In evolutionary theory, we are living organisms, and we out powered other species (living organisms) by gathering and fighting for resources, why wouldn't that concept apply between humans? We compete for mates through either physical (appearance health strength), material (stability resources utility), and I would also add that we in modern times have more abstract concepts but the two previously listed are still very dominate. Your counter points don't hit the main question, just peripherals
@TicTocKnight Competing for resources and mates is very different to social darwinism/eugenics. I should have probably made it clearer exactly what is meant by social darwinism. The majority of the text in the video is lifted from the talkorigins website (see video info).
Thanks for the item, but I also pulled this off from it " Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die. " which implies that no action to prevent such is social Darwinism. I would then make the argument that we still compete within the confines of our interventions like welfare, but that the rules for passing along genes change Either way. Either way, inaction or a systematic lens, are not faulty in of itself.
To give an example of the perspective lens, where SD still operates with intervention, we can fall back to breeding strategies. A few kids and a lot of resources for strong chances of survival of the few, or having a lot of uncared for kids which would yield a few survivors, the later becomes more productive under welfare, and thus a better strategy under the system. The divide is over more natural or abstract concepts for survival, (or for abstract to mirrior natural)
As for Darwin himself, he used to be a Creationist. Infact he was a Christian right up until the death of his daughter, Anne. From this point on, Darwin continued to support his local Church with donations, but would not attend services. He died an agnostic.
it's a documented fact that Darwin and Haeckel were white racists, who believed that Caucasians were advanced over Asians and Africans, in "evolution." And also in "recapitulation" ideas in "embryology" in the womb.... Haeckel and Darwin were contemporaries... And Darwin believed in "recapitulation" myths too. Hitler ADMIRED Haeckel, the racist. And SPECIFICALLY used "Darwinian" ideas in his "survival of advanced evolutionary races" (Mein Kampf) notions, against Jews and Slavs, etc.
@sweetmikser For a start off, the Nazi's believed the Aryan Race to be God's special creation, and that they would end up ruling the World by divine providence.
It is also a well documented fact that Darwin was only as much as racists as he was a man of his time. In fact Darwin was a staunch Abolitionist.
Above all, Darwins theory can no more be used to justify the Holocaust than Newtons Laws can justify throwing people off cliffs.
"love your enemies" and "be humble and compassionate towards all"
Neither have many Christians throughout history. Infact Christianity has been particularly terrible to Jews. Are you going for the "No true Scotsman" argument?
"Show me in the NEW TESTAMENT where it says "Aryans are God's special creation"."
It doesn't, maybe that question would be better directed towards a Nazi. They believed it, I don't.
@velapulsar oh, you're such a drone with that "No True Scotsman" garbage. Listen...the Bible ITSELF said that there'd be mass PHONIES. Christ HIMSELF said. So I guess He was guilty too of "No True Scotsman"...fail (Matthew 7) But you show that you totally MISS THE POINT. Meaning you can't find any BIBLICAL New Testament justification for "Aryan special" and "slaughter Jews" with "love your enemies" in it. BUT you CAN find DARWINIAN justification, with "Caucasians higher in evolutionary struggle"
@sweetmikser I couldn't give a monkeys chuff about what the Bible said.
Even if Hitler was a Darwinist (which he wasn't) it still had nowt to do with eugenics, which is selective breeding in humans, nor does it have any impact on the veracity of Darwins theories.
@velapulsar he was not a Darwinist? how's that? He believed that Darwin was right......he believed in "ape-men" myths......he believed in "organic evolution"..... And he believed that Darwin was correct in his "Caucasians are above Africans and Asians" evolutionary views. The fact is that YOU DON'T WANT Hitler to be a Darwinist, cuz, poor baby, you know it hurts you and it's unsettling..... DISHONEST MORON. And for you to say you don't care what the Bible says is VERY CONVENIENT... lol
@sweetmikser There is no evolutionary view that any human is higher than another. It is the evolutionary view that humanity is a single species or race. There is no "higher or lower" in evolution, only traits that either give advantage or disadvantage to organisms abilities to survive long enough to reproduce.
So if you could enlighten me how that leads to the notion that Caucasians are "more highly evolved" than Asians or Africans, then pray do tell.
@velapulsar by the way, lol...(and I've had that out and owned many others on this point), you show what an incredible and funny HYPOCRITE you are.....with this "No True Scotsman" nonsense. How so? You just said (lol) "Hitler was not a Darwinist." Oh, really... Even though Hitler claimed to be a Darwinist and admired Heackel huh? YOU'RE GUILTY OF "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY" YOURSELF on that....lol. "Oh, but Hitler was not a REAL 'Darwinist'". You say. Uh, Scotty, beam us up. lol
@sweetmikser You have owned or achieved nothing other than to show yourself up as a blinkered and brainwashed patsy.
The Nazi Party rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including literature of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.
@velapulsar as I said, Hitler said and did stuff for EXPEDIENCE....you silly drone. But even so...is that why in Mein Kampf you see these words: "races developing towards higher levels" "higher evolutionary order" "survival of the fittest" and "the mighty struggle in nature has produced our present level of evolution," etc. Hitler is on record as ADMIRING Ernst Haeckel. Who was a contemporary of Darwin and worked with him. Hitler was a pagan "Theistic Evolutionist." Not an Atheist. But a DEIST.
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Also, it's clear that Hitler had no better understanding of evolution than any creationist
@TheScienceFoundation you act as if I never heard of that, never read that, never saw that, and never got that nonsense from Atheists with agendas who idiotically WANT Hitler to be a (duh) "Christian." Did you even read all my comments on this video page thingy? Even the other guy (who's an Atheist) eventually came around to understand my point, and kind of even agreed, (though we were snippy with each other at first). Hitler OF COURSE used words like "God" for expedience, duhhh. (cont)
@sweetmikser Yes we just want hitler to be a christian, and all that ricketa racketa, it's not as if he himself said he committed genocide against the Jews in the name of the lord or anything.
@TheScienceFoundation (continued).... But did he or the Nazis or pagan Roman Catholics in general follow the actual NEW TESTAMENT on how to act and live? "Love your enemies"? "Turn the other cheek" "do good to those who hate you" "put off greed and malice" "leave judgment to God" or "be humble and compassionate towards all"? Even many Atheists admit that Hitler was NOT exactly a Sermon on the Mount or "New Testament" follower. (sighs...) But Hitler admired Darwin and HAECKEL...documented.
@sweetmikser 'But did he or the Nazis or pagan Roman Catholics in general follow the actual NEW TESTAMENT on how to act and live'
No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.
@TheScienceFoundation oh, you're such a drone with that "No True Scotsman" garbage. Listen...the Bible ITSELF said that there'd be mass PHONIES. Christ HIMSELF said. So I guess He was guilty too of "No True Scotsman". (Matt 7) But you show that you totally MISS THE POINT. Meaning you can't find any BIBLICAL New Testament justification for "Aryan special" and "slaughter Jews" with "love your enemies" in it. BUT you CAN find DARWINIAN justification, with "Caucasians higher in evolution struggle."
@sweetmikser Yes, the garbage of what with me pointing out your egregious fallacies and all. Reminds me of Bill O"Reilly when he called scientists pinheads for pointing out to him that the moon causes the tides.
@sweetmikser Yes, the garbage of what with me pointing out your egregious fallacies and all. Reminds me of Bill O"Reilly when he called scientists pinheads for pointing out to him that the moon causes the tides.
@TheScienceFoundation again, hence why I say you're such a pathetic DRONE-TARD....cuz when faced with problems and evidence that shows that Hitler was no more a NEW TESTAMENT Biblical "Christian" than Caligula or King Tut, as far as actually following the Bible, you bring up the old Atheist cop-out zombie-ish argument of "arrghh, no True ScotssMan Fallacy" arf arf erghh. AS IF I never heard of that old barf already. And then just DODGE "love your enemies" and "be humble towards all" in the NT.
@sweetmikser The chances are that you have been owned over and over again. But the problem with thick folk is that they are too stupid to realise when they have lost an argument. They just keep gabbling the same piffle over and over again, like a town centre lunatic who shouts at pigeons all day, then claims some kind of victory when they finally realise they are being ignored.
@velapulsar you sound like you just described yourself to a "T". I asked you a few times to show me IN THE NEW TESTAMENT any justification for Hitler's garbage, and instead of showing me anything, you idiotically said "errghh, I don't care what the Bible says" arf arf, very conveniently. And when I brought up the confirmed fact that both Darwin & Haeckel were white racists who TAUGHT that Caucasians were above in "evolution" and that Hitler admired both, you say "Hitler was not a Darwinist". lol
@sweetmikser "I asked you a few times to show me IN THE NEW TESTAMENT any justification for Hitler's garbage, " ...and I told you to ask a Nazi. I you can't find one ask one of your Klan mates, it is a long shot, but they might be able to help.
"And when I brought up the confirmed fact that both Darwin & Haeckel were white racists"
This is not a confirmed fact, it is just some shit you have regurgitated without any thought process.
@velapulsar the point though is I DID quote "New Testament" words that are clearly ANTI-THESIS to what Hitler did and said...."love your enemies" "do good to those who hate you" "bless those who curse you" "turn the other cheek" "put off greed and malice" "be humble and compassionate towards all." And "leave judgment to God." You KNOW (even if cognitive dissonance sets in that fried brain of yours) that neither pagan murdering Roman Catholics in the Dark Ages, nor Nazis, ever followed that.
