Evolution book

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
When your dog learns to pile up things to get over the fence, on her own, call the ethologists, you will have a unique dog.

Why is it intellectually-driven cleverness for an ape to do a similar thing which is “built in” for a dog?

That’s the point. It isn’t a similar thing. Planning and building a crude ladder is quite a bit different than digging under a fence.

Babarian observes:
I have no faith in science, since science requires data, not belief.

If your understanding of physical sciences is that apes have rational souls, then I don’t believe that you have.

Some humans have fewer mental capabilities than almost all apes. Immortal souls given humans are not conditional on mental capacity.

To me, it appears that you have accepted what science says, without reference to what the Church teaches in the corresponding field (that of Christian anthropology).

I am merely pointing out facts. If they seem to you contradictory to Christian faith, I can only say truth cannot contradict truth.

Barbarian observes:
Don’t see how. It is quite possible for a being to be rational and not immortal.

According to Christian anthropology, it’s not.

Because it’s not a consequence of rationality - it’s connatural with rationality, and the texts which I quoted from the Catechism specifically say (I emphasized them) “God created man a rational being … Man is rational and therefore like God … [man is] created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls.”

Notice that it does not say that immortality is a consequence of rationality.

Because the mind is a faculty of the soul, and, as the Catechism defines it, immortality is, “the quality of the spiritual human soul whereby it survives the death of the body and remains in existence without end, to be reunited with the body at the final resurrection,” it follows that the mind, a faculty of the soul, is immortal.

Human mind, anyway. Again, it doesn’t say all mind is so.

Barbarian observes:
But this is wrong, I think; there are humans who have no rational facilities at all, and yet they have immortal souls.

All humans have rational faculties. It’s in the definition of “human,” an animal with a rational soul. If they didn’t, then what’s to stop us from killing those who we deem “irrational”?

An acephalic newborn is therefore without a soul? Are you sure?

Barbarian observes:
No, a dog merely obseves behavior and acts accordingly. Apes can actually infer that you have a mind and what you are thinking.

That’s a stretch.

Nope. Here’s how they tested it:

A man and an ape are sitting across a table from each other. The table has three cups in the “shell game” tradition. The man can see where the pea is, and points to the correct cup. The ape quickly catches on, and they both get a treat.

Then they switch places. And the ape doesn’t miss a beat, but points to the correct cup. He has inferred that while he can see the pea, the man cannot.

Monkeys can’t do this, but all apes know that the man has a mental state, and correctly infer what it is.

Not even humans can know what other humans are thinking.

Nevertheless, we can make accurate inferences from evidence. So can apes.

Barbarian
Vervets, for example, have generalized and specific calls for snake and for “not dangerous snake.”

(poems?)

Rather crude ones. An annoyed gorilla, which had been taught signing, once called a worker “you green #$*%” (excretory product).

Yes. One chimp taught to sign, tried to so communicate wth a cat.

Isn’t that what we do with our children?

Yes, but of course we are rational.

But that sign was not something that it came up with on its own - it was taught by rote memorization to it.

So humans learn by memorization. But like apes, they can then apply the words to novel and creative uses.

Barbarian observes:
Chimps in particular, seem to be able to coordinate very well, so long as they can see each other, in hunting and other activities.

As do wolves.

In general, wolf hunting behavior is highly stereotyped. I’ve seen a few claims of rational behavior, and experiments have shown wolves to be able to do some problem solving.

Barbarian observes:
If we limit rationality to an appreciation of Mozart, then rational people are relatively scarce.

But we were talking about the ability to appreciate things in an abstract manner and being able to then to compare, contrast, and use these concepts of Mozart, church, dog, plant, in completely unrelated and creative contexts.

Then a lot of humans don’t have immortal souls.

Barbarian observes:
I’ve never seen a dog pay much attention to a sunset. That would be a remarkable thing, too.

My dog lays in the sun all the time, watches her surroundings, etc., etc.

But no sense of awe at a sunset. So some animals have less of it than others. None of this really means very much about immortal souls. What do we have that even apes seem to have almost none at all of?

A knowledge of good and evil. That is what makes us like God.

Barbarian observes:
St. Thomas also said it was impossible to make a triangle with interior angles summing to more than 180 degrees. St. Thomas made errors, like anyone else.

But to infer that because he made errors in a field of science which he was not an expert in (this specific example of which I have never heard) is not a strong argument against his mastery over philosophical and theological arguments.

