Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Ingersoll's Vow/Evolution Driven Research

Expand Messages
  • Jim Goff
    INGERSOLL S VOW gluadys: So how is the Nazi program of genocide applied biology ? In The Descent of Man (a biological treatise), Darwin spoke of natural
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 4, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      INGERSOLL'S VOW

      gluadys: "So how is the Nazi program of genocide 'applied biology'?"

      In "The Descent of Man" (a biological treatise), Darwin spoke of natural selection preserving the "favoured" races and weeding out the "unfavoured" races. He spoke of the inexorable extermination of the "savage races" by the "civilized races." How is it not "applied biology" to act on his ideas?

      gluadys: "I would say Behe is a Darwinist."

      Why would you say that? At a minimum, a person must subscribe to the Darwinian notion that all of life's diversity and complexity can be fully attributed to random variations and natural selection before he could be called a "Darwinist." Behe has written two books and numerous essays that take issue with that Darwinian notion, so in what sense is he a "Darwinist"? (Note: Simply agreeing that there is considerable evidence for the notion of common descent - as Behe does - does not make one a "Darwinist." Indeed, believing in evolution does not make one a "Darwinist" unless he believes in the Darwinian explanation of evolution's causes, which - with respect to many complex biological systems - Behe does not.)

      Pasha: "Science itself provides no grounds for making any moral judgments."

      No, but a scientific theory (Darwinism) that purports to explain the origin of man implicitly provides answers to life's most important questions, which Mortimer Adler identified (in the Great Books of the Western World series, which he edited) as:

      1. Origin: Where did we come from?
      2. Identity: Who are we?
      3. Meaning: Why are we here?
      4. Morality: How should we live?
      5. Destiny: Where are we going?

      As a theory that is wholly invested in random, undirected material mechanisms, the answers that Darwinism implicitly gives to those questions are these:

      1. We came from the blind evolution of matter.
      2. We are bundles of molecules in motion.
      3. We are here for no particular reason.
      4. It doesn't matter how we live.
      5. We're bound for the bellies of worms.

      Nowhere in those answers can any grounds be found for making any moral judgments. If the Darwinian account of human existence is true, morality - like human existence itself - is meaningless. Within that account of human existence, all that matters is survival.

      Pasha: "What moral conclusions can one reach through, say, a close examination of trigonometry?"

      None, but then, trigonometry - like most scientific theories - has no implications that impinge on man's origin and his place in the universe. It's quite absurd to think that trigonometry or, say, the theory of gravity has implications that bear on the meaning of life and morality; it's also quite absurd to think that Darwinism doesn't.

      Pasha: "The motive for linking biological science to religious genocide is transparent."

      Hitler's genocidal project was racial, not religious. He intended to secure the biological triumph of the Aryan race over races of "lower value." As he put it in "Mein Kampf," his worldview "by no means believes in the equality of races, but recognizes along with their differences their higher or lower value, and through this knowledge feels obliged...to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and to demand the submission of the worse and the weaker. It embraces thereby in principle the aristrocratic law of nature (note: here Hitler is quite clearly referring to natural selection) and believes in the validity of this law down to the last individual being. It recognizes not only the different value of races, but also the different value of individuals."

      Pasha: "Would we abandon 'Newtonism' if it was discovered gravity had been used to hang innocent people, like them Salem witches?"

      What a silly question. No one has ever used "Newtonism" to justify hanging witches. But the Nazis did use Darwinism to "justify" killing races and individuals of "lower value." Your question about Newtonism - like the other silly questions you asked - is quite irrelevant to the arguments I've been making.

      EVOLUTION DRIVEN RESEARCH

      Pasha: "A recent claim made in this forum was that evolution was irrelevant to scientific research."

      The claim that was actually made was that Darwinism (which is a theory of evolution, or - as gluadys would have it - THE theory of evolution) provides no discernible guidance to experimental biology.

      Pasha: "Here are just some of the scientific proceedings from a single recent week..."

