|
|
|
DarelRex
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2008 : 12:24:47
|
Although in agreement with ID's most basic premise, I have become disgusted with all the "Darwin leads to Hitler" stuff that's been appearing on pro-ID blogs in recent months. Therefore, my own blog entry about it:
http://alienryderflex.com/darwin_hitler_baloney.shtml
Enjoy.
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 13:55:46 [Permalink]
|
Congratulations!
You've seen through the first lie of the ID-movement.
Now there's only 100 more to go...
We'd be happy to help you clear your vision, just ask and we'll do what we can to enlighten you!
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 06/22/2008 : 14:28:43 [Permalink]
|
Hi DarelRex, and welcome to SFN!
The article on your blog is a very good one. Darwin - Nazi is a red herring that has been tossed around all to much. The laughable part about it is that even if it were entirely true, it would in no way devalue the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, it's rather like saying that fornication causes syphilis -- wouldn't be suprised to see that one show up at some fundie site or other.
We discussed Expelled at some length here and here. Some of us were pretty empathetic about it.
I do not think that it is possible for the ID crowd to have made their case in a worse way. It insults the intelligence of all who see it, and has turned out to be an overhyped, total bomb.
Therefore, I hope they make another one soon.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 15:36:13 [Permalink]
|
I've skimmed through the blog article and have some comments...
The people you call Darwinists must be a very small minority group with the larger mass of scientifically educated (and laymen) people. Because I don't recognize the attribute of believing in Darwinism.
Evolutionary biologists and biology students think that evolutionary biology describes the reality of nature as we can see (and measure) it.
The Theory of Biological Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.
As such, most of us do not think that what you call Darwinism is something to model human society after. Social Darwinism is something faschists and other idiots may have on their concience, but I don't want anything to do with it. Neither does anyone else I know.
The "social consequences of Darwinism" is simply a boogey-man ID proponentists use for political puropses, and argument to emotion pandering to fear. I detest people who are trying to use that argument. I'm glad you are not one of them.
I like the fact that you're providing a socio-economic background to post WW1 Germany to show the reason why they went Nazi. Take a look at the socio-economic situation in Middle East countries, and remember that the Western civilization's history of exploitation and isolation of the Arabic countries have left them in a similar position as Germany, is it so strange that charismatic extremists have taken control in those countries? This time it's not the Jews (well, yes partly) but the "American Imperialists" that is the root of all Evil and has to be destroyed.
One can't accuse Islamistic fundamentalists of being Darwinists, they'd shoot you dead...
As for the second part of your blobpost, regarding culling, repair, and destructive mutations... I'll leave it for now.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 17:38:46 [Permalink]
|
Hi and welcome.
While everybody with half a brain (or even a complete one) would agree with your opinion on Bein Stein cinematographic excrement; it seems, after reading your blog, that you only have a rudimentary knowledge of Evolution theory.
Are you familiar with this site?
It's a great site and might help you understanding the subject better.
Also; I am not sure what to do of the following passage:
| Many of them were probably genetically superior to the great majority of those not killed |
.
And, if you have a question, don't hesitate to ask. People around here like to share their knowledge (provided that the person on the other side is honestly curious). |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/22/2008 : 18:00:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Also; I am not sure what to do of the following passage:
| Many of them were probably genetically superior to the great majority of those not killed |
|
Good. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this was an odd statement. If one is to repudiate eugenics, then this sort of statement isn't the one you want to make. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2008 : 03:19:33 [Permalink]
|
"Genetically superior" is very poor terminology. It implies that evolution "advances." It does not; it merely, and sometimes wrongly, selects for for the ecological niche that an organism inhabits. Further it does not weed out "inferior" individuals. The niche itself might do that or the organisms might migrate to more friendly environs. Or that population might even begin to evolve in a different direction. I remind: Individuals mutate; only populations evolve and in the blind eye of evolution, none is superior to another.
As for the Nazis vs. the Jews, and 'most everyone else except certain American industrialist war-profiteers such as Prescott Bush, a better term might be "ethically & morally superior."
And to remove any doubt as to the religious beliefs of the Nazis, they were relentlessly Christian. Hitler himself was a confirmed Catholic and a one-time alter boy (which might be why he walked funny.)
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
DarelRex
New Member
USA
6 Posts |
 Posted - 06/23/2008 : 19:00:05 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for commenting on my blog entry! A few clarifications/counterpoints:
I haven't actually seen "Expelled," nor opined about it. Naturally, I hear only positive descriptions from IDists and negative ones from Darwinists, so I'll have to see it someday to have any idea what to think of it. My article is a response to the rash of Darwin-to-Hitler arguments I've been seeing on ID sites.
Regarding my statement, "Many of them were probably genetically superior to the great majority of those not killed," to which Cuneiformist says, "I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this was an odd statement. If one is to repudiate eugenics, then this sort of statement isn't the one you want to make.":
Whenever someone tries to tell me that no human individual is genetically superior to any other human individual, I know that person either takes me for a moron, is one himself, or is intellectually paralyzed by the fear of being branded a Nazi. If I want to repudiate eugenics, I must find a logical way to do so that I myself believe, and that I think I might actually convince other rational persons to believe -- otherwise I cannot repudiate it at all. (I attempt to do precisely that in the "Culling" section of the article.) |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2008 : 19:27:48 [Permalink]
|
Regarding my statement, "Many of them were probably genetically superior to the great majority of those not killed," to which Cuneiformist says, "I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought this was an odd statement. If one is to repudiate eugenics, then this sort of statement isn't the one you want to make."
