let’s discuss Islam in its purest ideology.

    “Your reasoning is flawed.”

    As Monk would say – I don’t think so.

    • now remember… the Crusades & Sp Inquisition did not occur in a vaccum. They occured in direct action of Islamic terror. And if it weren’t for the Christians bold moves… well you Atheists would have no liberty to spout your ideology. I mean… how many Atheists are there in the Middle East?

  2. oenin6,

    Same old tired arguments… We’ve heard them all before…

    If biblical anthropology is correct (I believe it is), and men are by nature sinners (look at the evil all around you), Of course you would expect all kinds of evil manifestations, as I said “men do not always act consistently with their world-view”.

    Sinners sin, get it – Christianity is religion of redemption – and because men do commit evil against their neighbor we need the Gospel. I myself am a 21 year (I am 42, and the first 21 were spent in sin) work in progress, I am learning by the grace of God to grow in righteousness, becoming and living more and more constant with the doctrines of Jesus Christ. We actually sing songs about this kinda stuff you know:

    “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
    That saved a wretch like me….
    I once was lost but now am found,
    Was blind, but now, I see.

    (Hey, by the way, what kinda songs do Atheists sing anyhow? Amazing evolution, how sweet the sound, that tells me my life is meaningless…)

    How about all the wonderful things Christianity (in all of its varieties) has done throughout the centuries and is still doing today? (Pleeezze don’t make me post thousands of stories of history and links to thousands of current Christian charitable organizations through out the world to prove this to you – do a little “googe” search and you can find it out for yourself)

    Christianity has a long and wonderful history of charity, mercy, compassion, taking care and feeding the poor and destitute, taking in orphans, visiting prisoners and teaching cannibals, not to eat their neighbor! On and on the list could go.

    Besides, I’m sure there are a whole lot of atheistic charitable organizations called “The Darwinian Army”, that have been taking care of the needy for centuries. And next time you need to go to the hospital make sure you go to “St. Atheist Memorial Hospital”. Also, I’m sure you could find many examples of “atheistic missionaries” who will, at the risk of their life, evangelize the cannibals in the doctrine of “natural selection” – oh ya, they might get “selected” for a “natural” meal!.

    Despite the Churches immaturity in history, whether you admit it or not, the world “is” a better place because of Christianity! And as it spreads, it will continue its healing power – even at the cost of many of her own just as our master taught us by his example.

    As Napoleon Bonaparte said, “I know men and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for Him.”

    OK, so let me see if I have this right, you folks want us to own up to the errors of “Christians” in centuries past (and people who call themselves Christians who have “used” our faith for gain) for things like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Fair enough, we have, and will continue to “repent” in “sack cloth and ashes” before both man and God for the sin of some our forefathers in the faith (who were not being loyal to the faith indeed!) – The Church still has much maturing to do, to grow up into the image of her master Jesus Christ!

    But if Christianity has slain its so called thousands – then Atheism has slain its tens of millions. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Pol Pot were all atheists. (besides I thought religion caused all wars?)

    You want us to wear our badge – you wear yours…

    In an Atheistic world-view men are nothing more or nothing less than products of a collision of molecules.

    And if evolution is true – that ethics are “relative” “situational” creations of men just as atheists and evolutionists preach, and if they (ethics) are not “transcendent” absolute standards built in and revealed by a creator. Well as the old saying goes you get what you pay for, ethical anarchy, murder, and chaos because everyone is doing what is “right in thier own eyes”.

    Good and evil, are theistic categories because in an “atheistic” world-view, good and evil are “defined” by whoever has the most power (Friedrich Nietzsche said that, he too was another fine atheist)

    The same is true even in a democracy – what ever the “democratic” mob (like the French “atheistic” revolution preached – lets get rid of God and be god ourselves!) says is right, then I guess its right! (Liberty, Equality, Fraternity! except for those who disagree! Well than off with their more than 40,000 heads!)

    Good and evil are whatever we “all agree on” I guess (just keep Christianity out because it is supposedly false, and beside whatever we atheists say is true, is therefore true!).

    Today tolerance is morally good (except for that dreaded Christianity of course) – tomorrow genocide in the name of “for of the good of the people” and “helping natural selection along” is now good!

    What if the ideology of lets say, Huxley’s “Brave New World” or Orwell’s “1984” is taught and imbibed and desired by the majority, would that make it good thing? Some people might think so, and if they do – who are you to tell them that they are wrong?