      Your examples - all of which dealt with evolution - simply demonstrate what has not been denied, namely, that Darwinism provides guidance to research in evolutionary biology. But outside of evolutionary biology, the theory is of no practical use, aside from providing an "interesting narrative gloss" to biological research. Harvard biologist Marc W. Kirschner (a Darwinist in good standing) put it this way (in an interview with the Boston Globe):

      "Over the last one hundred years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."

      Kirschner lamented this state of affairs, and he thought that Darwinism might someday become relevant to experimental biology, but he frankly admitted its general uselessness in that regard.

      Jim in Vermont


















      _________________________________________________________________
      Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
      http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... He does not speak of natural selection using murder as an instrument. That is an unnecessary procedure and nothing in the theory of evolution warrants it.
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 4, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > INGERSOLL'S VOW
        >
        > gluadys: "So how is the Nazi program of genocide 'applied biology'?"
        >
        > In "The Descent of Man" (a biological treatise), Darwin spoke of natural selection preserving the "favoured" races and weeding out the "unfavoured" races. [/quote]

        He does not speak of natural selection using murder as an instrument. That is an unnecessary procedure and nothing in the theory of evolution warrants it.

        [quote]He spoke of the inexorable extermination of the "savage races" by the "civilized races." How is it not "applied biology" to act on his ideas?[/quote]


        And he named many of the means by which this happened, not of which demands murder. As he noted, one of the chief reasons "savage races" died out after meeting "civilized races" is that they succumbed to diseases. Cultural genocide implemented through forced removals from their usual habitat and imposition of an unfamiliar way of life are others he named.

        Most of all, throughout the whole section, Darwin is describing what has happened and is happening to "savage races". At no time does he voice approval or suggest any "duty" to aid in such extermination. There is no moral approbation, nor any suggestion that artificial selection (for that is what the Nazi program was) was either needed or could do better than natural selection.

        In fact, as Darwin well knew, artificial breeding, though it produces traits desired by breeders, does not generally improve the species. Artificially designed pigeons, dogs, cattle, etc. are notoriously UNFIT to live in the wild, that is under natural selection. The same applies to humans. Preserving Aryans from the "contamination" of an "inferior" race artificially actually weakens the "Aryan" race. The improvement of humanity through natural selection requires that there be no artificial barrier preventing the spread of favored alleles from those that have them to those that don't. That includes both Aryan alleles not possessed by Jews and Jewish alleles not possessed by Aryans.

        Which leads to the other mechanism Darwin mentioned that would, in theory, meet Hitler's desire to strengthen the Aryan race, and that is absorption of the Jewish race into the Aryan race by cross-mating. This would inevitably ensure that the strengths of both Jews and Aryans would be preserved and the weaknesses of both Jews and Aryans be weeded out and the two races would merge into a new race that was an improvement on both.

        By the 1930s enough was known about Mendelian inheritance for this to be a valid Darwinian means of "xterminating" the Jewish race and it does not require ovens.



        >
        > gluadys: "I would say Behe is a Darwinist."
        >
        > Why would you say that? At a minimum, a person must subscribe to the Darwinian notion that all of life's diversity and complexity can be fully attributed to random variations and natural selection before he could be called a "Darwinist." [/quote]

        As I said, his position is ambiguous. In the discussion with Clare, the point being made is that in-so-far as Behe is an evolutionist he is a Darwinian evolutionist. i.e.

        Behe agrees that evolution of species occurs.
        He attributes most changes in species to evolution
        He agrees that all species are related via common descent.(He does not have your problem with fish-to-man evolution. He quite agrees with this evolutionary relationship.)
        And--he agrees that the evolutionary process is a Darwinian process.
        IOW he agrees that the Darwinian mechanisms fully explain the process of evolution.

        In that respect he is a Darwinist.

        Where he departs from classical Darwinian thought is in saying that evolution does not explain every feature of species. So by the definition you give above, he is not a Darwinist.