It merely means that his theological and philosophical ideas were slightly out of joint with reality. His list of Things Even God Cannot Do, was faulty.

 

[kliner]

Notice that it does not say that immortality is a consequence of rationality.

Nor did I. I plainly said “connatural.”

Kevin said: All humans have rational faculties. It’s in the definition of “human,” an animal with a rational soul. If they didn’t, then what’s to stop us from killing those who we deem “irrational”?

An acephalic newborn is therefore without a soul? Are you sure?

Showing my ignorance of science here, I don’t know what that entails. Quick dictionary lookup says that its an absence of the head and Wikipedia says its a “parasitic twin” that doesn’t have its own head or heart. I think I would have to leave that to someone with more expertise, but I would be inclined to think that the “parasitic twin” is an abnormality of the baby it’s attached to (and consequently, would not have its “own soul” because it is part of the baby with the abnormality).

Nope. Here’s how they tested it:

A man and an ape are sitting across a table from each other. The table has three cups in the “shell game” tradition. The man can see where the pea is, and points to the correct cup. The ape quickly catches on, and they both get a treat.

Then they switch places. And the ape doesn’t miss a beat, but points to the correct cup. He has inferred that while he can see the pea, the man cannot.

Monkeys can’t do this, but all apes know that the man has a mental state, and correctly infer what it is.

I’m not sure that I’m clear on what you’re saying. In the first case, the ape couldn’t see the cup with the pea? And when the tables were turned, he pointed at the same cup the man did? That doesn’t sound extraordinary to me (for an animal, OK; for intellectual capabilities, I don’t think so). And it also doesn’t seem to infer that the ape inferred, rather it imitated what the man did, i.e., what does pointing at a cup have to do with whether or not the man can see the pea?

Barbarian observes:
If we limit rationality to an appreciation of Mozart, then rational people are relatively scarce.
…
Then a lot of humans don’t have immortal souls.

There’s a difference between potency and actuality. All humans have rational souls. Just because “a lot” don’t appear to be using their mind, doesn’t mean that the potentiality isn’t there. And I was in no way inferring that you have to look at specific things in order to be considered rational. The point was abstraction, concepts, “universals,” and that was clear in my post.

But no sense of awe at a sunset. So some animals have less of it than others. None of this really means very much about immortal souls. What do we have that even apes seem to have almost none at all of?

A knowledge of good and evil. That is what makes us like God.

Biting the apple is what caused the fall . That is not what makes us like God and a cursory glance at the Catechism (including that which I have already quoted) will explain that we are made in the image of God because we are rational.

Barbarian observes:
St. Thomas also said it was impossible to make a triangle with interior angles summing to more than 180 degrees. St. Thomas made errors, like anyone else.
…
It merely means that his theological and philosophical ideas were slightly out of joint with reality. His list of Things Even God Cannot Do, was faulty.

I’m not familiar with either of those cases, and I said that I knew that some of his writings were in error - but that is not the case for most of them and he has been one of (if not the) most written person who has ever lived on this earth. Not to mention the unquestionably large amount of Church teaching that has been developed by, and because of, his work (as it has played out in history). Like I said before (besides what you have written here), I don’t know the extensiveness of your background in metaphysics, but St. Thomas (in Catholic philosophical and theological circles) is heralded (and rightly so) as one of the greatest teachers (and is one of the 33 Doctors) of the Church and I don’t think that he can be as easily dismissed as you would like.

 

[masterjedi747]

St. Thomas also said it was impossible to make a triangle with interior angles summing to more than 180 degrees. St. Thomas made errors, like anyone else.

Uh… He was absolutely right, at least in that case.
Assuming, of course, that we’re talking about rectilinear triangles… which he was.

 

[kliner]

Uh… He was absolutely right, at least in that case.
Assuming, of course, that we’re talking about rectilinear triangles… which he was.

hahaha … I didn’t even catch that. I should be , but alas, I will .

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
St. Thomas also said it was impossible to make a triangle with interior angles summing to more than 180 degrees. St. Thomas made errors, like anyone else.

Assuming, of course, that we’re talking about rectilinear triangles… which he was.

Right. His error was in assuming that triangles, as formally defined, could only be rectilinear. That error has considerable application in this discussion.

 

[ricmat]

I posted this in the Expelled thread by mistake, here it is again. Just the kind of fun stuff that’s being discussed here these days.