    All this smells like “ethical relativism” to me, but what other choice does the evolutionist have? None – “ethical relativism” is his ethic!

    At least we Christians have an unchanging transcendent “ethical standard” by which we can measure our sinfulness and consciences against.

    So, we don’t need to “discuss Islam in its purest ideology” because as I said (if you were understanding me) of course certain Islamic ideologies mixed with human selfishness and sin lead to certain, conclusions and actions – so, I probably would whole heartedly agree with you!

    As for your statement that evolution is “true” this claim is built on an assumption that naturalism is true, therefore evolution is true. You have a bias – an anti-supernaturalic assumption that you must accept a-priori to make this statement, you cannot disprove prove supernaturalm.

    Hello earth to Mars, evolution is a “theory” you said so yourself. Non-life to life, molecules to man “macro”

    http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0737_Macro_vs._Micro_Evol.html

    evolutionary “theory” cannot be put in a test tube, besides you could never reproduce the exact “supposed” conditions of the big bang anyhow. So you can prove nothing absolutely! For me as well as most of the world’s “6 billion” it takes a lot more “faith” to believe in evolutionary mythology than in some sort of “supernatural” intelligent designed special creation. (Maybe I should call you noteven1in6-billion – less then 16%)

    You must also assume that matter, energy and the universe are eternal and always were here (an assertion you can never prove) – I do assume (which I could never prove to you because of your rebellion against God), that God is eternal and always was and He designed all (the bible and creation itself tells me so!).

    If I see a beautiful painting, I know there must be a master painter. Tell any simple minded person that this painting “just happened” given enough “time” and “chance”, he will say “that’s is a bunch of hooey”…

    BTW – Could you please give me your theory (oops, I mean truth – because you and yours say so) as to “how” male and female evolved?

    How did male and female “simultaneously” evolve at the same time so that they both have “compatible” reproductive organs? “How” did they reproduce prior to they way they do now so they wouldn’t die out, (the first time you miss – extinction!)

    How did their reproductive organs evolve?, if they don’t have all the current reproductive organs they have now – no babies no people.

    Again, “How” did both male and female not die off in the whole entire process, because if they “each” don’t reproduce “simultaneously” the first time, the second time, the third time and so on – they are extinct before they even get a chance to start…

    And this across the all the differing species? Man I really need a lot of faith don’t I? If “faith is good” I should abandon mine for yours…

    Speaking of “suppressing scientific truth” (I guess the current intolerance of the “orthodoxy” of darwinian evolution doesn’t count – because you and yours say so)

    Do you remember when the Catholic Church defended Aristotle’s geocentric world-view.

    http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html

    How does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot? Defending the old stinky outdated fairy-tale “origin stories” of biological evolution?

    Science, is so incredibly variable, because new, and deeper discoveries are being revealed every day – yesterday Pluto was a planet today it is a star, Yesterday scientific research says coffee is bad for me, today it is good – and on an on, every day scientific contradictions – the new contradicting the old, sheesh…

    Do your white robed darwinian scientific priests have exhaustive knowledge? Are they omniscient? Until you can prove exhaustive knowledge of “any” issue how can I fully trust that their conclusions are 100% correct -I quote you “But evolution is the truth”. OK – I say like you – “Well, dream on, dreamer.”

    I smell a rat and its name is “subjectivity“!!!

    Science is very, very helpful, but it has its limitations. We are limited because we are creatures not God (though we think we are)

    Prodigal, stop eating the Darwinian “swine feed” and repent of your sin and come home to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15:11-32

    Besides, my friend, you might not believe it – but there actually is a lot more to life than biology….

    Lar

  3. onein6,

    By the way you contradicted yourself:

    1) “No, no, no. “evolution” or “natural selection” is just an “idea” about reality just like the theory that extra neutrons could cause a nuclear fission chain reaction”

    2) “But evolution is the truth”

    __________

    Whats up with you?

    Evolution is “Just an idea”?

    “just like the “theory”… “could” cause?

    You cant have it both ways!!!

    Have you redefined the meaning of the word “Theory”?

    __________

    But, On this I do wholeheartedly agree with you that evolution is exactly that “just an idea” and “a theory – just like other theory’s”

    __________

    Were you a victim of public schooling? I was too, it took me many years of self study to get a real education!

    You believe in evolution not because you seen it (well maybe on TV) but because that is what you were taught to believe without question.