        Hence, the ambiguity of his position.
      • Randy C
        ... Actually evolution itself provides the basis for our moral judgments. Moral rules such as the Golden Rule are easy to explain in an evolutionary scenario.
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          >> Pasha:
          >> "Science itself provides no grounds for making any moral
          >> judgments."

          > Jim Goff:
          > No, but a scientific theory (Darwinism) that purports
          > to explain the origin of man implicitly provides answers
          > to life's most important questions, which Mortimer Adler
          > identified (in the Great Books of the Western World
          > series, which he edited) as:

          > 1. Origin: Where did we come from?
          > 2. Identity: Who are we?
          > 3. Meaning: Why are we here?
          > 4. Morality: How should we live?
          > 5. Destiny: Where are we going?

          > As a theory that is wholly invested in random, undirected
          > material mechanisms, the answers that Darwinism implicitly
          > gives to those questions are these:

          > 1. We came from the blind evolution of matter.
          > 2. We are bundles of molecules in motion.
          > 3. We are here for no particular reason.
          > 4. It doesn't matter how we live.
          > 5. We're bound for the bellies of worms.

          > Nowhere in those answers can any grounds be found
          > for making any moral judgments.

          Actually evolution itself provides the basis for our
          moral judgments.

          Moral rules such as the Golden Rule are easy to explain
          in an evolutionary scenario. Even animals show a sense
          of "morality". Donald M. Broom in his book "The Evolution
          of Morality and Religion" shows that social behavior even
          among animals is NOT a "largely uninterrupted competition
          in which those who seek their own immediate advantage are
          the most successful".

          One additional point.

          In his book "The New Atheism" the physicist and philosopher
          Victor Stengler makes these claims:

          1. Faith in God is the cause of innumerable evils and
          should be rejected on moral grounds.

          2. Morality does not require belief in God and people behave
          better without faith than with it.

          If he is correct, then acceptance of evolution is likely
          to improve our moral values rather than diminish them.

          Randy C.
        • gluadys
          I should have included this in the earlier post. ... Mortimer Adler was a great philosopher and educator. He was not a biologist or scientist. I quite agree
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I should have included this in the earlier post.

            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > Pasha: "Science itself provides no grounds for making any moral judgments."
            >
            > No, but a scientific theory (Darwinism) that purports to explain the origin of man implicitly provides answers to life's most important questions, which Mortimer Adler identified (in the Great Books of the Western World series, which he edited) as:
            >
            > 1. Origin: Where did we come from?
            > 2. Identity: Who are we?
            > 3. Meaning: Why are we here?
            > 4. Morality: How should we live?
            > 5. Destiny: Where are we going?
            >


            Mortimer Adler was a great philosopher and educator. He was not a biologist or scientist. I quite agree that the questions he lists are the great ___philosophical___questions. But he erred in thinking that a scientific theory offers answers to these questions. What you further cite are not "Darwinian" answers to these questions, but Adlerian answers which show that he does not understand the scientific limits of a scientific theory.


            > As a theory that is wholly invested in random, undirected material mechanisms,
            >

            I don't know if this is how Adler describes the theory of evolution, but it is irrelevant in any case. All science is wholly invested in material mechanisms. Explaining material mechanisms is what science does. No science is invested in the philosophic proposition that the sum total of reality consists only of matter/energy and its physical interactions.

            It is a misapplication of science outside the field of science to move from a description of physical mechanisms (which is what science does) to the assumption that there is nothing else to describe.




            the answers that Darwinism implicitly gives to those questions are these:
            >
            > 1. We came from the blind evolution of matter.
            > 2. We are bundles of molecules in motion.
            > 3. We are here for no particular reason.
            > 4. It doesn't matter how we live.
            > 5. We're bound for the bellies of worms.
            >



            And, as I said, the last time you posted this list, none of these answers comes from the theory of evolution directly or indirectly. Therefore these answers of "Darwinism" are evidence that "DArwininism" ought to be clearly distinguished from the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is sound science buttressed by hundreds of thousands of empirical observations, many of them correctly predicted by the theory. "Darwinism" is a bucket of philosophical trash.