From this article:

As I show in meticulous detail in my book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, the Nazis’ devaluing of human life derived from Darwinian ideology (this does not mean that all Nazi ideology came from Darwinism). There were six features of Darwinian theory that have contributed to the devaluing of human life (then and now):

1. Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, attacked the “anthropocentric” view that humans are unique and special.
2. Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul. He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.
3. Darwin and other Darwinists recognized that if morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights. Darwin stated in his Autobiography that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”
4. Since evolution requires variation, Darwin and other early Darwinists believed in human inequality. Haeckel emphasized inequality to such as extent that he even classified human races as twelve distinct species and claimed that the lowest humans were closer to primates than to the highest humans.
5. Darwin and most Darwinists believe that humans are locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence. Darwin claimed in The Descent of Man that because of this struggle, “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
6. Darwinism overturned the Judeo-Christian view of death as an enemy, construing it instead as a beneficial engine of progress. Darwin remarked in The Origin of Species, “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”

These six ideas were promoted by many prominent Darwinian biologists and Darwinian-inspired social thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All six were enthusiastically embraced by Hitler and many other leading Nazis. Hitler thought that killing “inferior” humans would bring about evolutionary progress. Most historians who specialize in the Nazi era recognize the Darwinian underpinnings of many aspects of Hitler’s ideology.

 

[The_Barbarian]

1. Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals.

So how is it that Darwin had no problem with humans killing animals for food, but asserted that even enslaving humans was wrong? The lunatic fringe has always trotted out this falsehood as if it proved evolution is wrong.

Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul.

Darwin once wrote how the officers of the Beagle kidded him about his orthodox Anglican views. So far as I know, Anglicans think that humans have an immaterial soul. Late in life, he said he was “leaning toward agnosticism”, but that also refutes what your guy made up.

He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.

That’s also wrong. Wallace, (co-discoverer of natural selection, and a Darwinist) believed that humans were granted reason and religion by God. It gets worse. Read on.

Darwin and other Darwinists recognized that if morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights.

Darwin had a rather nasty disagreement with the (creationist) captain of the Beagle, because he asserted that all humans had an intrinsic right to freedom.

During an extended time on shore near Rio de Janeiro, Darwin was horrified by the human brutality exhibited in the treatment of Negro slaves. The Wedgwood family had been early opponents of slavery, and Darwin’s reports supported their view. Captain FitzRoy and Darwin disagreed violently over the issue of slavery, but eventually managed to work together again.
darwinday.org/NEWlang/life/beagle.html

Are you getting some feeling for the hazards of substituting wishful thinking for research?

Darwin stated in his Autobiography that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”

People should do the best they can, according to their best judgement? Yes, I suppose so. I wonder if your guy thinks that they should do what they think is wrong. Petrus’s comment about it being hard to make an unbelievable parody of these guys, applies here.

Since evolution requires variation, Darwin and other early Darwinists believed in human inequality.

Here, your guy seems to be trying a little bait-and-switch. Darwin, as you just learned, believed that everyone was equal in the sense of being entitled to freedom and dignity. But he also knew that humans vary in terms of abilities. The smear job depended on conflating the two ideas. He might really be that dumb, but my guess is that this is a clumsy attempt to be deceptive.

Haeckel emphasized inequality to such as extent that he even classified human races as twelve distinct species and claimed that the lowest humans were closer to primates than to the highest humans.

You won’t find that sort of thing among evolutionists, because evolutionary theory shows that there aren’t human races in a biological sense. But as late as 1992, a leader among creationists was still writing about the alleged spiritual and intellectual inferiority of blacks. This is one of the key differences between science and creationism.

Darwin and most Darwinists believe that humans are locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence.

Darwin merely observed history, and the behavior of humans in his time. Europeans were busily discovering and then enslaving or displacing other people. He was commenting on an observable fact.

Darwin claimed in The Descent of Man that because of this struggle, “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”

So it seemed. A good number of human groups had already been exterminated, and others were well on the way. Darwin just didn’t realize that eventually enough people would agree with him on essential human dignity to put a stop to it.

Darwinism overturned the Judeo-Christian view of death as an enemy

Death is not our enemy. It is the first step to spending an eternity with God. Or is, if you accept Him and follow Him.

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."

Demonstrably so. The fitness of populations is enhanced by natural selection. As you should know, neither Darwin nor other scientists who followed him thought that this was a good guide to ethics.