@sweetmikser I know the point you was making with the New Testament, the problem is that Christians don't have a great track record of adherence to it.
Of course I have no doubt that you do, as you are as kindly and humble a person as most Christians. However, the Bible mentions nothing about burning heretics, filling churches with riches while people outside starve, or loading the severed heads of Muslims into cannons and firing them across Maltese harbours.
@velapulsar right, which is why I say that Roman Catholics and pagan Calvinists and Baptists etc are not necessarily (and please catch this carefully) NEW TESTAMENT "Christians". Yeah, NOMINAL "Christians"...or PROFESSED "Christians"..........that's a dime a dozen. But that's why, again, I make it clear that I'm talking about BIBLICAL "Christians." Or maybe better to say "New Testament Followers." I'm not talking about pagan Roman Catholics whom you and I both don't like.
@sweetmikser Great1 Maybe we can stop lowering our heads and charging into each other.
If Hitler was an admirer of Darwin, then he twisted Darwins theories as much as he twisted Christianity for his own ends.
If there is one thing I want you to consider after this, it is this: Darwin was the first man to propose that all humans, regardless of skin colour, are all the same. I have read Darwins work and studied Evolution, and this is what it told me.
It said nothing about gods, or how life or the Universe began. Darwin was merely concerned with how we ended up with the variety of species that exist on Earth.
Even before Darwin, it was already accepted that evolution happens, what Darwin did was figure out a theory of why it happens. Even Charles Darwins grandfather, Erasmus Darwin studied this topic before Charles was even born, and the first people to consider Evolution were the ancient Greeks.
@sweetmikser The point is that Christians do plenty of shit that is not mentioned in the Bible. Which is related to why I said that I don't care about what is written in that book of bronze age tales. because it is irrelevant to the veracity of Darwins Theories, or whether Darwins theories lead to social Darwinism.
@velapulsar to start off...the Nazis idiotically for expedience used the terms "God" or "Jesus" but did not follow "love your enemies" and "be humble and compassionate towards all" did they? Show me in the NEW TESTAMENT where it says "Aryans are God's special creation". Fail. Number two...it's well-documented that Darwin was a white racist IN PARTICULAR WITH HIS EVOLUTIONARY VIEWS....not just as a side thing. Number three, above all, Darwinian theory talks about "elimination of savage races."
@velapulsar (cont) where in Newton's Law does it say "hey, you should jump off cliffs"? YOU ARE UTTER AND EPIC FAIL...Vela...in your dopey and lame-o and desperate comparisons...and cop-outs. Re-read my other comment to you and see how I demolished all three of your nonsense alibis and idiocies...lol. 1) The New Testament does NOT say "special Aryan race" but "be humble towards all". 2) Darwin and Haeckel believed Caucasians were higher in EVOLUTION. 3) Darwin said "survival or FAVORED RACES."
@sweetmikser "FAVOURED RACES" Anyone who has actually bothered to read On the Origin of Species, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Survival, then it would be clear to you, or atleast anyone of average intelligence that he was not refering to Human races, in fact Darwin considered humans to be a single race.
Anyone with a brain that functions beyond it's stem knows that Darwinism refutes racism, which is why it was banned in Apartheid South Africa.
@velapulsar I KNOW that he meant "favored races" in a general sense. But you're a moron if you think that Darwin didn't also mean it referring to FAVORED RACES WITH HUMANS. You show that you simply DON'T WANT it to be true....that Darwin and Haeckel were white racists who SPECIFICALLY USED their evolutionary theories in teaching that "Caucasians were above Africans and Asians" in EVOLUTION. So it was ALSO "favored races" referring to above human "savage races". Hitler picked up on that...
@sweetmikser You're the moron, because as anyone who has actually read Origin of Species will tell you, he hardly ever refers to Humanity in it.
It was Creationism which was used to promote ideas of white supremacy. While Darwin was against slavery, it was the Southern Baptists who supported it. It was these same Southern Baptists who formed the KKK, and the same Southern Baptists who slander Darwin as a racist.
@velapulsar can you show me "racism" in the "New Testaement"? I don't care what pagan Protestant wide-road "Lord Lord" PHONIES do. I only care what the "NEW TESTAMENT" itself admonishes and teaches. How does "Creationism" support racism? When Biblical Creation says WE ALL CAME FROM ADAM EQUALLY? (Acts) The problem you have, cuz you're a sick drone with no honesty, is that you DON'T WANT to believe that Darwin was a white racist who believed blacks were lower in "evolution". Ignore Haeckel too.
@velapulsar who said that it's only "Origin of Species" that Darwin said stuff in? that right there shows that YOU are the pathetic ignoramus jack-ass hopeless non-scholastic narrow-brained moron. (sighs and double facepalms...) Darwin wrote another book, called "The Descent of Man"? Ever heard of it? If you did hear of it, then why are you conveniently moronically IGNORING it? Darwin said crap like: "CIVILIZED RACES OF MAN will exterminate SAVAGE RACES throughout the world.”
@sweetmikser "ho said that it's only "Origin of Species" that Darwin said stuff in?" I thought the debate was over whether Darwinian Evolution lead to Social Darwinism. My mistake, I was looking at the title of this video.
"CIVILIZED RACES OF MAN will exterminate SAVAGE RACES throughout the world.”
and you had the nerve to call me a quote miner! Ha! You're ridiculous!
@velapulsar so instead of addressing Darwin's words (that even some Atheists I talked to admitted that Darwin was dumb for saying...) you dodge it basically, and pathetically cry "quote mine! quote mine!".... No surprise. The point, silly brat...is that Darwin had a low view of humans, as just another accident of nature, that was just a bit higher.....BUT HE DID NOT LOOK AT ALL HUMANS (CAUCASIANS, ASIANS, AFRICANS, ETC) as "equal" in "evolution"...REGARDLESS of a supposed "common ape-man" etc.
@velapulsar It is well documented that Darwin was an Abolitionist, was not a racist, and it is a slander and lie to say othewise.
In fact his theories on evolution dispelled the racist view of his age that whites were a superior creation to blacks. As it was Darwins theories that meant all humans share a common descent.
Either you are a liar or completely ignorant of what you oppose, or just don't wish facts to destroy your mindless postion.
@velapulsar it doesn't matter. Darwin clearly (along with his contemporary Haeckel, who Hitler admired) said and taught that Caucasians were HIGHER than Africans and Asians, in "evolution", REGARDLESS of any supposed "common descent." You're idiotically CHERRY-PICKING data to suit your own silly agendas. Hitler was a devout DARWINIST. Get over it. A pagan Roman Catholic Theistic Evolutionist Darwinist murdering maniac. Who used Darwinian language in MEIN KAMPF. About "higher evolutionary order."
@velapulsar so you deny that Haeckel was a racist? LOL...talk about "liar completely ignorant." Listen, you silly zombie. YOU DENY FACTS AND HISTORY. Cuz they're uncomfortable, poor baby. Darwin was a WHITE RACIST, who clearly said whites were OVER Africans and Asians, in this supposed "evolutionary order". And Haeckel (who Darwin knew and dealt with) DEFINITELY SAID THAT, with his idiotic "recapitulation in the womb" ideas. And fact too is that HITLER ADMIRED BOTH HAECKEL AND DARWIN. Wake up.
Aren't all your refutations repudiated by this common statement from evolution theorist; "religion is holding back the progression of society". Even Dawkins has said this.
Of course eugenics is obsolete, instead we will attempt to correct biological defects using chemicals.
B4 people decide to argue this claim I'd recommend that you read the actual works of Darwin unedited. Instead of regurgitating what your tv, teacher, friend, or wikipedia has to say. Hint darwins essay "descent of man" Might give you an idea of his social views of man.
Social Darwinism is a manifestation of Psychopathy/Narcissism. No matter what miserable wretched beings they are, they are hard wired to say they are superior than others around them to manipulate them. A societal form of this you see amongst Zionists and in other misery creating cults. It is not evolutionary, it is destructive to life. Social Darwinism is the product of moral deficients, Pathologues who wish to subjugate and kill others.
point #4 is bullshit, "all Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability" is implying programs like Hitler's final solution are SD policies. And the goal of Social Darwinism isn't the long term survival of the species but the success of the individual by being as competitive as possible
NatureEVOLVESin a continuous gradation from soulless to animals, through the living beings that aren't animals(leaves as foodµorganisms),with the result the akin living beings are so close to each other that their difference seems infinitesimal(Α-Ι,OnThePartsOfAnimals681,α31):The cautious direct-democrat,praiser ofCONCILIATION&AUTARKY:'Politics','Athen. Constitution'
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If darwin was true in his theory, then social darwinism was just the adaptation of natural laws to the social sciences. marxism would just be the version on human history and economics and fascism would just be a natural law, the survival of the fittest. But today the primitive naturalist dogma is collapsed. Quantum physics and the big bang theory collapsed materialism and proved that humen have a soul
I was going to respond in a careful and thought out way, but everything you said was SUCH incredible bullshit that it's impossible to know exactly where to start.