            1. Origin: the theory of evolution does not speak to the origin of life. It does include a description of the origin of human biology. It does not prescribe that we are nothing more than biology or that we cannot transcend our biology.

            2. Identity: "molecules in motion" is a minimalist description of what any physical entity is--including all living physical entities. The theory of evolution nowhere requires obligatory acceptance of a minimalist description of what we are. And most emphatically, such a description has nothing to do with WHO we are.

            3. Meaning: nothing in science deals with the meaning of existence. No scientific theory, including the theory of evolution, addresses this question at all. It is a philosophic, not a scientific question and it is ridiculous to look to science in any form to answer it.

            4. Morality: a subject outside of any scientific theory whatsoever, including the theory of evolution. I am not surprised that a philosopher considers it an important question. It IS an important question. But science doesn't answer it; hence the theory of evolution does not address this question.

            5. Destiny: well all biological beings will feed worms or some equivalent upon bodily death, but there is nothing in science that determines that personal destiny is limited to bodily decay. Again, this is simply not a question addressed by science---any science--and therefore not by the scientific theory of evolution.



            A philosopher asks good philosophical questions, but he misrepresents science when he claims to find answers to them in a scientific theory. His answers are his answers not the answers of evolutionary theory. In fact, they indicate that he is not speaking of the science of evolution at all. His philosophic "Darwinism" has nothing to do with evolution.
          • notdoctor
            ... Message #18786 - Re: Ingersoll s Vow/Evolution Driven Research - Sun Oct 4, 2009 7:05 pm ... natural selection preserving the favoured races and weeding
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 23, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Jim Goff <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
              >
              Message #18786 - Re: Ingersoll's Vow/Evolution Driven Research - Sun Oct
              4, 2009 7:05 pm
              >
              > INGERSOLL'S VOW
              >
              > gluadys: "So how is the Nazi program of genocide 'applied biology'?"
              >
              > In "The Descent of Man" (a biological treatise), Darwin spoke of
              natural selection preserving the "favoured" races and weeding out the
              "unfavoured" races. He spoke of the inexorable extermination of the
              "savage races" by the "civilized races." How is it not "applied biology"
              to act on his ideas?
              >
              > gluadys: "I would say Behe is a Darwinist."
              >
              > Why would you say that? At a minimum, a person must subscribe to the
              Darwinian notion that all of life's diversity and complexity can be
              fully attributed to random variations and natural selection before he
              could be called a "Darwinist." Behe has written two books and numerous
              essays that take issue with that Darwinian notion, so in what sense is
              he a "Darwinist"? (Note: Simply agreeing that there is considerable
              evidence for the notion of common descent - as Behe does - does not make
              one a "Darwinist." Indeed, believing in evolution does not make one a
              "Darwinist" unless he believes in the Darwinian explanation of
              evolution's causes, which - with respect to many complex biological
              systems - Behe does not.)
              >
              > Pasha: "Science itself provides no grounds for making any moral
              judgments."
              >
              > No, but a scientific theory (Darwinism) that purports to explain the
              origin of man implicitly provides answers to life's most important
              questions, which Mortimer Adler identified (in the Great Books of the
              Western World series, which he edited) as:
              >
              > 1. Origin: Where did we come from?
              > 2. Identity: Who are we?
              > 3. Meaning: Why are we here?
              > 4. Morality: How should we live?
              > 5. Destiny: Where are we going?
              >
              > As a theory that is wholly invested in random, undirected material
              mechanisms, the answers that Darwinism implicitly gives to those
              questions are these:
              >
              > 1. We came from the blind evolution of matter.
              > 2. We are bundles of molecules in motion.
              > 3. We are here for no particular reason.
              > 4. It doesn't matter how we live.
              > 5. We're bound for the bellies of worms.
              >
              > Nowhere in those answers can any grounds be found for making any moral
              judgments. If the Darwinian account of human existence is true, morality
              - like human existence itself - is meaningless. Within that account of
