Movie Expelled Gives Insight Into Eugenics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve40
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Steve40

Guest
I saw the movie Expelled last night and I thought it it was well done. Ben Stien interviews several Evolutionist during the movie. It was fascinating that they sight Darwinism as the source of their atheism.

It also went into the link between Darwinism and Nazi and Planned Parenthood Eugenics and Euthanasia. It is a must see for anyone in the battle for life and social justice.

My one criticism is that He did not spend a lot of time on irreducible complexity within the human design.
 
Steve40 said:
I saw the movie Expelled last night and I thought it it was well done. Ben Stien interviews several Evolutionist during the movie. It was fascinating that they sight Darwinism as the source of their atheism.
Click to expand...
The source of my atheism is primarily derived from the problem of evil argument. Actually, I am not really an atheist, but the problem of evil argument, in my mind, sunders the prospect of the Christian God. But for all practical purposes call me an “atheist” although I do have to acknowledge that one cannot rule out the existence of a deistic entity.

My own name I picked on this forum is a homage to Gerald Joyce. Such a name was chosen because it had a hidden meaning. Joyce’s research mainly involved “evolving” catalytic RNA molecules in an in vitro setting. Under Joyce’s tutelage, a large population of RNA molecules, can be influenced by various selection pressures to perform catalytic tasks (mainly cleaving phosphodiester bonds and ligating RNA) using the relatively simple to understand techniques. Long story short (since I could not recall the details of the aforementioned research vividly anymore), I have gained an appreciation of the stochastic processes of nature and appreciated its power to generate “order” from chaos from this research. In my mind, Joyce’s research dispelled the veracity teleological argument in biology. I do not buy the theistic conclusion of the “fine-tuning” argument, as I think our observations are simply the result of anthropic bias. (See the Ikeda-Jefferys Bayesian argument)

Define “eugenics.” I view “eugenics” with some ambivalence now. But I am a liberal and I do not advocate “eugenics” in the sense of what the Nazis did (e.g. mass murder and sterilizations.) Did the Nazis quote On Liberty or Utilitarianism to justify their actions? (Mill probably wasn’t significantly influenced by Darwin, but my main point is that secular morality does not promote what the Nazis did and even rejects it.) I do not see how adopting a naturalistic view on the origin of the flora and fauna on Earth will naturally lead to such actions. It might lead one to abandon a religiously influenced morality and replace it with a secular one such as utilitarianism, Rawlsian morality, or Objectivism. (Or one can simply be a nihilist or an existentialist) I know the former two do not even advocate Nazi eugenics. (I do not know enough about Objectivism to say anything significant although it might be congruent with Nietzscheism as it rejects “slave morality”. Ayn Rand explicitly rejected self-abnegation as a virtue.)
 
ribozyme said:
The source of my atheism is primarily derived from the problem of evil argument. Actually, I am not really an atheist, but the problem of evil argument, in my mind, sunders the prospect of the Christian God. But for all practical purposes call me an “atheist” although I do have to acknowledge that one cannot rule out the existence of a deistic entity.

My own name I picked on this forum is a homage to Gerald Joyce. Such a name was chosen because it had a hidden meaning. Joyce’s research mainly involved “evolving” catalytic RNA molecules in an in vitro setting. Under Joyce’s tutelage, a large population of RNA molecules, can be influenced by various selection pressures to perform catalytic tasks (mainly cleaving phosphodiester bonds and ligating RNA) using the relatively simple to understand techniques. Long story short (since I could not recall the details of the aforementioned research vividly anymore), I have gained an appreciation of the stochastic processes of nature and appreciated its power to generate “order” from chaos from this research. In my mind, Joyce’s research dispelled the veracity teleological argument in biology. I do not buy the theistic conclusion of the “fine-tuning” argument, as I think our observations are simply the result of anthropic bias. (See the Ikeda-Jefferys Bayesian argument)

Define “eugenics.” I view “eugenics” with some ambivalence now. But I am a liberal and I do not advocate “eugenics” in the sense of what the Nazis did (e.g. mass murder and sterilizations.) Did the Nazis quote On Liberty or Utilitarianism to justify their actions? (Mill probably wasn’t significantly influenced by Darwin, but my main point is that secular morality does not promote what the Nazis did and even rejects it.) I do not see how adopting a naturalistic view on the origin of the flora and fauna on Earth will naturally lead to such actions. It might lead one to abandon a religiously influenced morality and replace it with a secular one such as utilitarianism, Rawlsian morality, or Objectivism. (Or one can simply be a nihilist or an existentialist) I know the former two do not even advocate Nazi eugenics. (I do not know enough about Objectivism to say anything significant although it might be congruent with Nietzscheism as it rejects “slave morality”. Ayn Rand explicitly rejected self-abnegation as a virtue.)
Click to expand...
From a Catholic perspective Evil is the result of free will and original sin. From my own interpretation/world view the meaning of all human life in a general sense is to be gift of self. You can see how this works with those who take a passionate vocation perhaps a doctor or a nurse, a fire fighter. Their base fulfilment is not in what they are doing but in that they are a gift to others in free will.