But just for fun, please illuminate us, and tell us how "Quantum physics and the big bang theory collapsed materialism and proved that humans have a soul"
your a moron social darwinism is a stupid theory that dumb kids use as a excuse to kill innocent people,darwinism is how we came to be where we are now.
Marxism, Owenism, Leninism, Stalinism each bring to mind, unsatisfactorily, the practices of these Fuhrers {or chairmen, generals, potentates, Saviors} of collectivism. Those who allude & defer to Charles Darwin worshipfully {& google-eyed} may, when so moved, renounce him. I have no qualms with religion.
take a tree a cat, dog and a shoe mix them together you get chocolate. if everything comes from everything , mixing any thing together will reproduce whatever you want .
Darwinism? man have evolve from ape to modern man? why is it there are still apes and monkey why haven't they all evolve? we should have no ape/monkey anymore?
*sigh* that's the most common and most ignorant creationist argument going! Humans didn't evolve from modern apes! Apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Also, you can have a situation where one species evolves from another through geographical separation, meaning the first species could still exist. Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself any further.
No Evolution provides a theorie how things are. Erm don't know how to say this, or why i am even doing this, but there is much evidence, and i'm speaking now of Fosils, that contradicts the origin of mankind. I mean, people should look on more then just the mainstream science, it was often in history proven wrong. And when i see such comments here that are driven by fanatism like "wow the invisible man in the sky made you with magic?" I mean come on! Such things are only slowing down real sience
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
human knowledge is limited. It is unfortunate that so many people have been deceived by Darwin while some of his theories are right. We did not develop from apes. If any one chooses to agree with Darwin, then they came from apes not me.I am fearfully and wonderfully made by God.
Modern Darwinism does not claim that the species of homo sapiens developed out of any ape species which exists today. But we can be very sure that apes and men had a common ancestor millions of years ago, an old (likely more primitive) and now extinct primate. Apes and humans gradually developed into different directions over a timespan of 2 million years or so.
well, you have the right to be wrong but if you believe that your ancestors had the same ancestors as apes, then that's you not me. I don't have any apes in my family.What makes humans different from animals is the fact that we are spirits having souls that live in a body while animals are souls with a body.
Btw, I'm not an atheist. It is possible to be - at the same time - a Darwinist and a religious person. The idea that evolution is a coincidental process implies that animals, plants and even anorganic mater had a non-causal "free will" of some kind, and that is unscientific too. I think, everything that happened, especially in nature/outside of the human society, was a necessary process and development, and therefore not incidental. It follows a pattern, a "reason" (in the philosophical sense).
yourembyro: I fail to see how any of the quotes you give contradict the text in the video. I don't doubt what you have quoted, I'm just struggling to see what your argument is. Yes, it seems Galton was influenced by Darwinian theory, but Darwin's theory of evolution (a scientific theory describing how things are in nature, not a philosophy) can't be blamed for later misinterpretations or perversions of that theory i.e. eugenics (although I'm not even sure that was what you were getting at)...
"In Galton's day, the science of genetics was not yet understood. Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution taught that species did change as a result of natural selection, and it was well known that by artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants and animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered, "Could not the race of men be similarly improved?" "
"The word "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by the English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he put it, getting rid of its "undesirables" while multiplying its "desirables" -- that is, by encouraging the procreation of the social Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit."
Did you even research the subject before you put your teeny-bopper video on?
"At the time, a growing number of theorists introduced Darwinian analogies of "survival of the fittest" into social argument. Many social Darwinists insisted that biology was destiny, at least for the unfit, and that a broad spectrum of socially deleterious traits, ranging from "pauperism" to mental illness, resulted from heredity. "
"The specter of eugenics hovers over virtually all contemporary developments in human genetics. Eugenics was rooted in the social Darwinism of the late 19th century, a period in which notions of fitness, competition, and biological rationalizations of inequality were popular."
Fucking idiot. The idea is damn natural - we're not seperated from the nature. The idea of social darwinism isn't minimize the genetic foundation but select the collectively most beneficial ones - present, slowed down selection doesn't make any difference in larger scale 'cos the human breeding isn't limited. New combinations and mutations will take care of variety even after the selection part. The best - waste, mediocre genetic material could become eliminated. COLLECTIVE DEVELOPMENT.
thats got nothing to do with natural darwinism. thats just a human ideology. evolution is not a constructive force, but a destructive force as it eliminates gene's that are not suitable to a particular environment. this idea of social darwinism is a constructive force, as there is an aim or goal at the end.
The aim is development - and humanity. Right now, I don't make any fucking difference between natural forces and human beings, it's all the same construction called "nature", nothing more or less.
People are engaging in social darwinism whether they admit to it or not. A 300 pound violent thug of a criminal can be superior in a fight against you and even if you lock him up he'll still insist on having and raising HIS kids to be future violent thugs. The "right" to have teach the property of his loins is unalienable. Ever heard of conjugal visits? Many violent criminals are dead sexy to women.
This is indeed a problem. But its only a problem of liberal social-democracy. it a problem of those who deny the existence of (social)darwinism and a survival (or preveilance) of the fittest and hold criminals as poor victims of society.
yes, someone who is violent or is locked up is only a problem for society. but in nature, those attributes are not a hindrince to passing on your genes, unless of course the environment changes, and such an individual would be locked up for life with no conjugal visits.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."--Charles Darwin What is he saying? That the theory he spent his lifetime trying to prove was wrong?
I'm guessing you haven't read the full thing this quote came from. He then goes on to say how it is possible that this happened. Thois quote is favourite of creationalists, but it was setting the tone of what was to come and explaining his awe in the natural world.
There is very little evidence to suggest that Darwin ever even existed. It actually started as a joke among athiests at the time and so a few books were written under the sudenym Charles Darwin in an attempt to undermin the Church of England's beleif system without the personal backlash. Charles Darwin's tomb is empty. The opened it in 1984, it was well documented.
Never heard that before. Any documentation? Did you know his son Major Leonard Darwin presided over the first international eugenics conference and his great (or great great)grandson was interviewed on PBS a few weeks ago? Who are all the photos of and who wrote Origin and Descent?
Could it be that Darwin was not written by Darwin but another man with the same name?
True that Darwin was a mouse of man, but you have not done your homework. Descent of Man Chapter 5: "If the various checks specified in the last two paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and the otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world"
he mentioed that it had happened in history, but in no way supported it.
eugenics and social darwinism were not brought about untill years after his death, he in no way supported them, norpossibly could have since he was not alive when thy came to be
Sorry you are such youtubeian. His cousin Francis Galton invented modern eugenics and he referred to him and it in Descent. I am sure he would not have supported what happened as result of his theory, but he was warned by Adam Sedgwick and he ignored it and like a little boy playing with matches he started a fire that killed millions.
Indeed, he did not support the "increasing" of "reckless, vicious and otherwise inferior members of society ... at a quicker rate than the better class of men". Indeed, man, indeed.
P.S. evolution would encourage the opposite of violence if anything, evolution is about a species surviving to carry on their genes, what better way to survive then to get rid of war?
The goal is survival of your own genetics, not the human race. By mating only with those in your own race, eventually human kind becomes a node in the evolutionary tree, and the races become independent species.
This is all but inevitable. Trying to stop it will only result in the loss of your own race. Which will end your own evolutionary branch.
A goal is determined by any individual. If you wish to speciate yuor genetic traits from the rest of humanity, have at it, but that is not a goal dictated by Darwinian Evolution. But hey, if others are interested in other races sexually, who are you to tell them they can't fuck them?
Evolution is a natural process, so therefore it has not "goal" (or intention) at all. However, evolution as biology observed it is just 'about' that: different (and usualy fitter) genes becoming a race of its own, and later a species of its own.
Spencer was a member of the X Club. The X Club eagerly promoted Darwin and his Origin..book. They got him the Copley medal from the Royal Council. Provide documentation to prove Spencer repudiated Darwin in favor of Lamarck. All 3 were spokes on the same wheel.
As I don't have any texts to hand, I'll have to quote from the wikipedia article I linked to (which is referenced):
'Spencer's major work, Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) was released two years before the publication of Darwin's Origin Of Species, and First Principles was printed in 1860...'
'In many ways Spencer's theory of "cosmic evolution" has much more in common with the works of Lamarck and Auguste Comte's positivism work than Darwin. Darwin's theory is concerned with populations, whereas Spencer's deals with the way an individual's motives influence humanity. Darwin's theory is probabilistic, i.e., based on changes in the environment that sooner or later influence the change of individuals in a collective sense, but do not have any single, specific goal'.
cont..'Spencer's is deterministic (the evolution of human society is the only logical consequence of its previous stage), fatalistic (it cannot be influenced by human actions), single path (it travels a single path, cannot skip any stages or change them) and progressively finalistic (there is a final, perfect society that will be eventually reached). Darwin's theory does not equal progress, except in the sense that the new, evolved species will be better suited to their changing environment..
(cont)..Spencer's theory introduces the concept of social progress — the new, evolved society is always better than the past.'
However, whether or not Darwin or Lamarck were bigger influences is a minor point here; evolution is a natural scientific process and does NOT promote eugenics or social darwinism, it describes how things are not how they should be.
Please refer to a specific passage in Origin of the species that promotes Social Darwinism or encourages eugenics. An online version is available at talkorigins.