              human existence, all that matters is survival.
              >
              > Pasha: "What moral conclusions can one reach through, say, a close
              examination of trigonometry?"
              >
              > None, but then, trigonometry - like most scientific theories - has no
              implications that impinge on man's origin and his place in the universe.
              It's quite absurd to think that trigonometry or, say, the theory of
              gravity has implications that bear on the meaning of life and morality;
              it's also quite absurd to think that Darwinism doesn't.
              >
              > Pasha: "The motive for linking biological science to religious
              genocide is transparent."
              >
              > Hitler's genocidal project was racial, not religious. He intended to
              secure the biological triumph of the Aryan race over races of "lower
              value." As he put it in "Mein Kampf," his worldview "by no means
              believes in the equality of races, but recognizes along with their
              differences their higher or lower value, and through this knowledge
              feels obliged...to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and
              to demand the submission of the worse and the weaker. It embraces
              thereby in principle the aristrocratic law of nature (note: here Hitler
              is quite clearly referring to natural selection) and believes in the
              validity of this law down to the last individual being. It recognizes
              not only the different value of races, but also the different value of
              individuals."
              >
              > Pasha: "Would we abandon 'Newtonism' if it was discovered gravity had
              been used to hang innocent people, like them Salem witches?"
              >
              > What a silly question. No one has ever used "Newtonism" to justify
              hanging witches. But the Nazis did use Darwinism to "justify" killing
              races and individuals of "lower value." Your question about Newtonism -
              like the other silly questions you asked - is quite irrelevant to the
              arguments I've been making.
              >
              > EVOLUTION DRIVEN RESEARCH
              >
              > Pasha: "A recent claim made in this forum was that evolution was
              irrelevant to scientific research."
              >
              > The claim that was actually made was that Darwinism (which is a theory
              of evolution, or - as gluadys would have it - THE theory of evolution)
              provides no discernible guidance to experimental biology.
              >
              > Pasha: "Here are just some of the scientific proceedings from a single
              recent week..."
              >
              > Your examples - all of which dealt with evolution - simply demonstrate
              what has not been denied, namely, that Darwinism provides guidance to
              research in evolutionary biology. But outside of evolutionary biology,
              the theory is of no practical use, aside from providing an "interesting
              narrative gloss" to biological research. Harvard biologist Marc W.
              Kirschner (a Darwinist in good standing) put it this way (in an
              interview with the Boston Globe):
              >
              > "Over the last one hundred years, almost all of biology has proceeded
              independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular
              biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account
              at all."
              >
              > Kirschner lamented this state of affairs, and he thought that
              Darwinism might someday become relevant to experimental biology, but he
              frankly admitted its general uselessness in that regard.
              >
              > Jim in Vermont
              >
              >

              Sorry to be so slow in responding, but work can get in the way
              sometimes.

              I see now why you have been so reticent to give a clear precise
              definition of what you mean by "Darwinism." Flexibility is so handy!

              In your first response, you seem to be expanding the meaning of
              Darwinism to include ANY possible implications, scientific or otherwise,
              logical or otherwise, and no matter how far-fetched or absurd, that
              someone might decide to claim to draw from it. If I accept evolution and
              believe that Rome is the capital of Italy, then that belief is part of
              "Darwinism" as defined by Jim Goff; if someone else accepts evolution
              and believes in the Abominable Snowman, then that belief is part of
              "Darwinism" as defined by Jim Goff; if a third person can find some
              obscure passage in something Darwin wrote that he can pretend means that
              pigs have wings, then that belief is part of "Darwinism" as defined by
              Jim Goff. It's hard no think of ANYTHING that would not fall within the
              scope of "Darwinism" as you seem to be using the term in the first part
              of your posting.