These six ideas were promoted by many prominent Darwinian biologists and Darwinian-inspired social thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All six were enthusiastically embraced by Hitler and many other leading Nazis. Hitler thought that killing “inferior” humans would bring about evolutionary progress.

Ironically, a real Darwinian (Punnett, of Punnett square fame) showed that this was a foolish misinterpretation of science that would take so long as to be effectively impossible.

Most historians who specialize in the Nazi era recognize the Darwinian underpinnings of many aspects of Hitler’s ideology.

Nice try. BTW, Hitler did openly adapt ideas various Christians advocated concerning the Jews. However, it would be equally evil to blame Christianity for the Nazis, even if Nazi soldiers had belt buckles with the motto “Gott mit Uns.”

It would be particularly evil to attribute this to Darwin and his theories, since his opinions were diametrically opposed to the Nazi concept of value=fitness.

 

[ricmat]

So how is it that Darwin had no problem with humans killing animals for food, but asserted that even enslaving humans was wrong? The lunatic fringe has always trotted out this falsehood as if it proved evolution is wrong.

The quotes from the book I linked to had nothing to do with proving evolution was wrong.

You made that up.

Darwin once wrote how the officers of the Beagle kidded him about his orthodox Anglican views. So far as I know, Anglicans think that humans have an immaterial soul. Late in life, he said he was “leaning toward agnosticism”, but that also refutes what your guy made up.

That’s also wrong. Wallace, (co-discoverer of natural selection, and a Darwinist) believed that humans were granted reason and religion by God. It gets worse. Read on.

Darwin had a rather nasty disagreement with the (creationist) captain of the Beagle, because he asserted that all humans had an intrinsic right to freedom.

During an extended time on shore near Rio de Janeiro, Darwin was horrified by the human brutality exhibited in the treatment of Negro slaves. The Wedgwood family had been early opponents of slavery, and Darwin’s reports supported their view. Captain FitzRoy and Darwin disagreed violently over the issue of slavery, but eventually managed to work together again.
darwinday.org/NEWlang/life/beagle.html

Are you getting some feeling for the hazards of substituting wishful thinking for research?

People should do the best they can, according to their best judgement? Yes, I suppose so. I wonder if your guy thinks that they should do what they think is wrong. Petrus’s comment about it being hard to make an unbelievable parody of these guys, applies here.

Here, your guy seems to be trying a little bait-and-switch. Darwin, as you just learned, believed that everyone was equal in the sense of being entitled to freedom and dignity. But he also knew that humans vary in terms of abilities. The smear job depended on conflating the two ideas. He might really be that dumb, but my guess is that this is a clumsy attempt to be deceptive.

You won’t find that sort of thing among evolutionists, because evolutionary theory shows that there aren’t human races in a biological sense. But as late as 1992, a leader among creationists was still writing about the alleged spiritual and intellectual inferiority of blacks. This is one of the key differences between science and creationism.

Darwin merely observed history, and the behavior of humans in his time. Europeans were busily discovering and then enslaving or displacing other people. He was commenting on an observable fact.

So it seemed. A good number of human groups had already been exterminated, and others were well on the way. Darwin just didn’t realize that eventually enough people would agree with him on essential human dignity to put a stop to it.

Death is not our enemy. It is the first step to spending an eternity with God. Or is, if you accept Him and follow Him.

Demonstrably so. The fitness of populations is enhanced by natural selection. As you should know, neither Darwin nor other scientists who followed him thought that this was a good guide to ethics.

Ironically, a real Darwinian (Punnett, of Punnett square fame) showed that this was a foolish misinterpretation of science that would take so long as to be effectively impossible.

Nice try. BTW, Hitler did openly adapt ideas various Christians advocated concerning the Jews. However, it would be equally evil to blame Christianity for the Nazis, even if Nazi soldiers had belt buckles with the motto “Gott mit Uns.”

It would be particularly evil to attribute this to Darwin and his theories, since his opinions were diametrically opposed to the Nazi concept of value=fitness.

I posted the following on the other thread where I posted the 6 items, but I’ll reproduce it here for your convenience: And so far as answering the question “What are the negative impacts of Darwinism on society?” the items I posted from the article go into that in detail. Many of the anti-life programs which oppose Church teaching draw their strength and talking points from those six items which originated with Darwin. Should we abandon those elements and offshoots of Darwinism? I hope that you’ll agree that we should.