I don't know if you wanted to complete the rest of this quote, but so far it is nothing more than an accurate observation of modern society; no philosophical ideas or opinions are presented. I was also more interested in a passage from Origin of Species since you seemed to imply this book was to blame for eugenics and Social Darwinism, but I'll let you finish.
Darwin wrote on eugenics and social Darwinism in Chapter 5 in the Descent of Man. Too long to quote here. Go to online version, word search 'small-pox'. There Darwin presents eugenics and social Darwinism very clearly although he doesn't use the terms.
I'd prefer if you gave a few quotes to back up your argument, it should be easy enough if you say there is a whole chapter but I'll try and find it. But what about in Origin of Species? You implied this book was to blame for eugenics and social darwinism.
There is therefore some discussion of Galtons theories, but no-where does Darwin advocate eugenics or promote social Darwinism. Eugenics is a huge misinterpretation and perversion of evolutionary theory. It's also worth noting that eugenics existed long before Darwin. Social Darwinism under a different name also pre-dates Darwin's theory.
(cont..) Herbert Spencer coined the phrase survival of the fittest *before* Darwin published Descent of Man, and he developed ideas of evolution and progress before Charles Darwin had written The Origin of Species.
Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection is descriptive not philosophical, and any individual who thinks what 'is' in nature 'ought' to be is a victim of the naturalistic fallacy.
(cont..) Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact; even if Darwin as an individual *had* promoted eugenics himself, it wouldn't change this fact, and it certainly wouldn't mean the theory of natural selection itself promotes social Darwinism.
For even more proof Google Descent of Man, and word search small pox. There Darwin laments the fact that vaccine has kept people alive that should have died in the natural selection process. Pure social Darwinism. I will be happy to send you my matriculation fee.
those were darwins opinions (if tey are not made up) not everyone who supports the theory of evolutions opinions, i support te theory, and i wold appose to anyone who thought that way
Erasmus Darwin was Charles Darwin's grandfather, also Francis Galton's grandfather-Darwin and Galton were cousins. Galton came up with (+) eugenics after reading origin of the species, Charles Davenport obsessed on Galton and (-)eugenics,led to Buck v. Bell and 60,000 American sterilization, American (-) eugenics model adopted by Hitler, 350,000 sterilized,6,000,000 + euthanasias. That's history, thanks you Charley Darwin
To blame Darwin for the atrocities committed by Hitler and others is ridiculous. Evolution does not promote eugenics. Advocates of social Darwinism are victims of the naturalistic fallacy.
Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. Eugenics is based on bad biology; a better understanding of biology and evolution should counter arguments used for eugenics.
You are also using a logical fallacy. You are basically saying: "Person 'A' influenced person 'B', who influenced person 'C' to influence person 'D' to commit action 'X'. Therefore person 'A' is to be blamed for action 'X'". Using this line of reasoning, anybody can be blamed for any action committed by another individual.
well dann, it's not altogether surprising that his rational leads to one person being held responsible & punished for the actions of another. after all the bible does endorse such immorality. "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 3rd and 4th generation..." Exodus 20:5 sickeningly ironic how theists link immorality with science & rational enquiry. thanks for this vid. it's important work.
You don't know the facts. Read War Against the Weak by Edmund Black. True it is bad biology, but Eugenics is totally based in evolution.All eugenicists were Darwinists.
Sir Arthur Keith, British evolutionary anthropologist in Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman 1947) pg 28 & 230: "To see evolution ...applied rigorously to the affairs of a great nation, we turn again to Germany of 1942. Hitler devotedly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy...The Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."
I like to know who I'm debating with. I tend to avoid serious discussions with creationists; it's usually futile debating any issue involving evolution with someone who has already made their mind up on the subject and who won't change their opinion.
Hitler based his views on divine right philosophy, not Darwinism. For example:
'Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65, Mein Kampf).
See worldwideweb(.)talkorigins(.)org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1(.)html
Obviously you know nothing of the Bible or history. Every historian agrees that Hitler was a social Darwinist, it is only a matter of degree. Mein Kampf:their higher or lower value of races...to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and to demand the submission of the worse and weaker. Pure Darwinism.
Careful now. I never said Hitler was not a Social Darwinist. He was of course. Darwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Darwinism and Social Darwinism are NOT the same thing, but I know you don't see that.
Hitler clearly felt he was fulfilling the will of a divine being by exterminating the Jews. When did Darwin say that the Jews or another race should be exterminated because of a divine being?
As PhD historian Richard Weikart wrote in Darwin and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany 1859 to 1920:"There is no doubt that Hitler was a Social Darwinist, viewing history as a struggle for existence among unequal races. All Hitler scholars agree on this point, and it is too obvious to deny when one reads Mein Kampf. (Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 323-344)."
In fact, I think really, the biggest Social Darwinists are the people who don't believe in evolution at all.
Lynching inferior races, limited genetic variation I.e. imbreeding, self-rightiousness, believeing they are serving a higher power who wants them to destroy the lesser beings and convert the survivours to their cause, where have we heard that before?
Thank you. Natural Selection I understand but I don't know much about Social Darwinism other than the fact that it's defenders seem to be... I don't respect them. I'm a Neo-Darwinian which basically just means I'm aware of stuff that was discovered after Darwin like mutation. But I don't like those murder-worshiping idiots associating a great natural biologist with their insanity.
Yea its probably better to watch on mute, the music is a bit distracting; an instrumental song probably works better in these types of videos but this is the only song I had that vaguely fitted the theme of the video.
In evolutionary theory, we are living organisms, and we out powered other species (living organisms) by gathering and fighting for resources, why wouldn't that concept apply between humans? We compete for mates through either physical (appearance health strength), material (stability resources utility), and I would also add that we in modern times have more abstract concepts but the two previously listed are still very dominate. Your counter points don't hit the main question, just peripherals
TicTocKnight 11 months ago
@TicTocKnight Competing for resources and mates is very different to social darwinism/eugenics. I should have probably made it clearer exactly what is meant by social darwinism. The majority of the text in the video is lifted from the talkorigins website (see video info).
dann54321 11 months ago
@dann54321 Part 1
Thanks for the item, but I also pulled this off from it " Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die. " which implies that no action to prevent such is social Darwinism. I would then make the argument that we still compete within the confines of our interventions like welfare, but that the rules for passing along genes change Either way. Either way, inaction or a systematic lens, are not faulty in of itself.
TicTocKnight 11 months ago
@dann54321 Part 2
To give an example of the perspective lens, where SD still operates with intervention, we can fall back to breeding strategies. A few kids and a lot of resources for strong chances of survival of the few, or having a lot of uncared for kids which would yield a few survivors, the later becomes more productive under welfare, and thus a better strategy under the system. The divide is over more natural or abstract concepts for survival, (or for abstract to mirrior natural)
TicTocKnight 11 months ago
A novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer
dltanner99 11 months ago
very good.
TheLunarmonkey 1 year ago
As for Darwin himself, he used to be a Creationist. Infact he was a Christian right up until the death of his daughter, Anne. From this point on, Darwin continued to support his local Church with donations, but would not attend services. He died an agnostic.
velapulsar 1 year ago
it's a documented fact that Darwin and Haeckel were white racists, who believed that Caucasians were advanced over Asians and Africans, in "evolution." And also in "recapitulation" ideas in "embryology" in the womb.... Haeckel and Darwin were contemporaries... And Darwin believed in "recapitulation" myths too. Hitler ADMIRED Haeckel, the racist. And SPECIFICALLY used "Darwinian" ideas in his "survival of advanced evolutionary races" (Mein Kampf) notions, against Jews and Slavs, etc.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Evolution never says all men are created equal. Equal is a man created social construct.
FloridaRaider 1 year ago
@sweetmikser For a start off, the Nazi's believed the Aryan Race to be God's special creation, and that they would end up ruling the World by divine providence.
It is also a well documented fact that Darwin was only as much as racists as he was a man of his time. In fact Darwin was a staunch Abolitionist.
Above all, Darwins theory can no more be used to justify the Holocaust than Newtons Laws can justify throwing people off cliffs.
velapulsar 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser
"love your enemies" and "be humble and compassionate towards all"
Neither have many Christians throughout history. Infact Christianity has been particularly terrible to Jews. Are you going for the "No true Scotsman" argument?
"Show me in the NEW TESTAMENT where it says "Aryans are God's special creation"."
It doesn't, maybe that question would be better directed towards a Nazi. They believed it, I don't.
velapulsar 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@velapulsar oh, you're such a drone with that "No True Scotsman" garbage. Listen...the Bible ITSELF said that there'd be mass PHONIES. Christ HIMSELF said. So I guess He was guilty too of "No True Scotsman"...fail (Matthew 7) But you show that you totally MISS THE POINT. Meaning you can't find any BIBLICAL New Testament justification for "Aryan special" and "slaughter Jews" with "love your enemies" in it. BUT you CAN find DARWINIAN justification, with "Caucasians higher in evolutionary struggle"
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser I couldn't give a monkeys chuff about what the Bible said.
Even if Hitler was a Darwinist (which he wasn't) it still had nowt to do with eugenics, which is selective breeding in humans, nor does it have any impact on the veracity of Darwins theories.