              Then, in the second part of this posting, your definition narrows
              somewhat. How convenient! Here you claim that "Darwinism" includes only
              what "provides guidance to research in evolutionary biology." Now it
              even excludes the results of said research, and research based on these
              results and the direct biological implications of these results.

              So which is it? Is "Darwinism" so broad a term that it includes any
              possible philosophical, theological, or other implications that someone
              might care to claim to draw from the idea of evolution, or is it so
              narrow that it excludes the direct experimental implications of the
              biological research that evolutionary theory inspires?

              Some suggestions as to the practical uses of evolution can be found
              here:
              http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_i\
              d=47

              As I understand it, the research to find vaccines and treatment for
              current diseases such as HIV and N1H1 largely involves trying to
              understand how these viruses evolve. I just saw yesterday that some
              virus sub-strains are starting to evolve resistance to Tamiflu. How is
              the Theory of Intelligent Design helping here? When will it result in a
              vaccine?


              Some more specific comments:

              > gluadys: "So how is the Nazi program of genocide 'applied biology'?"
              >
              > Jim: In "The Descent of Man" (a biological treatise), Darwin spoke of
              natural selection preserving the "favoured" races and weeding out the
              "unfavoured" races. He spoke of the inexorable extermination of the
              "savage races" by the "civilized races." How is it not "applied biology"
              to act on his ideas?

              Here Darwin was discussing what was going on, and had been going on for
              generations, at least since the time of Moses and Joshua, not what
              SHOULD be going on. By your logic, killing off all polar bears and frogs
              and driving them extinct is part of "applied environmentalism."

              > Pasha: "What moral conclusions can one reach through, say, a close
              examination of trigonometry?"
              >
              > Jim: None, but then, trigonometry - like most scientific theories -
              has no implications that impinge on man's origin and his place in the
              universe. It's quite absurd to think that trigonometry or, say, the
              theory of gravity has implications that bear on the meaning of life and
              morality; it's also quite absurd to think that Darwinism doesn't.
              >

              The mediaeval church certainly didn't agree. It was because of the
              implications of the finding that the earth is not the centre of the
              universe, an integral part of the thinking that led to the theory of
              gravity, that the Vatican (and Luther) so censured Galileo. Trigonometry
              was a large part of the mathematics used (especially before Newton and
              Leibniz invented calculus).

              Until very recently, at least, there were still people around who
              rejected the idea that the earth is round because of the implications
              they saw for Biblical interpretation, and thus for "man's origin and his
              place in the universe." The daughter of a friend of mine taught for a
              while in a village in Alberta where the locals would not allow materials
              such as "National Geographic" into the school because of the
              "anti-Christian" implications of knowing too much about other countries,
              and the questions such information might raise among their children.
              (Unlike the US, the concept of separation of church and state is not
              specifically mentioned in the Canadian constitution.)

              > Pasha: "The motive for linking biological science to religious
              genocide is transparent."
              >
              > Jim: Hitler's genocidal project was racial, not religious. He intended
              to secure the biological triumph of the Aryan race over races of "lower
              value." As he put it in "Mein Kampf," his worldview "by no means
              believes in the equality of races, but recognizes along with their
              differences their higher or lower value, and through this knowledge
              feels obliged...to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and
              to demand the submission of the worse and the weaker. It embraces
              thereby in principle the aristrocratic law of nature (note: here Hitler
              is quite clearly referring to natural selection) and believes in the
              validity of this law down to the last individual being. It recognizes
              not only the different value of races, but also the different value of
              individuals."


              The difference between Jews and Christians is religious, not racial. I
              know Jews who are tall, blond, blue-eyed, the exact Nazi "Nordic" ideal
              - much more so than Hitler himself, by the way. Jews from Africa are
              black, Jews from East Asia look like other East Asians. Go to Israel
              sometime, and see the variety among people who call themselves Jews. As
              I have repeatedly pointed out, to our shame, Christians have been
              persecuting Jews for millennia, in ALL of the ways that the Nazis later
              used, and using largely the same justifications, since long before the
              modern concept of race was invented, mostly to justify slavery of
              non-Europeans.