There are some who are so fanatical about evolution, that any criticism of it’s founders or earlier proponents meets with ridicule, disbelief, head-in-the-sand, fundamentalist attitudes that one must wonder if these views don’t carry over to their scientific views of evolution as well.
Perhaps you would learn something if you actually read the whole article.

In the meantime, thank you for helping make my point for me.

 

[ricmat]

Nice try. BTW, Hitler did openly adapt ideas various Christians advocated concerning the Jews. However, it would be equally evil to blame Christianity for the Nazis, even if Nazi soldiers had belt buckles with the motto “Gott mit Uns.”

It would be particularly evil to attribute this to Darwin and his theories, since his opinions were diametrically opposed to the Nazi concept of value=fitness.

It is interesting, and enlightening to see that you allow no faults with Darwin, or any of his followers, or those who appropriated his theories in the cause of the devaluation of human life. But you are so willing to link the Catholic Church to these things.

 

[The_Barbarian]

It is interesting, and enlightening to see that you allow no faults with Darwin

I have pointed out, on this forum, that he was, like most Europeans of his time, conviced that Europeans were racially superior. I pointed out that he was wrong about inheritance of acquired traits, and that he was wrong about gradualism. Try to keep with the truth.

or those who appropriated his theories in the cause of the devaluation of human life.

You’re unhappy because I exposed the “Darwin=Nazi” scam. But learn from it and go on.

But you are so willing to link the Catholic Church to these things.

You’ve dropped a notch in my estimation. This is the first time you’ve demonstrably lied about anything. I pointed out that even though Christians had advocated many of the things your guy accused Darwin of, that is not an indictment of Christianity.

Perhaps it felt momentarily good to write a false accusation. But now you’ll have to live with the effect it has on everyone here, and what it does to their opinion of you.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You quoted your guy:
"There are some who are so fanatical about evolution, that any criticism of it’s founders or earlier proponents meets with ridicule, disbelief, head-in-the-sand, fundamentalist attitudes that one must wonder if these views don’t carry over to their scientific views of evolution as well. "

In short, he’s arguing that anyone who disagrees with him is therefore “fanatical.” A rather clumsy and transparent attempt to immunize his fantasies from criticism.

Perhaps you would learn something if you actually read the whole article.

What you presented of his arguments is more than sufficient. If you feel there’s anything at all that might survive inspection, now would be the time to show us.

 

[ricmat]

Barbarian, people actually have the ability to go back and read the entire transcript of the previous threads.

From this article:

Most historians who specialize in the Nazi era recognize the Darwinian underpinnings of many aspects of Hitler’s ideology.

To which you responded in this post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3567202&postcount=47

Barbarian said:
Nice try. BTW, Hitler did openly adapt ideas various Christians advocated concerning the Jews. However, it would be equally evil to blame Christianity for the Nazis, even if Nazi soldiers had belt buckles with the motto “Gott mit Uns.”

It is interesting, and enlightening to see that you allow no faults with Darwin, or any of his followers, or those who appropriated his theories in the cause of the devaluation of human life. But you are so willing to link the Catholic Church to these things.

You’ve dropped a notch in my estimation. This is the first time you’ve demonstrably lied about anything. I pointed out that even though Christians had advocated many of the things your guy accused Darwin of, that is not an indictment of Christianity.

Perhaps it felt momentarily good to write a false accusation. But now you’ll have to live with the effect it has on everyone here, and what it does to their opinion of you.

Barbarian, the 6 items I posted were not wishful thinking on my part, as you opined, but were written by a History professor who researched this subject.

In the posts above, and in previous posts in many threads you are unwilling to accept that anything bad was ever associated with Darwin, his followers, or even those whom I admitted appropriated his ideas (much like ID was appropriated or mis-appropriated by some creationists).

The fact is, you brought up a linkage between the Hitler and the Catholic Church in an attempt to defend Darwin, etc. That was unnecessary, really.

 

[ricmat]

You quoted your guy:
"There are some who are so fanatical about evolution, that any criticism of it’s founders or earlier proponents meets with ridicule, disbelief, head-in-the-sand, fundamentalist attitudes that one must wonder if these views don’t carry over to their scientific views of evolution as well. "

In short, he’s arguing that anyone who disagrees with him is therefore “fanatical.” A rather clumsy and transparent attempt to immunize his fantasies from criticism.