Darwin was a Naturalist, not a Sociologist.
velapulsar 1 year ago
@velapulsar he was not a Darwinist? how's that? He believed that Darwin was right......he believed in "ape-men" myths......he believed in "organic evolution"..... And he believed that Darwin was correct in his "Caucasians are above Africans and Asians" evolutionary views. The fact is that YOU DON'T WANT Hitler to be a Darwinist, cuz, poor baby, you know it hurts you and it's unsettling..... DISHONEST MORON. And for you to say you don't care what the Bible says is VERY CONVENIENT... lol
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser There is no evolutionary view that any human is higher than another. It is the evolutionary view that humanity is a single species or race. There is no "higher or lower" in evolution, only traits that either give advantage or disadvantage to organisms abilities to survive long enough to reproduce.
So if you could enlighten me how that leads to the notion that Caucasians are "more highly evolved" than Asians or Africans, then pray do tell.
velapulsar 1 year ago
@velapulsar by the way, lol...(and I've had that out and owned many others on this point), you show what an incredible and funny HYPOCRITE you are.....with this "No True Scotsman" nonsense. How so? You just said (lol) "Hitler was not a Darwinist." Oh, really... Even though Hitler claimed to be a Darwinist and admired Heackel huh? YOU'RE GUILTY OF "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY" YOURSELF on that....lol. "Oh, but Hitler was not a REAL 'Darwinist'". You say. Uh, Scotty, beam us up. lol
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser You have owned or achieved nothing other than to show yourself up as a blinkered and brainwashed patsy.
The Nazi Party rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including literature of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.
velapulsar 1 year ago
@velapulsar as I said, Hitler said and did stuff for EXPEDIENCE....you silly drone. But even so...is that why in Mein Kampf you see these words: "races developing towards higher levels" "higher evolutionary order" "survival of the fittest" and "the mighty struggle in nature has produced our present level of evolution," etc. Hitler is on record as ADMIRING Ernst Haeckel. Who was a contemporary of Darwin and worked with him. Hitler was a pagan "Theistic Evolutionist." Not an Atheist. But a DEIST.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser "as I said, Hitler said and did stuff for EXPEDIENCE....you silly drone."
Why did he need expedience?
velapulsar 1 year ago
@sweetmikser You also see these words
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Also, it's clear that Hitler had no better understanding of evolution than any creationist
"A fox will remain a fox" etc.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation you act as if I never heard of that, never read that, never saw that, and never got that nonsense from Atheists with agendas who idiotically WANT Hitler to be a (duh) "Christian." Did you even read all my comments on this video page thingy? Even the other guy (who's an Atheist) eventually came around to understand my point, and kind of even agreed, (though we were snippy with each other at first). Hitler OF COURSE used words like "God" for expedience, duhhh. (cont)
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Yes we just want hitler to be a christian, and all that ricketa racketa, it's not as if he himself said he committed genocide against the Jews in the name of the lord or anything.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation (continued).... But did he or the Nazis or pagan Roman Catholics in general follow the actual NEW TESTAMENT on how to act and live? "Love your enemies"? "Turn the other cheek" "do good to those who hate you" "put off greed and malice" "leave judgment to God" or "be humble and compassionate towards all"? Even many Atheists admit that Hitler was NOT exactly a Sermon on the Mount or "New Testament" follower. (sighs...) But Hitler admired Darwin and HAECKEL...documented.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser 'But did he or the Nazis or pagan Roman Catholics in general follow the actual NEW TESTAMENT on how to act and live'
No true Scotsman is an intentional logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation oh, you're such a drone with that "No True Scotsman" garbage. Listen...the Bible ITSELF said that there'd be mass PHONIES. Christ HIMSELF said. So I guess He was guilty too of "No True Scotsman". (Matt 7) But you show that you totally MISS THE POINT. Meaning you can't find any BIBLICAL New Testament justification for "Aryan special" and "slaughter Jews" with "love your enemies" in it. BUT you CAN find DARWINIAN justification, with "Caucasians higher in evolution struggle."
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Yes, the garbage of what with me pointing out your egregious fallacies and all. Reminds me of Bill O"Reilly when he called scientists pinheads for pointing out to him that the moon causes the tides.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sweetmikser Yes, the garbage of what with me pointing out your egregious fallacies and all. Reminds me of Bill O"Reilly when he called scientists pinheads for pointing out to him that the moon causes the tides.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sweetmikser "CAN find DARWINIAN justification, with "Caucasians higher in evolution struggle."
1: Appeal to emotion
2: That's not evolution, evolution is not a ladder.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation again, hence why I say you're such a pathetic DRONE-TARD....cuz when faced with problems and evidence that shows that Hitler was no more a NEW TESTAMENT Biblical "Christian" than Caligula or King Tut, as far as actually following the Bible, you bring up the old Atheist cop-out zombie-ish argument of "arrghh, no True ScotssMan Fallacy" arf arf erghh. AS IF I never heard of that old barf already. And then just DODGE "love your enemies" and "be humble towards all" in the NT.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser On what grounds do you say that Hitler did not accept jesus as his savior?
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@sweetmikser The chances are that you have been owned over and over again. But the problem with thick folk is that they are too stupid to realise when they have lost an argument. They just keep gabbling the same piffle over and over again, like a town centre lunatic who shouts at pigeons all day, then claims some kind of victory when they finally realise they are being ignored.
velapulsar 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@velapulsar you sound like you just described yourself to a "T". I asked you a few times to show me IN THE NEW TESTAMENT any justification for Hitler's garbage, and instead of showing me anything, you idiotically said "errghh, I don't care what the Bible says" arf arf, very conveniently. And when I brought up the confirmed fact that both Darwin & Haeckel were white racists who TAUGHT that Caucasians were above in "evolution" and that Hitler admired both, you say "Hitler was not a Darwinist". lol
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser "I asked you a few times to show me IN THE NEW TESTAMENT any justification for Hitler's garbage, " ...and I told you to ask a Nazi. I you can't find one ask one of your Klan mates, it is a long shot, but they might be able to help.
"And when I brought up the confirmed fact that both Darwin & Haeckel were white racists"
This is not a confirmed fact, it is just some shit you have regurgitated without any thought process.
velapulsar 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@velapulsar the point though is I DID quote "New Testament" words that are clearly ANTI-THESIS to what Hitler did and said...."love your enemies" "do good to those who hate you" "bless those who curse you" "turn the other cheek" "put off greed and malice" "be humble and compassionate towards all." And "leave judgment to God." You KNOW (even if cognitive dissonance sets in that fried brain of yours) that neither pagan murdering Roman Catholics in the Dark Ages, nor Nazis, ever followed that.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser I know the point you was making with the New Testament, the problem is that Christians don't have a great track record of adherence to it.
Of course I have no doubt that you do, as you are as kindly and humble a person as most Christians. However, the Bible mentions nothing about burning heretics, filling churches with riches while people outside starve, or loading the severed heads of Muslims into cannons and firing them across Maltese harbours.
velapulsar 1 year ago
@velapulsar right, which is why I say that Roman Catholics and pagan Calvinists and Baptists etc are not necessarily (and please catch this carefully) NEW TESTAMENT "Christians". Yeah, NOMINAL "Christians"...or PROFESSED "Christians"..........that's a dime a dozen. But that's why, again, I make it clear that I'm talking about BIBLICAL "Christians." Or maybe better to say "New Testament Followers." I'm not talking about pagan Roman Catholics whom you and I both don't like.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser Great1 Maybe we can stop lowering our heads and charging into each other.
If Hitler was an admirer of Darwin, then he twisted Darwins theories as much as he twisted Christianity for his own ends.
If there is one thing I want you to consider after this, it is this: Darwin was the first man to propose that all humans, regardless of skin colour, are all the same. I have read Darwins work and studied Evolution, and this is what it told me.
velapulsar 1 year ago
It said nothing about gods, or how life or the Universe began. Darwin was merely concerned with how we ended up with the variety of species that exist on Earth.
Even before Darwin, it was already accepted that evolution happens, what Darwin did was figure out a theory of why it happens. Even Charles Darwins grandfather, Erasmus Darwin studied this topic before Charles was even born, and the first people to consider Evolution were the ancient Greeks.
velapulsar 1 year ago
@sweetmikser The point is that Christians do plenty of shit that is not mentioned in the Bible. Which is related to why I said that I don't care about what is written in that book of bronze age tales. because it is irrelevant to the veracity of Darwins Theories, or whether Darwins theories lead to social Darwinism.
velapulsar 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@velapulsar to start off...the Nazis idiotically for expedience used the terms "God" or "Jesus" but did not follow "love your enemies" and "be humble and compassionate towards all" did they? Show me in the NEW TESTAMENT where it says "Aryans are God's special creation". Fail. Number two...it's well-documented that Darwin was a white racist IN PARTICULAR WITH HIS EVOLUTIONARY VIEWS....not just as a side thing. Number three, above all, Darwinian theory talks about "elimination of savage races."
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@velapulsar (cont) where in Newton's Law does it say "hey, you should jump off cliffs"? YOU ARE UTTER AND EPIC FAIL...Vela...in your dopey and lame-o and desperate comparisons...and cop-outs. Re-read my other comment to you and see how I demolished all three of your nonsense alibis and idiocies...lol. 1) The New Testament does NOT say "special Aryan race" but "be humble towards all". 2) Darwin and Haeckel believed Caucasians were higher in EVOLUTION. 3) Darwin said "survival or FAVORED RACES."