Pope John Paul II went into a great explaination of the meaning of humanity, being gift of self within our sexuality. This study is commonly refered to as Theology of The Body. Gift of self, is a good reason why we were created as male and female and why procreation works the way it does. It involves a very intimate gift of self stamped within our bodies.

Given all of this it still may leave us with the question of evil. You can not have true free will or true total gift of self without the possibility of evil. This does not mean that God created evil. In that He created free will, He allows for evil, within our time.

I believe eugenics is the elimination of the weak in a very unnatural selection including abortion, killing of the sick and sterilizing of those you consider stupid or of inferior race.
 
Steve40 said:
I believe eugenics is the elimination of the weak in a very unnatural selection including abortion, killing of the sick and sterilizing of those you consider stupid or of inferior race.
Click to expand...
I still think you have not supported an assertion you made in the opening post. You did not provide any evidence that a Darwinian (or metaphysical naturalism) worldview is an endorsement of Nazi eugenics. I do not see how accepting Darwinian evolution leds to being an advocate of such atrocities.

Such naturalistic views might lead rejecting a religious morality, but some manifestations of secular morality do not provide any justifications for what the Nazis did.
 
ribozyme said:
I still think you have not supported an assertion you made in the opening post. You did not provide any evidence that a Darwinian (or metaphysical naturalism) worldview is an endorsement of Nazi eugenics. I do not see how accepting Darwinian evolution leds to being an advocate of such atrocities.

Such naturalistic views might lead rejecting a religious morality, but some manifestations of secular morality do not provide any justifications for what the Nazis did.
Click to expand...
The evidence is circumstantial so I could see how you may not believe it is there. The circumstance is this; Darwinism provides a means of saying that there are different human races and that perhaps one race is more evolved than another. It also supposes that survival of the fittest is a law of nature and participating in this law is just being natural. Therefore this line of reasoning can be used to justify Nazi killing.
 
ribozyme said:
I still think you have not supported an assertion you made in the opening post. You did not provide any evidence that a Darwinian (or metaphysical naturalism) worldview is an endorsement of Nazi eugenics. I do not see how accepting Darwinian evolution leds to being an advocate of such atrocities.

Such naturalistic views might lead rejecting a religious morality, but some manifestations of secular morality do not provide any justifications for what the Nazis did.
Click to expand...
Even those who tangentially see some value in expelled as opening a dialogue, universally, as far as I’ve seen around the web, decry its attempt to play the emotional game of Nazism as a means of convincing argument. Most saw it as the weakest part of the movie and what should well have been left out if it seriously wished to convince anyone. I doubt it did, as usual it only wished to pander to those who already need to believe in such nonsense. they spent a fair amount bussings churchgoers to the show in an attempt to look “successful.”
 
Steve40 said:
The evidence is circumstantial so I could see how you may not believe it is there. The circumstance is this; Darwinism provides a means of saying that there are different human races and that perhaps one race is more evolved than another. It also supposes that survival of the fittest is a law of nature and participating in this law is just being natural. Therefore this line of reasoning can be used to justify Nazi killing.
Click to expand...
Could Christianity provide those means too? Those descendants of Ham deserve to be enslaved because they did not receive the benison of Noah. Juan de Sepúlveda was also a Catholic that argued that Native American’s were natural slaves. (Some Catholics rightly opposed de Sepúlveda such as Bartolomé de las Casas.) However some secular philosophers - most notably Bentham and Mill - opposed slavery without invoking theistic morality.
 
ribozyme said:
Could Christianity provide those means too? Those descendants of Ham deserve to be enslaved because they did not receive the benison of Noah. Juan de Sepúlveda was also a Catholic that argued that Native American’s were natural slaves. (Some Catholics rightly opposed de Sepúlveda such as Bartolomé de las Casas.) However some secular philosophers - most notably Bentham and Mill - opposed slavery without invoking theistic morality.
Click to expand...
In Christianity Christ is Savior and Is God. The Church collectively is the Bride of Christ. Once you are Baptized you are a child of God, priest, prophet and king. All are called to be baptized and be children of God.

The marks of a true Church are (1) The Church is One, unity under a visible hierarchy (2) The Church is Holy, the Holy Spirit guides the Church with respect to faith and moral (3) The Church is Catholic, which means universal all regardless of their lineage are called to Baptized and join the Catholic Church and (4) The Church is Apostolic, she teaches what the apostles taught.