Whenever someone tries to tell me that no human individual is genetically superior to any other human individual, I know that person either takes me for a moron, is one himself, or is intellectually paralyzed by the fear of being branded a Nazi.
|
Or, maybe, this person is reasonably intelligent and just sees no reason to call a population genetically superior?
What do you call superior, anyway? The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about being superior.
More efficient at passing its genes under a given environment, sure. But not superior.
Not to mention that, apart from the extremes example of tiny populations that suffer prolonged isolation and inbreeding, all human populations are genetically just about the same.
Sure, some genes are more prevalent in given populations than in others but we are talking about a handful of recent mutations in a tiny number of genes in a total of 30.000 of them.
Hardly anything significant. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2008 : 19:34:40 [Permalink]
|
| I suppose I'm just at a loss for what you mean by "superior" then. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/23/2008 : 19:39:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by DarelRex
Whenever someone tries to tell me that no human individual is genetically superior to any other human individual, I know that person either takes me for a moron, is one himself, or is intellectually paralyzed by the fear of being branded a Nazi. |
The problem is that which individuals are "superior" is only discoverable by examining their progeny, many generations removed from the individual's life. What might be a genetic "weakness" today could, due to a changing environment, become a highly desirable trait for survival tomorrow (and vice versa, of course). There is no absolute scale of what is or is not "superior."
Eugenicists think they know what "superior" ought to be, and make moral decisions based upon their arrogance - weeding out the "inferior" genes is the "right" thing to do. But from a simple reproductive point-of-view, the chronically ill and feeble but brutal dictator who fathers 50 or 60 kids out of wedlock while slaughtering thousands of political enemies is vastly "superior" to the healthy and strong genius Nobel Prize winning doctor who never got to first base because he was too busy trying to save lives. That's the sort of moral backwardness that comes from even trying to apply "superior" and "inferior" labels to people's genes.
So the simple and logically sound anti-eugenics argument is that the people deciding what's "superior" or "inferior" about genetics can't predict the future environment, so the choices they make cannot be better than guessing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2008 : 00:21:44 [Permalink]
|
Darel said:
| I must find a logical way to do so that I myself believe, and that I think I might actually convince other rational persons to believe |
| Although in agreement with ID's most basic premise |
You don't see the problem here? ID is an argument that relies on a supernatural premise, so by definition it is irrational. If you think there is any merit to the ID argument/position, then you can't really describe yourself as rational on this topic.
Edited to add quote bracket -- Cune
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/24/2008 03:51:31 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2008 : 02:16:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by DarelRex
Whenever someone tries to tell me that no human individual is genetically superior to any other human individual, I know that person either takes me for a moron, is one himself, or is intellectually paralyzed by the fear of being branded a Nazi. |
The problem is that which individuals are "superior" is only discoverable by examining their progeny, many generations removed from the individual's life. What might be a genetic "weakness" today could, due to a changing environment, become a highly desirable trait for survival tomorrow (and vice versa, of course). There is no absolute scale of what is or is not "superior."
Eugenicists think they know what "superior" ought to be, and make moral decisions based upon their arrogance - weeding out the "inferior" genes is the "right" thing to do. But from a simple reproductive point-of-view, the chronically ill and feeble but brutal dictator who fathers 50 or 60 kids out of wedlock while slaughtering thousands of political enemies is vastly "superior" to the healthy and strong genius Nobel Prize winning doctor who never got to first base because he was too busy trying to save lives. That's the sort of moral backwardness that comes from even trying to apply "superior" and "inferior" labels to people's genes.
So the simple and logically sound anti-eugenics argument is that the people deciding what's "superior" or "inferior" about genetics can't predict the future environment, so the choices they make cannot be better than guessing.
|
Perhaps in that sense one could argue that some people are genetically inferior, for example in the case of people with severe mental or physical handicaps? So severe that they will not have offspring, nor contribute to society? But that would be a very small and selective group of people, a group where non-eugenicists generally also are divided on the necessary course of action. Eugenicists usually like to paint with a broader brush. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2008 : 14:21:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Perhaps in that sense one could argue that some people are genetically inferior, for example in the case of people with severe mental or physical handicaps? So severe that they will not have offspring, nor contribute to society? |
Well, really, in from an evolutionary viewpoint, your "success" doesn't depend upon you having kids, but on your kids having kids. A stallion that breeds with a hundred donkeys, all of whom bear young, wouldn't be considered "successful" because while wildly prodigious, his foals would almost certainly all be sterile themselves. Lots of mating with no grandchildren is a biological failure. So the "bad genes" in your examples would likely belong to the parents, not the mentally or physically handicapped kids.
But more to the point, mental and physical handicaps can result from either genetic causes or developmental causes (fetal alcohol syndrome, for example), and who is to say without screening which is which in any particular case? As a parent, I could see a benefit in having a handicapped child tested to learn whether or not the same problems would be likely to present in another child conceived later due to genetic causes (or if it were just a developmental mishap), but certainly that's a personal issue and there's no way in hell I would ever mandate such a thing.| But that would be a very small and selective group of people, a group where non-eugenicists generally also are divided on the necessary course of action. Eugenicists usually like to paint with a broader brush. |
Agreed. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 06/24/2008 : 14:40:31 [Permalink]
|
The definitve argument against Intelligent Design. Please note these two word are absolute proof against b]Intelligent[/b] Design. That is not to say some moron, or someone with a sick sense of humor did not do it..... It's just not b]Intelligent[/b].
Ready....
The two words are AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES. That's right boys and girls.... The designer set up the body in a way so that it would attack itself.
Back to Halo. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Darwin + Hitler = Baloney