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser "FAVOURED RACES" Anyone who has actually bothered to read On the Origin of Species, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Survival, then it would be clear to you, or atleast anyone of average intelligence that he was not refering to Human races, in fact Darwin considered humans to be a single race.
Anyone with a brain that functions beyond it's stem knows that Darwinism refutes racism, which is why it was banned in Apartheid South Africa.
velapulsar 1 year ago
@velapulsar I KNOW that he meant "favored races" in a general sense. But you're a moron if you think that Darwin didn't also mean it referring to FAVORED RACES WITH HUMANS. You show that you simply DON'T WANT it to be true....that Darwin and Haeckel were white racists who SPECIFICALLY USED their evolutionary theories in teaching that "Caucasians were above Africans and Asians" in EVOLUTION. So it was ALSO "favored races" referring to above human "savage races". Hitler picked up on that...
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser You're the moron, because as anyone who has actually read Origin of Species will tell you, he hardly ever refers to Humanity in it.
It was Creationism which was used to promote ideas of white supremacy. While Darwin was against slavery, it was the Southern Baptists who supported it. It was these same Southern Baptists who formed the KKK, and the same Southern Baptists who slander Darwin as a racist.
velapulsar 1 year ago
@velapulsar can you show me "racism" in the "New Testaement"? I don't care what pagan Protestant wide-road "Lord Lord" PHONIES do. I only care what the "NEW TESTAMENT" itself admonishes and teaches. How does "Creationism" support racism? When Biblical Creation says WE ALL CAME FROM ADAM EQUALLY? (Acts) The problem you have, cuz you're a sick drone with no honesty, is that you DON'T WANT to believe that Darwin was a white racist who believed blacks were lower in "evolution". Ignore Haeckel too.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@velapulsar who said that it's only "Origin of Species" that Darwin said stuff in? that right there shows that YOU are the pathetic ignoramus jack-ass hopeless non-scholastic narrow-brained moron. (sighs and double facepalms...) Darwin wrote another book, called "The Descent of Man"? Ever heard of it? If you did hear of it, then why are you conveniently moronically IGNORING it? Darwin said crap like: "CIVILIZED RACES OF MAN will exterminate SAVAGE RACES throughout the world.”
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser "ho said that it's only "Origin of Species" that Darwin said stuff in?" I thought the debate was over whether Darwinian Evolution lead to Social Darwinism. My mistake, I was looking at the title of this video.
"CIVILIZED RACES OF MAN will exterminate SAVAGE RACES throughout the world.”
and you had the nerve to call me a quote miner! Ha! You're ridiculous!
velapulsar 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@velapulsar so instead of addressing Darwin's words (that even some Atheists I talked to admitted that Darwin was dumb for saying...) you dodge it basically, and pathetically cry "quote mine! quote mine!".... No surprise. The point, silly brat...is that Darwin had a low view of humans, as just another accident of nature, that was just a bit higher.....BUT HE DID NOT LOOK AT ALL HUMANS (CAUCASIANS, ASIANS, AFRICANS, ETC) as "equal" in "evolution"...REGARDLESS of a supposed "common ape-man" etc.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@velapulsar It is well documented that Darwin was an Abolitionist, was not a racist, and it is a slander and lie to say othewise.
In fact his theories on evolution dispelled the racist view of his age that whites were a superior creation to blacks. As it was Darwins theories that meant all humans share a common descent.
Either you are a liar or completely ignorant of what you oppose, or just don't wish facts to destroy your mindless postion.
velapulsar 1 year ago
@velapulsar it doesn't matter. Darwin clearly (along with his contemporary Haeckel, who Hitler admired) said and taught that Caucasians were HIGHER than Africans and Asians, in "evolution", REGARDLESS of any supposed "common descent." You're idiotically CHERRY-PICKING data to suit your own silly agendas. Hitler was a devout DARWINIST. Get over it. A pagan Roman Catholic Theistic Evolutionist Darwinist murdering maniac. Who used Darwinian language in MEIN KAMPF. About "higher evolutionary order."
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser More bullshit. Give me evidence, or I will consider you to be nothing more than an ignorant fool at best, or a pathetic liar at worst.
velapulsar 1 year ago
@velapulsar so you deny that Haeckel was a racist? LOL...talk about "liar completely ignorant." Listen, you silly zombie. YOU DENY FACTS AND HISTORY. Cuz they're uncomfortable, poor baby. Darwin was a WHITE RACIST, who clearly said whites were OVER Africans and Asians, in this supposed "evolutionary order". And Haeckel (who Darwin knew and dealt with) DEFINITELY SAID THAT, with his idiotic "recapitulation in the womb" ideas. And fact too is that HITLER ADMIRED BOTH HAECKEL AND DARWIN. Wake up.
sweetmikser 1 year ago
@sweetmikser I didn't even mention Haeckel, wtf are you going on about.
You have obviously learned from Goebbels (a lies repeated a thousand times becomes the truth.)
Ah yes, I almost forgot, Apartheid SA banned Darwinism and made Creationism compulsory.
It is Creationism that fuels racism, Darwinism exposes it for what it is.
velapulsar 1 year ago
this video is absolutely unscientific
TakisAthensGr 1 year ago
wow , yes it will if human are different spiecies rofl , nice arguement
hitmankillzone 1 year ago
This argument is as ludicrous as "Ship building is responsible for slavery".
CDiddy51 1 year ago
Aren't all your refutations repudiated by this common statement from evolution theorist; "religion is holding back the progression of society". Even Dawkins has said this.
Of course eugenics is obsolete, instead we will attempt to correct biological defects using chemicals.
knowwaie 2 years ago
B4 people decide to argue this claim I'd recommend that you read the actual works of Darwin unedited. Instead of regurgitating what your tv, teacher, friend, or wikipedia has to say. Hint darwins essay "descent of man" Might give you an idea of his social views of man.
Th3Wab3 2 years ago
Social Darwinism is a manifestation of Psychopathy/Narcissism. No matter what miserable wretched beings they are, they are hard wired to say they are superior than others around them to manipulate them. A societal form of this you see amongst Zionists and in other misery creating cults. It is not evolutionary, it is destructive to life. Social Darwinism is the product of moral deficients, Pathologues who wish to subjugate and kill others.
Isochest 2 years ago 4
point #4 is bullshit, "all Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability" is implying programs like Hitler's final solution are SD policies. And the goal of Social Darwinism isn't the long term survival of the species but the success of the individual by being as competitive as possible
lesssugar1 2 years ago
At 1:50, I believe the word "altruism" is misused.
Gregamania69 2 years ago
Aristotle stolen byDarwin watch?v=QpD8Qa3tQQk
NatureEVOLVESin a continuous gradation from soulless to animals, through the living beings that aren't animals(leaves as foodµorganisms),with the result the akin living beings are so close to each other that their difference seems infinitesimal(Α-Ι,OnThePartsOfAnimals681,α31):The cautious direct-democrat,praiser ofCONCILIATION&AUTARKY:'Politics','Athen. Constitution'
Anaximander:HumansEVOLVEDfrom fishes.
MonarchistDarwin supported violence
peacearchanthropuses 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If darwin was true in his theory, then social darwinism was just the adaptation of natural laws to the social sciences. marxism would just be the version on human history and economics and fascism would just be a natural law, the survival of the fittest. But today the primitive naturalist dogma is collapsed. Quantum physics and the big bang theory collapsed materialism and proved that humen have a soul
oleyokeyyy 3 years ago
I was going to respond in a careful and thought out way, but everything you said was SUCH incredible bullshit that it's impossible to know exactly where to start.
But just for fun, please illuminate us, and tell us how "Quantum physics and the big bang theory collapsed materialism and proved that humans have a soul"
ikvsabre 2 years ago 4
your a moron social darwinism is a stupid theory that dumb kids use as a excuse to kill innocent people,darwinism is how we came to be where we are now.
GeassgelionNote 3 years ago
Comment removed
lesssugar1 2 years ago
Marxism, Owenism, Leninism, Stalinism each bring to mind, unsatisfactorily, the practices of these Fuhrers {or chairmen, generals, potentates, Saviors} of collectivism. Those who allude & defer to Charles Darwin worshipfully {& google-eyed} may, when so moved, renounce him. I have no qualms with religion.
procommenter 3 years ago
take a tree a cat, dog and a shoe mix them together you get chocolate. if everything comes from everything , mixing any thing together will reproduce whatever you want .
jinkss111 3 years ago
Darwinism? man have evolve from ape to modern man? why is it there are still apes and monkey why haven't they all evolve? we should have no ape/monkey anymore?
ruping1 3 years ago
*sigh* that's the most common and most ignorant creationist argument going! Humans didn't evolve from modern apes! Apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Also, you can have a situation where one species evolves from another through geographical separation, meaning the first species could still exist. Please educate yourself before embarrassing yourself any further.
Greenfly23 3 years ago 3
apes have evolved as long a we have and every thing else living today.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Man didn't evolve from apes. Humans and Apes evolved from common ancestry.
ikvsabre 2 years ago
Evolution is based on the self-generating golem from the kabalah.
neothomist1275 3 years ago
"there is much evidence, and i'm speaking now of Fosils, that contradicts the origin of mankind"
How can a fossil contradict the origin of mankind?
Don't you first have to have faith in how a fossil is being represented and how the material on it is being interpreted?
I would suggest a resounding yes....
GospelPete 3 years ago
No Evolution provides a theorie how things are. Erm don't know how to say this, or why i am even doing this, but there is much evidence, and i'm speaking now of Fosils, that contradicts the origin of mankind. I mean, people should look on more then just the mainstream science, it was often in history proven wrong. And when i see such comments here that are driven by fanatism like "wow the invisible man in the sky made you with magic?" I mean come on! Such things are only slowing down real sience
Diavollis 3 years ago
"What makes humans different from animals is the fact that we are spirits having souls that live in a body while animals are souls with a body."
So you are saying scientology is right and there are body thetans attached to me?
And you can prove that empirically, right?
Note for future reference: you cannot assert fallacies in scientific theories by providing proof based on no evidence.
And yes, human knowledge is limited. But that limitation is not evenly distributed in the population.
Diomedes01 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
human knowledge is limited. It is unfortunate that so many people have been deceived by Darwin while some of his theories are right. We did not develop from apes. If any one chooses to agree with Darwin, then they came from apes not me.I am fearfully and wonderfully made by God.
newdayo 3 years ago
wow the invisible man in the sky made you with magic?
liber8me 3 years ago
People can believe all sorts of things when they ignore all the evidence.
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago 2
Modern Darwinism does not claim that the species of homo sapiens developed out of any ape species which exists today. But we can be very sure that apes and men had a common ancestor millions of years ago, an old (likely more primitive) and now extinct primate. Apes and humans gradually developed into different directions over a timespan of 2 million years or so.
ClearSpringwater 3 years ago
well, you have the right to be wrong but if you believe that your ancestors had the same ancestors as apes, then that's you not me. I don't have any apes in my family.What makes humans different from animals is the fact that we are spirits having souls that live in a body while animals are souls with a body.
newdayo 3 years ago
Btw, I'm not an atheist. It is possible to be - at the same time - a Darwinist and a religious person. The idea that evolution is a coincidental process implies that animals, plants and even anorganic mater had a non-causal "free will" of some kind, and that is unscientific too. I think, everything that happened, especially in nature/outside of the human society, was a necessary process and development, and therefore not incidental. It follows a pattern, a "reason" (in the philosophical sense).
ClearSpringwater 3 years ago
yourembyro: I fail to see how any of the quotes you give contradict the text in the video. I don't doubt what you have quoted, I'm just struggling to see what your argument is. Yes, it seems Galton was influenced by Darwinian theory, but Darwin's theory of evolution (a scientific theory describing how things are in nature, not a philosophy) can't be blamed for later misinterpretations or perversions of that theory i.e. eugenics (although I'm not even sure that was what you were getting at)...
dann54321 3 years ago
"In Galton's day, the science of genetics was not yet understood. Nevertheless, Darwin's theory of evolution taught that species did change as a result of natural selection, and it was well known that by artificial selection a farmer could obtain permanent breeds of plants and animals strong in particular characteristics. Galton wondered, "Could not the race of men be similarly improved?" "
yourembryo 3 years ago
"The word "eugenics" was coined in 1883 by the English scientist Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, to promote the ideal of perfecting the human race by, as he put it, getting rid of its "undesirables" while multiplying its "desirables" -- that is, by encouraging the procreation of the social Darwinian fit and discouraging that of the unfit."
yourembryo 3 years ago
Did you even research the subject before you put your teeny-bopper video on?
"At the time, a growing number of theorists introduced Darwinian analogies of "survival of the fittest" into social argument. Many social Darwinists insisted that biology was destiny, at least for the unfit, and that a broad spectrum of socially deleterious traits, ranging from "pauperism" to mental illness, resulted from heredity. "
yourembryo 3 years ago
Laughable you dolt.
"The specter of eugenics hovers over virtually all contemporary developments in human genetics. Eugenics was rooted in the social Darwinism of the late 19th century, a period in which notions of fitness, competition, and biological rationalizations of inequality were popular."
yourembryo 3 years ago
one is a natural process. the other is a human ideal, like an afterlife, for example.
gordonbennet 3 years ago
this idea of social darwinism is a bit like saying the theory of the big bang has caused people to set off bombs
gordonbennet 4 years ago 2
Fucking idiot. The idea is damn natural - we're not seperated from the nature. The idea of social darwinism isn't minimize the genetic foundation but select the collectively most beneficial ones - present, slowed down selection doesn't make any difference in larger scale 'cos the human breeding isn't limited. New combinations and mutations will take care of variety even after the selection part. The best - waste, mediocre genetic material could become eliminated. COLLECTIVE DEVELOPMENT.
VoDkAbkt 3 years ago
thats got nothing to do with natural darwinism. thats just a human ideology. evolution is not a constructive force, but a destructive force as it eliminates gene's that are not suitable to a particular environment. this idea of social darwinism is a constructive force, as there is an aim or goal at the end.
gordonbennet 3 years ago
The aim is development - and humanity. Right now, I don't make any fucking difference between natural forces and human beings, it's all the same construction called "nature", nothing more or less.
VoDkAbkt 3 years ago
God Remove the music!!!!!
jmcbmx 4 years ago
I beleive in Social Darwinism. Seriously.
jinnmao 4 years ago
People are engaging in social darwinism whether they admit to it or not. A 300 pound violent thug of a criminal can be superior in a fight against you and even if you lock him up he'll still insist on having and raising HIS kids to be future violent thugs. The "right" to have teach the property of his loins is unalienable. Ever heard of conjugal visits? Many violent criminals are dead sexy to women.
joesub007 4 years ago
This is indeed a problem. But its only a problem of liberal social-democracy. it a problem of those who deny the existence of (social)darwinism and a survival (or preveilance) of the fittest and hold criminals as poor victims of society.
ClearSpringwater 4 years ago
yes, someone who is violent or is locked up is only a problem for society. but in nature, those attributes are not a hindrince to passing on your genes, unless of course the environment changes, and such an individual would be locked up for life with no conjugal visits.
gordonbennet 3 years ago
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."--Charles Darwin What is he saying? That the theory he spent his lifetime trying to prove was wrong?
1972mommy 4 years ago
OUT OF CONTEXT!
I'm guessing you haven't read the full thing this quote came from. He then goes on to say how it is possible that this happened. Thois quote is favourite of creationalists, but it was setting the tone of what was to come and explaining his awe in the natural world.
AmberNightwolf 4 years ago
There is very little evidence to suggest that Darwin ever even existed. It actually started as a joke among athiests at the time and so a few books were written under the sudenym Charles Darwin in an attempt to undermin the Church of England's beleif system without the personal backlash. Charles Darwin's tomb is empty. The opened it in 1984, it was well documented.
busymartian 4 years ago
Never heard that before. Any documentation? Did you know his son Major Leonard Darwin presided over the first international eugenics conference and his great (or great great)grandson was interviewed on PBS a few weeks ago? Who are all the photos of and who wrote Origin and Descent?
Could it be that Darwin was not written by Darwin but another man with the same name?
eadgbe1 4 years ago
the short answer is simply
no
darwn was a pacifist, he hated violence:/ he wold have been detested if he had lived long enough to hear about social darwinism and eugenics:/
Erech01 4 years ago
True that Darwin was a mouse of man, but you have not done your homework. Descent of Man Chapter 5: "If the various checks specified in the last two paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and the otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world"
eadgbe1 4 years ago
he mentioed that it had happened in history, but in no way supported it.
eugenics and social darwinism were not brought about untill years after his death, he in no way supported them, norpossibly could have since he was not alive when thy came to be
Erech01 4 years ago
Sorry you are such youtubeian. His cousin Francis Galton invented modern eugenics and he referred to him and it in Descent. I am sure he would not have supported what happened as result of his theory, but he was warned by Adam Sedgwick and he ignored it and like a little boy playing with matches he started a fire that killed millions.
eadgbe1 4 years ago
Indeed, he did not support the "increasing" of "reckless, vicious and otherwise inferior members of society ... at a quicker rate than the better class of men". Indeed, man, indeed.
ClearSpringwater 4 years ago
P.S. evolution would encourage the opposite of violence if anything, evolution is about a species surviving to carry on their genes, what better way to survive then to get rid of war?
Erech01 4 years ago
Your video sucks.
Rolloffle216 4 years ago
The goal is survival of your own genetics, not the human race. By mating only with those in your own race, eventually human kind becomes a node in the evolutionary tree, and the races become independent species.
This is all but inevitable. Trying to stop it will only result in the loss of your own race. Which will end your own evolutionary branch.
TeslaAetheric 4 years ago
A goal is determined by any individual. If you wish to speciate yuor genetic traits from the rest of humanity, have at it, but that is not a goal dictated by Darwinian Evolution. But hey, if others are interested in other races sexually, who are you to tell them they can't fuck them?
jonthebaptist666 4 years ago
Evolution is a natural process, so therefore it has not "goal" (or intention) at all. However, evolution as biology observed it is just 'about' that: different (and usualy fitter) genes becoming a race of its own, and later a species of its own.
ClearSpringwater 4 years ago
social dawinism is retarded
extremepietbh 4 years ago
Spencer was a member of the X Club. The X Club eagerly promoted Darwin and his Origin..book. They got him the Copley medal from the Royal Council. Provide documentation to prove Spencer repudiated Darwin in favor of Lamarck. All 3 were spokes on the same wheel.
eadgbe1 4 years ago
As I don't have any texts to hand, I'll have to quote from the wikipedia article I linked to (which is referenced):
'Spencer's major work, Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) was released two years before the publication of Darwin's Origin Of Species, and First Principles was printed in 1860...'
dann54321 4 years ago
'In many ways Spencer's theory of "cosmic evolution" has much more in common with the works of Lamarck and Auguste Comte's positivism work than Darwin. Darwin's theory is concerned with populations, whereas Spencer's deals with the way an individual's motives influence humanity. Darwin's theory is probabilistic, i.e., based on changes in the environment that sooner or later influence the change of individuals in a collective sense, but do not have any single, specific goal'.
dann54321 4 years ago
cont..'Spencer's is deterministic (the evolution of human society is the only logical consequence of its previous stage), fatalistic (it cannot be influenced by human actions), single path (it travels a single path, cannot skip any stages or change them) and progressively finalistic (there is a final, perfect society that will be eventually reached). Darwin's theory does not equal progress, except in the sense that the new, evolved species will be better suited to their changing environment..
dann54321 4 years ago
(cont)..Spencer's theory introduces the concept of social progress — the new, evolved society is always better than the past.'
However, whether or not Darwin or Lamarck were bigger influences is a minor point here; evolution is a natural scientific process and does NOT promote eugenics or social darwinism, it describes how things are not how they should be.
dann54321 4 years ago
Please refer to a specific passage in Origin of the species that promotes Social Darwinism or encourages eugenics. An online version is available at talkorigins.
dann54321 4 years ago
From Descent of Man:
eadgbe1 4 years ago
Darwin from Descent of Man:
eadgbe1 4 years ago
We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check
the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the
maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men
exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last
moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved
thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have
eadgbe1 4 years ago
I don't know if you wanted to complete the rest of this quote, but so far it is nothing more than an accurate observation of modern society; no philosophical ideas or opinions are presented. I was also more interested in a passage from Origin of Species since you seemed to imply this book was to blame for eugenics and Social Darwinism, but I'll let you finish.
dann54321 4 years ago
Darwin wrote on eugenics and social Darwinism in Chapter 5 in the Descent of Man. Too long to quote here. Go to online version, word search 'small-pox'. There Darwin presents eugenics and social Darwinism very clearly although he doesn't use the terms.
eadgbe1 4 years ago
I'd prefer if you gave a few quotes to back up your argument, it should be easy enough if you say there is a whole chapter but I'll try and find it. But what about in Origin of Species? You implied this book was to blame for eugenics and social darwinism.
dann54321 4 years ago
As Darwin writes, '...some remarks on the action of
natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This
subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg, and previously
by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from
these three authors.'
dann54321 4 years ago
There is therefore some discussion of Galtons theories, but no-where does Darwin advocate eugenics or promote social Darwinism. Eugenics is a huge misinterpretation and perversion of evolutionary theory. It's also worth noting that eugenics existed long before Darwin. Social Darwinism under a different name also pre-dates Darwin's theory.
dann54321 4 years ago
(cont..) Herbert Spencer coined the phrase survival of the fittest *before* Darwin published Descent of Man, and he developed ideas of evolution and progress before Charles Darwin had written The Origin of Species.
Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection is descriptive not philosophical, and any individual who thinks what 'is' in nature 'ought' to be is a victim of the naturalistic fallacy.
dann54321 4 years ago
(cont..) Evolution by natural selection is an observable fact; even if Darwin as an individual *had* promoted eugenics himself, it wouldn't change this fact, and it certainly wouldn't mean the theory of natural selection itself promotes social Darwinism.
dann54321 4 years ago
actually, he was a pacifist, he hatedviolence of every kind, so social darwinism would have mde him rebel in isguist
pleaase give e some qoutes from the origin of speciess that mentions the two
Erech01 4 years ago
For even more proof Google Descent of Man, and word search small pox. There Darwin laments the fact that vaccine has kept people alive that should have died in the natural selection process. Pure social Darwinism. I will be happy to send you my matriculation fee.
eadgbe1 4 years ago
those were darwins opinions (if tey are not made up) not everyone who supports the theory of evolutions opinions, i support te theory, and i wold appose to anyone who thought that way
Erech01 4 years ago
Erasmus Darwin was Charles Darwin's grandfather, also Francis Galton's grandfather-Darwin and Galton were cousins. Galton came up with (+) eugenics after reading origin of the species, Charles Davenport obsessed on Galton and (-)eugenics,led to Buck v. Bell and 60,000 American sterilization, American (-) eugenics model adopted by Hitler, 350,000 sterilized,6,000,000 + euthanasias. That's history, thanks you Charley Darwin
eadgbe1 4 years ago
To blame Darwin for the atrocities committed by Hitler and others is ridiculous. Evolution does not promote eugenics. Advocates of social Darwinism are victims of the naturalistic fallacy.
dann54321 4 years ago
Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. Eugenics is based on bad biology; a better understanding of biology and evolution should counter arguments used for eugenics.
dann54321 4 years ago
You are also using a logical fallacy. You are basically saying: "Person 'A' influenced person 'B', who influenced person 'C' to influence person 'D' to commit action 'X'. Therefore person 'A' is to be blamed for action 'X'". Using this line of reasoning, anybody can be blamed for any action committed by another individual.
dann54321 4 years ago
well dann, it's not altogether surprising that his rational leads to one person being held responsible & punished for the actions of another. after all the bible does endorse such immorality. "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the 3rd and 4th generation..." Exodus 20:5 sickeningly ironic how theists link immorality with science & rational enquiry. thanks for this vid. it's important work.
lordsovereign 4 years ago
Thanks. I agree with your point about the injustice of the bible god but I don't want to get into that here :)
dann54321 4 years ago
You don't know the facts. Read War Against the Weak by Edmund Black. True it is bad biology, but Eugenics is totally based in evolution.All eugenicists were Darwinists.
eadgbe1 4 years ago
Sir Arthur Keith, British evolutionary anthropologist in Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman 1947) pg 28 & 230: "To see evolution ...applied rigorously to the affairs of a great nation, we turn again to Germany of 1942. Hitler devotedly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy...The Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."
eadgbe1 4 years ago
Before I respond, I'm just interested in whether you accept Darwin's theory of evolution or whether you are a creationist/anti-evolutionist?
dann54321 4 years ago
I am a follower of Jesus Christ and therefore creationist/anti-evolutionist.
eadgbe1 4 years ago
How does that make a difference?
Harpakhrad11 4 years ago
I like to know who I'm debating with. I tend to avoid serious discussions with creationists; it's usually futile debating any issue involving evolution with someone who has already made their mind up on the subject and who won't change their opinion.
dann54321 4 years ago
Hitler based his views on divine right philosophy, not Darwinism. For example:
'Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65, Mein Kampf).
See worldwideweb(.)talkorigins(.)org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1(.)html
dann54321 4 years ago
Obviously you know nothing of the Bible or history. Every historian agrees that Hitler was a social Darwinist, it is only a matter of degree. Mein Kampf:their higher or lower value of races...to promote the victory of the better, the stronger, and to demand the submission of the worse and weaker. Pure Darwinism.
eadgbe1 4 years ago
Careful now. I never said Hitler was not a Social Darwinist. He was of course. Darwinism is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of Charles Darwin concerning evolution and natural selection. Darwinism and Social Darwinism are NOT the same thing, but I know you don't see that.
Hitler clearly felt he was fulfilling the will of a divine being by exterminating the Jews. When did Darwin say that the Jews or another race should be exterminated because of a divine being?
dann54321 4 years ago
As PhD historian Richard Weikart wrote in Darwin and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany 1859 to 1920:"There is no doubt that Hitler was a Social Darwinist, viewing history as a struggle for existence among unequal races. All Hitler scholars agree on this point, and it is too obvious to deny when one reads Mein Kampf. (Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 63, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 323-344)."
eadgbe1 4 years ago
In fact, I think really, the biggest Social Darwinists are the people who don't believe in evolution at all.
Lynching inferior races, limited genetic variation I.e. imbreeding, self-rightiousness, believeing they are serving a higher power who wants them to destroy the lesser beings and convert the survivours to their cause, where have we heard that before?
dechha1981 4 years ago
Thank you. Natural Selection I understand but I don't know much about Social Darwinism other than the fact that it's defenders seem to be... I don't respect them. I'm a Neo-Darwinian which basically just means I'm aware of stuff that was discovered after Darwin like mutation. But I don't like those murder-worshiping idiots associating a great natural biologist with their insanity.
dechha1981 4 years ago
Eh, I had trouble reading and listening to the music at the same time -.-
ffbfny 4 years ago
Yea its probably better to watch on mute, the music is a bit distracting; an instrumental song probably works better in these types of videos but this is the only song I had that vaguely fitted the theme of the video.
dann54321 4 years ago
Nicely made. Not that it will have any effect or anything -- fundies don't have the intelligence to understand history OR science.
JodasPinkt 4 years ago
Thanks. I agree, it won't change the mind of any young earth creationists, but at least the facts are there for everyone to see.
dann54321 4 years ago