              The "aristrocratic [sic] law of nature" is an idea that is part of the
              concept of the Great Chain of Being, a concept that originated in
              ancient Greece, and had been accepted by the church since the Middle
              Ages. It says that one's place in the change is natural and
              unchangeable, so that the gap between the nobility and commoners could
              not be crossed (hence "aristocratic"), any more than the gap between men
              and gods, or between men and apes, or between animals and stones. This
              is the OPPOSITE of what Darwin meant by natural selection, in fact it is
              what he directly argues AGAINST in many passages.


              In another connection, I see that in other postings, you are still
              attributing the expression "more noble evolution" to Mein Kampf, even
              though you have still not responded to my question about your
              justification for this translation. Or was it Weikart who invented this
              translation so he could use it to support his arguments? A particularly
              beautiful example of circular logic!

              By word of explanation, the word Hitler used here is "Entwicklung,"
              which usually means development. What is Weikart's justification for
              translating it as evolution in this context? I notice that the German
              Wikipedia uses the word "Evolution"
              [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution%5d, so is there any reason for not
              assuming that this is the commonly used term that Hitler could have used
              if that is what he was referring to?


              According to the NIV translation:
              "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay
              no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3
              Is this passage missing in the Bibles of all creationists/IDers?

              It continues to strike me as the height of hypocrisy that
              creationists/IDers make so much noise about the tenuous at best
              connection between Hitler and evolution, while completely ignoring the
              Christian church's (in almost all its branches) shameful record of
              anti-Semitism and persecution, which lay the deep foundations of the
              social climate in which Hitler's ideas were so favourably received. You
              have not responded to my observations about the extremely small number
              of people who stood up to Hitler or did anything to help those fleeing
              from his persecution, or demonstrated any evidence that a higher
              proportion of Christians than non-Christians did so. My impression is
              that in much of Europe, it was largely the Communists who organized to
              resist Hitler, and many Christians actually supported Hitler because he
              was against the "godless Communists."


              In a more recent posting, you give this quotation from the DI's David
              Klinghoffer (without mentioning his name:
              " In her classis 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt
              wrote:
              "Underlying the Nazis' belief in race laws as the expression of
              the law of
              nature in man, is Darwin's idea of man as the product of a natural
              development
              which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human
              being."

              The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of
              Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock
              writes:
              "The basis of Hitler's political beliefs was a crude
              Darwinism." What Hitler
              found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin's
              theory:
              "Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law
              of selection
              by struggle and the survival of the fittest."

              John Toland's Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of
              Hitler's
              Second Book published in 1928: "An essential of Hitler's
              conclusions in this
              book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right."

              In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that
              "crude
              social-Darwinism" gave Hitler "his entire political
              `world-view.' " Hitler, like
              lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as
              offering a
              total picture of social reality. This view called "social
              Darwinism" is a
              logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated
              by Darwin
              himself.

              (End quote)"

              Have you yourself personally read all these books, to ensure that they
              are saying what Klinghoffer claims? When I have looked up quotations of
              yours before (presumably from Weikart), I found that the authors were
              not saying what you/Weikart claimed. What evidence do these authors
              provide to justify their claims? Are any of them biologists with a real
              knowledge of what evolution is, or are they just accepting without
              question the assumption that social Darwinism had something to do with
              Darwin, or with today's understanding of evolution?

              Do you endorse the lie that ""social Darwinism" . . . was
              articulated by Darwin himself?"

              Do you endorse Toland's claim that Darwin invented the expression "might
              makes right." Wikipedia traces the idea to Homer and Thucydides. Were
              the ancient Greeks quoting Darwin?

              Your quotation from Bullock is confusing. Which are his words? Which are
              Klinghoffer's?

              Do you read anything that doesn't have the DI imprimatur?

              Cheers!







              Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had
              first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this
              passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up. And
              intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a
              faith.
              - Mein Kampf, Chapter 5.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • gluadys
              ... This comment reminded me that Jim frequently refers to evolution as development , something that threw me off when we were first conversing. Here are a
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 24, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "notdoctor" <dr.lindberg@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > In another connection, I see that in other postings, you are still
                > attributing the expression "more noble evolution" to Mein Kampf, even
                > though you have still not responded to my question about your
                > justification for this translation. Or was it Weikart who invented this
                > translation so he could use it to support his arguments? A particularly
                > beautiful example of circular logic!
                >
                > By word of explanation, the word Hitler used here is "Entwicklung,"
                > which usually means development. What is Weikart's justification for
                > translating it as evolution in this context? I notice that the German
                > Wikipedia uses the word "Evolution"
                > [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution%5d, so is there any reason for not
                > assuming that this is the commonly used term that Hitler could have used
                > if that is what he was referring to?
                >
                >


                This comment reminded me that Jim frequently refers to "evolution" as "development", something that threw me off when we were first conversing. Here are a couple of examples:

                <quote>In short, Darwin knew that his theory had atheistic implications because he
                intended to show that life developed (or evolved) without the participation of a
                Creator." 18069

                But since we don't know that the Darwinian explanation of life's
                developmental history is a fact (or a set of facts), there's no reason why a
                Christian is obligated to uphold the theory. 18216<<end quote>>


                Maybe he and Weikart really don't understand the difference.
              • notdoctor
                ... even ... this ... particularly ... German ... not ... used ... development , something that threw me off when we were first ... implications because he
                Message 7 of 7 , Oct 24, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "gluadys" <g_turner@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "notdoctor" dr.lindberg@ wrote:

                  > >
                  > > In another connection, I see that in other postings, you are still
                  > > attributing the expression "more noble evolution" to Mein Kampf,
                  even
                  > > though you have still not responded to my question about your
                  > > justification for this translation. Or was it Weikart who invented
                  this
                  > > translation so he could use it to support his arguments? A
                  particularly
                  > > beautiful example of circular logic!
                  > >
                  > > By word of explanation, the word Hitler used here is "Entwicklung,"
                  > > which usually means development. What is Weikart's justification for
                  > > translating it as evolution in this context? I notice that the
                  German
                  > > Wikipedia uses the word "Evolution"
                  > > [http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution%5d, so is there any reason for
                  not
                  > > assuming that this is the commonly used term that Hitler could have
                  used
                  > > if that is what he was referring to?
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > This comment reminded me that Jim frequently refers to "evolution" as
                  "development", something that threw me off when we were first
                  conversing. Here are a couple of examples:
                  >
                  > <quote>In short, Darwin knew that his theory had atheistic
                  implications because he
                  > intended to show that life developed (or evolved) without the
                  participation of a
                  > Creator." 18069
                  >
                  > But since we don't know that the Darwinian explanation of life's
                  > developmental history is a fact (or a set of facts), there's no reason
                  why a
                  > Christian is obligated to uphold the theory. 18216<<end quote>>
                  >
                  >
                  > Maybe he and Weikart really don't understand the difference.
                  >

                  The terms are pretty close, and are not distinguished in other languages
                  the way they are in English. I find that when I'm doing translations
                  from French, I often find myself translating the French word
                  "évolution" as development, because of the context.

                  And "Entwicklung" could conceivably mean evolution. It just doesn't seem
                  likely from the context that Darwinian evolution was what Hitler was
                  referring to, and in all the other translations I have seen, the
                  translators seem to have agreed with me. So I would like to hear
                  Jim's/Weikart's justification.

                  And I'm still waiting.

                  Cheers!







                  "Tradition is a guide and not a jailer." -- W. Somerset Maugham

                  Cheers.




                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.