What you presented of his arguments is more than sufficient. If you feel there’s anything at all that might survive inspection, now would be the time to show us.

“My guy” (the professor who wrote the article and book) did not say what you claim he said above.

You made that up.

That was a quote directly written by ricmat. Those are my fantasies.

Get your facts straight.

Here’s the original quote so you can read it again.

The quotes from the book I linked to had nothing to do with proving evolution was wrong.

You made that up.

I posted the following on the other thread where I posted the 6 items, but I’ll reproduce it here for your convenience: And so far as answering the question “What are the negative impacts of Darwinism on society?” the items I posted from the article go into that in detail. Many of the anti-life programs which oppose Church teaching draw their strength and talking points from those six items which originated with Darwin. Should we abandon those elements and offshoots of Darwinism? I hope that you’ll agree that we should.

There are some who are so fanatical about evolution, that any criticism of it’s founders or earlier proponents meets with ridicule, disbelief, head-in-the-sand, fundamentalist attitudes that one must wonder if these views don’t carry over to their scientific views of evolution as well.
Perhaps you would learn something if you actually read the whole article.

In the meantime, thank you for helping make my point for me.

 

[garysibio]

I’m looking for a good book on evolution written by a Catholic scientist. Can someone point me to one?

Also, what exactly is “intellegent design?” Is it just another way of saying creationism? Because I know alot of Catholics are even against “intellegent design.”

I recommend ‘‘Darwin’s Black Box’’ by Michael Behe. He is a Catholic who is a biochemist by profession. It will answer your questions.

Gary

 

[masterjedi747]

I recommend ‘‘Darwin’s Black Box’’ by Michael Behe. He is a Catholic who is a biochemist by profession. It will answer your questions.

And I recommend “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller. He is a Catholic who is a biology professor by profession. And it completely demolishes Behe’s arguments (among others).

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian, people actually have the ability to go back and read the entire transcript of the previous threads.

Which is why you felt compelled to try to respin it after you falsely claimed I “brought up a linkage between the Hitler and the Catholic Church.” As you knew, I did nothing of the kind. In fact, I pointed out that it would be evil to connect Christianity of any kind to Hitler.

Most historians who specialize in the Nazi era recognize the Darwinian underpinnings of many aspects of Hitler’s ideology.

Barbarian points out the fallacy of the Nazi argument:
Nice try. BTW, Hitler did openly adapt ideas various Christians advocated concerning the Jews. However, it would be equally evil to blame Christianity for the Nazis, even if Nazi soldiers had belt buckles with the motto “Gott mit Uns.”

It is interesting, and enlightening to see that you allow no faults with Darwin,

On this forum, I pointed out that he, like other Europeans of his time, thought that Europeans were superior to others. I said that he was wrong about acquired traits, and about the timing of speciation. Probably others. You knew this.

any of his followers,

Hmm… I said that Haeckel altered drawings of embyros. I said that his followers were wrong about things, which were later corrected by others.

or those who appropriated his theories in the cause of the devaluation of human life.

I have on this forum, pointed out the stupidity of those who would try to apply evolution to values of any kind. You knew this.

But you are so willing to link the Catholic Church to these things.

No, you lied about that. I said it was wrong to connect Christianity to the Nazis, even though they claimed to be Chistians. I said nothing at all about the Catholic Church in that regard. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Barbarian observes:
You’ve dropped a notch in my estimation. This is the first time you’ve demonstrably lied about anything. I pointed out that even though Christians had advocated many of the things your guy accused Darwin of, that is not an indictment of Christianity.

Perhaps it felt momentarily good to write a false accusation. But now you’ll have to live with the effect it has on everyone here, and what it does to their opinion of you.

Barbarian, the 6 items I posted were not wishful thinking on my part, as you opined, but were written by a History professor who researched this subject.

Feel free to refer to my comments. As you can see, your “History professor” seems to be rather ignorant of the history and confabulated some stories to cover for it. Would you like to see it again?

In the posts above, and in previous posts in many threads you are unwilling to accept that anything bad was ever associated with Darwin, his followers, or even those whom I admitted appropriated his ideas (much like ID was appropriated or mis-appropriated by some creationists).

As you know, this accusation is a falsehood.

The fact is, you brought up a linkage between the Hitler and the Catholic Church

No, that was not true. And you knew it wasn’t.