    If a fish is in water does he know that he is wet?

    Our culture does a great job a producing a bunch of lemmings who believe whatever they are told…

  4. onein6,

    This statement is a bunch of malarkey!

    “No, no, no. “evolution” or “natural selection” is just an “idea” about reality just like the theory that extra neutrons could cause a nuclear fission chain reaction”

    Didn’t they teach you in school about “Evolutionary Theories in the Social Sciences”?

    http://www.etss.net/

    Evolution by way of natural selection, is way more than just a simple idea about reality as you present it – It is practically speaking, a religious creed and doctrine!

    Lar

  5. onein6,

    See my last entries at the Expelled post.

  6. Theories of evolution actually pre-dated Darwin. Darwin failed to publish for 20 years until it was clear that Wallace was about to publish similar ideas. So, why is it that a theory that has been around for 150+ years has produced only one real Hitler? Why not 2 or 20 or 200? The answer is that Hitler is unique in so many ways. So “Hitler used evolution” as one of his many justifications for doing terrible things says nothing about evolution and everything about Hitler.

    “By the way you contradicted yourself:”

    No, you show the typical creationist misunderstanding of science. The theory of evolution is just an idea. It could be right or wrong. But the evidence leads to the scientific conclusion that it’s the best explanation. So that makes it “scientific truth”.

  7. Of course, “Theories of evolution actually pre-dated Darwin” this is beside the point.

    (BTW some claim it goes back as far as the Greeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought)

    With Darwins publication of Origin, he made the theory of evolution palatable and even fashonable for an already skeptical unbelieving academia and elite that was all too ready to receive it.

    “Natural Selection” on the other hand was groundbreaking. Whether or not you want to call the social sciences “pseudo science,” Its when the doctrine of “natural selection” was introduced and applied to the social sciences (and it undeniably was) you get things like eugenics and “favored (Aryan) races.”

    Now read the the full title of his book:

    “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

    See:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_race

    Lar

  8. “academia and elite that was all too ready to receive it. ”

    Because it was so obviously true?

    “..Preservation of Favoured Races..”

    Quite accurate and misleading. Creationist claim rebutted:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html

    “races” in Darwin’s context meant “species”.

    The web reference also mentions that Darwin’s opinions are irrelevant to the truth of evolution.

    And there’s no mention of atheism or Darwin on that nazism and race web page.

  9. onein6′

    “And there’s no mention of atheism or Darwin on that nazism and race web page”

    read it, OK?

    UNDER THE TITLE “Racialist ideology”

    “This set of claims grew out of a larger movement of Scientific Racism that developed conjointly with social darwinism theories and unilineal evolutionism which classified the European culture as the leading one in the world. Scientific racism was taught at major universities in Europe and the United States through the 1930s.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism_and_race

    I challenge you to really read the whole thing.

    Just because a creationist says something, does that make it automatically untrue? Do you just like to argue for the sake of argument or do you truly seek truth?

    Besides the “Nazi – Darwininain” connection (acknowledged here on winkipedia) Is understood by sociologists and historians alike, not just “creationists”.

    ___

    The page you posted says this:

    The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution – (then it makes this BOLD claim) – “Evolution is based on evidence, not on people’s opinions”

    but you say you say on the other post:

    Real scientists never claim any theory is “proven”.

    So you should ask them to rewrite it this way:

    The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the “supposed” fact of evolution, “Evolution is based on “unproven” evidence, not on people’s opinions”

    Lar

  10. “social darwinism” is not related to scientific evolution.

    “Unilineal evolution (also referred to as classical social evolution) is a 19th century social theory.”

    So it is also just a conclusion of some pseudo-scientist that has no relation to scientific evolution.

    “unproven” evidence is nonsense. Evidence is true or false, not proven or unproven.

    You continue to fail to distinguish between the Theory of Evolution which cannot be “proven” and the overwhelming evidence that supports it and does not disprove it.

  11. EVIDENCE is true or false… based on the accuracy of the test or reading, the person reading it, the summary of what the person thinks the evidence says, time, location, temperature… of said evidence, not to mention the same factors for whomever is reading that evidence… and let us not forget, if it is a test… that someone had to design or create that test… And we then must consider the intelligent design of said test, its report, conclusions, said outcome, obvious outcome, analogies, analytical process, anylasis, and… mmm, oh darn, I think I’m missing something, or not… I’m not sure… are you?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: