Nazis, Eugenics, and Evolution

An appeal to people to stop bringing up Nazis (and their eugenics programs) to attack one's enemies and their arguments.

I point out the logical problems with claims that evolution is wrong because of eugenics and that it leads to eugenics.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• nazis
• eugenics
• evolution
• creationism
• ID
• intelligent
• design
• Hitler
• expelled
• argumentum
• ad
• Hitlerum
• logical
• fallacy

[Klazzt]

I wrote a blog/rant on the misuse of Hitler and Nazism as an argument against science. My girlfriend's Jewish best friend went snooping around and found it and was outraged. While I might have used dicey language, by context any reasonable person could tell that I wasn't bashing the Holocaust, but the people who use it to push their agendas.

I think people attach WAY too many emotions to Nazism, so many that it's hard for reasonable people like me to criticize those who use it in argument. Ugh.

[EvoBiologist]

@Klazzt Yeah - it's definitely a sensitive subject that conjures up a lot of emotions. I think that's why people like to use Nazis and the Holocaust as propaganda points. A position can be very convincing if someone successfully associates the opposition with Hitler.

[elmore1735]

I'm going to have to remember the term "argument ad hitlerum" for discussions with a coworker.

[EvoBiologist]

@elmore1735 Yeah, once you compare someone to Hitler in order to make a rhetorical point in an argument, you've just lost the argument. Hopefully your coworker will understand why.

[EvoBiologist]

@011nathi "evolution is not original theory"

True, many scientists and philosophers before Darwin suggested that organisms change over time. Darwin made the first really clear explanation (though not the first mention) for how this is driven by natural selection of variation in a population.

I'm not familiar with the gnostic teachings you are referring to, but no biologist is claiming that animals evolved from plants. Both evolved from ancient protists.

[011nathi]

@EvoBiologist evolution is not original theory... this idea came from gnosticism that say god is an spirit in evolution going from stones, to vegetables, animals, etc

[EvoBiologist]

@creationliberty Since, like all science, evolution explains a natural occurrence (in this case, the family tree-like pattern of diversity) without mention of anything supernatural, I don't see how it could be a religion. Even if it were, why would that make it any less likely to be true?

Evolution does not require you to abandon an absolute religiously based moral code. Even if it did - again - how is this relevant to whether or not it is true?

On another note, is beating your slaves okay?

[creationliberty]

I think people shouldn't accept evolution because it's a religion, but if you want throw eugenics into the mix, I think the argument's even more compelling. Without an absolute standard, a "thus sayeth the Lord," there is not such thing as right and wrong. One who believe in evolution/humanism or any flavors in between, have no justification for right and wrong besides their own opinions.

>>See my videos on "Evolution is a Religion" and "The Dangers of Evolution p 4&5" for more details.<<

[EvoBiologist]

@GoodScienceForYou "...read my long and well presented "paper"..."

Where on your site can I find this "paper"? I'd be happy to examine your ideas and give you some feedback.