 

[edwest2]

May I recommend this book:

iupress.indiana.edu/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=51615

The nazi scientists convinced the people that certain races were inferior. In the United States, thanks to Darwin, those judged unfit were forcibly sterilized against their will for fear of polluting the gene pool.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ricmat]

Which is why you felt compelled to try to respin it after you falsely claimed I “brought up a linkage between the Hitler and the Catholic Church.” As you knew, I did nothing of the kind. In fact, I pointed out that it would be evil to connect Christianity of any kind to Hitler.

Most historians who specialize in the Nazi era recognize the Darwinian underpinnings of many aspects of Hitler’s ideology.

Barbarian points out the fallacy of the Nazi argument:
Nice try. BTW, Hitler did openly adapt ideas various Christians advocated concerning the Jews. However, it would be equally evil to blame Christianity for the Nazis, even if Nazi soldiers had belt buckles with the motto “Gott mit Uns.”

Barbarian doesn’t point out any fallacies. Barbarian expresses his opinion. You are free to have one of course.

OK - I’ll concede that you linked “various Christians” to Nazism, and not just Catholics. But Catholics are Christians, you know. So I guess the slander includes even more people than I thought originally.

And you say “IF” Nazi soldiers had belt buckles with the motto “Gott mit Uns”. Well, they did have them. There is no IF here.

No where do I see you pointing out that it is evil to connect Hitler with Christianity, in fact you did the opposite twice, linking Christian ideas / Naziism, and the the Christian “Gott” to the belt buckles.

What you seem to be saying is that "hey, Christianity can be linked with Nazis as well as Darwin, so that gets Darwinism off the hook." Excuse me if that isn’t what you meant, but that’s how I interpreted it.

On this forum, I pointed out that he, like other Europeans of his time, thought that Europeans were superior to others. I said that he was wrong about acquired traits, and about the timing of speciation. Probably others. You knew this.

Ah, yes, he was like other Europeans of his time. So his eugenics beliefs are therefore OK. Again, Darwin is off the hook because everybody did it at the time.

I know that you admit that Darwinists were wrong about some technical issues, but the thrust of my original post was more on the ethics side.

Hmm… I said that Haeckel altered drawings of embyros. I said that his followers were wrong about things, which were later corrected by others.

Ditto above.

I have on this forum, pointed out the stupidity of those who would try to apply evolution to values of any kind. You knew this.

OK. But you still seem to deny that they ACTUALLY DID IT, even though you think it’s stupid. If you think they actually did it, then say so, rather than making up excuses for why it was OK at the time.

Feel free to refer to my comments. As you can see, your “History professor” seems to be rather ignorant of the history and confabulated some stories to cover for it. Would you like to see it again?

Barbarian the Biologist constantly chastises people for not listening to him with regard to his area of expertise. And when it comes to history, we are supposed to believe the opinions of Barbarian instead of a professional historian?

What proof do you have that this professor is ignorant of the history, and confabulated some stories to cover for it?

OK Barbarian, let’s try to agree on something constructive. In some of your previous posts with Kliner, you really left me thinking that you actually disagree with the morality of some of the six points. Let’s leave Mr. Darwin out of the previously mentioned 6 points. I’ve re-written some of them to see if we can reach consensus. Do you agree that:

1. The argument (wherever it came from) “that humans are not qualitatively different than animals” is morally wrong?

Ricmat says: Yes. It is morally wrong.

1. Humans have an immaterial soul, and all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.

Ricmat says: No, I do not agree with this.

1. That the idea (where ever it originated) that if humans are the products of mindless evolution, that this leads to the idea that there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights.

Ricmat says: Yes. I agree that one leads to the other.
[note to Barbarian, define “mindless” however you want here. But I am curious how you would define it.]

1. That the idea (where ever it originated) that the idea that there are many distinct human species, some “lower” and some “higher” is wrong?

Ricmat says: Yes. This is wrong.

1. Do you believe that Darwin’s claim in The Descent of Man that “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” is morally unacceptable.

Ricmat says: Yes, it is morally unacceptable.

 

[ricmat]

Hey Barbarian,

I thought of 2 evolution / genetics type issues that we could discuss and it absolutely, positively doesn’t involve Darwinism.

1. Who is the final Cylon?
2. Who created the Cylons?

 

[masterjedi747]

I thought of 2 evolution / genetics type issues that we could discuss and it absolutely, positively doesn’t involve Darwinism.

1. Who is the final Cylon?
2. Who created the Cylons?

YES!