I would say (without authority) that those who believe some individuals by birth are slaves are heretics.
 
But to the OP… do you have any evidence that rejecting the teleological argument leads to advocating such mass atrocities?

I guess that thesis is not tenable then.

But I do agree that a rejection of the teleological argument can lead on to be an adherent to secular theory of morality such as utilitarianism. Most people on this forum do not hold the classic utilitarian philosophers Mill and Bentham in high regard. The political philosophy of social liberalism was substantially influenced by their work. Although social liberalism is a left-winged political philosophy, it is not primary influenced by Marxism, but by classic utilitarianism. Social liberalism is a not respectable political philosophy here because this forum is a bastion for conservatives. I also consider Mill and Bentham the founders of the concept of “social justice” and Catholics who used that term plagiarized their ideas.

And no, social liberalism not compatible with the way you defined eugenics. The political ideology of social liberalism (which at its core is a secular philosophy) vehemently rejects the social Darwinism that a naturalistic worldview allegedly promotes.
 
Kid, you are really mixed up. You will remain in my prayers.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
 
I had to laugh when I read a post from the National Review that ultra conservative rag and even they thought Expelled was absolute garbage. The writer urged the creationist crowd to at least have the guts to put their arguments up front instead of trying to sneak them in the back door with this unmitigated trash. It was quite amusing. The first time I think I ever agreed with anything written there. The bit about nazism and eugenics was the worst. It’s I think even being sued now for plagerism. Stein is a dope of the first order.
 
Steve40 said:
The evidence is circumstantial so I could see how you may not believe it is there. The circumstance is this; Darwinism provides a means of saying that there are different human races and that perhaps one race is more evolved than another. It also supposes that survival of the fittest is a law of nature and participating in this law is just being natural. Therefore this line of reasoning can be used to justify Nazi killing.
Click to expand...
Youre confusing social darwinism which has nothing to do with evolution at all Social darwinism came up with “survival of the fittest” not darwin. It arose from the intellectual elite of of the East and was grabbed by the major industrialists like Carnegie to justify a laizze faire policy regarding business. It became a useful tool for them for keeping the masses happy and encouraging them to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” along with the concept of self-made men. A whole segment of America, unschooled in much of anything has both adopted it as a credo and simultaneously attached it to Darwin and rejected evolution. Too funny. Correct yourself please .
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Youre confusing social darwinism which has nothing to do with evolution at all Social darwinism came up with “survival of the fittest” not darwin. It arose from the intellectual elite of of the East and was grabbed by the major industrialists like Carnegie to justify a laizze faire policy regarding business. It became a useful tool for them for keeping the masses happy and encouraging them to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” along with the concept of self-made men. A whole segment of America, unschooled in much of anything has both adopted it as a credo and simultaneously attached it to Darwin and rejected evolution. Too funny. Correct yourself please .
Click to expand...
SpiritMeadow, Isaac Newton is indirectly guilty for the death of all the suicides off the Golden Gate Bridge. That is, providing a scientific theory like gravity or evolution can be guilty of anything!

Petrus
 
drpmjhess said:
Just as Einstein can be blamed for the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima.
Click to expand...
Diference being that dropping the bomb ended the war. Evolution is useless. There is a difference between technology which can be used for good or evil and ideologies which are used to justify evil. I am not aware of any human good that has come out of the evolution ideology.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
I had to laugh when I read a post from the National Review that ultra conservative rag and even they thought Expelled was absolute garbage. The writer urged the creationist crowd to at least have the guts to put their arguments up front instead of trying to sneak them in the back door with this unmitigated trash. It was quite amusing. The first time I think I ever agreed with anything written there. The bit about nazism and eugenics was the worst. It’s I think even being sued now for plagerism. Stein is a dope of the first order.
Click to expand...
Even conservatives are not always conservative. A non-position on evolution is the conservative position. Science must maintain a questioning attitude even continuing to question evolution. To confine thought within a politically correct (PC) box, the evolutionary box, the National Review has taken a modern day liberal/progressive position. The PC position, the non-questioning, non-thinking position. Don’t stop thinking. Thinking means you even question evolution. If you don’t question it your thought has stopped on the subject.
 
Steve40 said:
Diference being that dropping the bomb ended the war. Evolution is useless. There is a difference between technology which can be used for good or evil and ideologies which are used to justify evil. I am not aware of any human good that has come out of the evolution ideology.
Click to expand...
Steve, I fear you don’t understand science: evolution is simply a scientific explanation of biological diversity. It is no more an ideology than gravitation or plate tectonics are ideologies.

Petrus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top