EG, OK, fine. I'm a stupid, ignorant, self-serving propagandist. However, it is not so much the idea that Hitler was the result of Darwin than it is the idea that Hitler was able to rise to power, spread his filth, and propagandize his ideas of the supreme race because of the irrationality of some misguided Materialists. The same way Islamist irrationally twist their faith.
These materialist ideas had their roots in the thinking of Kant, Nietzche, Keirkegard, and Darwin. It seems to me pretty obvious that Hitler would not have been able to gain a foothold in German society were it not for his interpretations, and understanding of these ideas. Especially, given the environment occurri...

EG, OK, fine. I'm a stupid, ignorant, self-serving propagandist. However, it is not so much the idea that Hitler was the result of Darwin than it is the idea that Hitler was able to rise to power, spread his filth, and propagandize his ideas of the supreme race because of the irrationality of some misguided Materialists. The same way Islamist irrationally twist their faith.
These materialist ideas had their roots in the thinking of Kant, Nietzche, Keirkegard, and Darwin. It seems to me pretty obvious that Hitler would not have been able to gain a foothold in German society were it not for his interpretations, and understanding of these ideas. Especially, given the environment occurring in Germany at the time and the willingness of the Germans to accept this evil.
I do not get your comment. It seems to me that understanding the underlying principles behind world views and philosophies is beneficial.
There are lots of scientists and thinkers that have had their ideas used by later societies. Examples: Jefferson borrowed philosophies of Hume and others to write The Constitution. Bin Laden, Lenin used Marx, Bin Laden used Mohammed.
These are not indictments on the thinkers, rathe indictments on those that twist the ideas.
I hope you will explain your comments because I am truly amused. If you cannot explain why you suggest I am "ignorant" and "stupid" and a "propagandist", then I can only assume the materialist ideology of our own day is slanting your view. I agree there is lots of propaganda out there, but to just call something propaganda and disregard it without saying why, is a dangerous clue to our freightening times.

Although this oversimplifies a complex issue, it does raise a valid concern. Social Darwinism is a barbaic philosophy enshrined in the socialogical dogma of both Fascism and Communism.

However, we should not overlook the fact that the model through which we currently understand evolution is not a Darwinian one. We have a complex biological understanding of this phenomenon based on genetics, something which Darwin knew little or nothing about. Although Darwin's original postulations have served as the inspiration for much of today's evolutionary theory, they are not truly its basis. Refuting Darwin does not refute evolution. He is simply the most prominent name associated in the popular imag...

Although this oversimplifies a complex issue, it does raise a valid concern. Social Darwinism is a barbaic philosophy enshrined in the socialogical dogma of both Fascism and Communism.

However, we should not overlook the fact that the model through which we currently understand evolution is not a Darwinian one. We have a complex biological understanding of this phenomenon based on genetics, something which Darwin knew little or nothing about. Although Darwin's original postulations have served as the inspiration for much of today's evolutionary theory, they are not truly its basis. Refuting Darwin does not refute evolution. He is simply the most prominent name associated in the popular imagination with evolution.

The very problem of Social Darwinism is that it takes evolution out of its scientific context, away from its basis in genetics, and applies it to other fields of study, such as anthropology. (The same has been done for Freud's discredited theories of psychoanalysis, with no better results. In many ways Freud is a thinker highly analogous to Darwin, in that they are both highly creative, but lack scientific substance.)

To suggest that the crimes of Social Darwinism refute evolution, however, is a logical fallacy known as "The Straw Man," where in you attack an argument by presenting it in a form which you yourself have distorted in ways that undermine its essential premises.

This completely fails to address the substantial body of genetic evidence that beings change biologically over time in response to environmental conditions.

Christian anti-semitism doesn't lead to shoving people into ovens. Materialist ideology leads to subjective rationale for such atrocities.

Look, clearly I have hit the "hot button" with you and your God of Materialism. I simply suggest how the environment developed. You Christian bash. Anti-semitism exist TODAY. However, the environment to shove people into ovens DOES NOT. No matter how bad you want to diminish the distinctions and obvious facts, you are only entering your own incoherent Hell.

Why is Darwin said to have laid the foundations for Nazi genocide, but
not Luther? Because I am seeing a whole lot more similarities between
Luther and the Nazis than I am between Darwi...

Christian anti-semitism doesn't lead to shoving people into ovens. Materialist ideology leads to subjective rationale for such atrocities.

Look, clearly I have hit the "hot button" with you and your God of Materialism. I simply suggest how the environment developed. You Christian bash. Anti-semitism exist TODAY. However, the environment to shove people into ovens DOES NOT. No matter how bad you want to diminish the distinctions and obvious facts, you are only entering your own incoherent Hell.

Why is Darwin said to have laid the foundations for Nazi genocide, but
not Luther? Because I am seeing a whole lot more similarities between
Luther and the Nazis than I am between Darwin and the Nazis.

I say again: That is not relevant. It is about the climate induced by materialist
philosophy. I would never suggest that Darwin supported the ideology of
Hitler any more than I would suggest Mohammed supports the ideology of
Bin Laden.

This is an old argument which often arises from the confusion of Darwinism and Eugenics; with Eugenics it's self being an interpretation of one part of "Darwinism" with out reference to the whole theory.

Darwinism is in direct opposition of the "ideals" if Nazi Germany. Darwinism states that for a species to survive then it must be able to adapt to external pressures and changes (Survival of the fittest). A species fitness can be measured by the ability to quickly adapt to change or by having enough existing variation so that a significant proportion of the population is likely to be able to survive. That is to say, more variation within a population leaves it less open to extinction ...

This is an old argument which often arises from the confusion of Darwinism and Eugenics; with Eugenics it's self being an interpretation of one part of "Darwinism" with out reference to the whole theory.

Darwinism is in direct opposition of the "ideals" if Nazi Germany. Darwinism states that for a species to survive then it must be able to adapt to external pressures and changes (Survival of the fittest). A species fitness can be measured by the ability to quickly adapt to change or by having enough existing variation so that a significant proportion of the population is likely to be able to survive. That is to say, more variation within a population leaves it less open to extinction due to, for example, disease. This can be exemplified by the current Panama disease blight which is threatening the Cavendish banana, which is the type of banana preferred in the western world. The Cavendish is sterile and cannot sexually reproduce they are genetically-identical clones propagated by vegetative reproduction by farmers and therefore they cannot evolve disease resistance.

It should be clear that genocide is in direct conflict with Darwinian theory as it reduces the fitness of the human race.

It seems that this discussion has been derailed by a different straw man now, and that is the question: who is to blame for Genocide and antisemitism. I could suggest a rather disappointing option now: no single person or idea is responsible for any of this.

Since the question of the impact of Darwinism has been diverted to the question of "who is to blame for the Holocaust" I will raise my points in a different forum.

Still, is it not slightly disingenuous to suggest that Darwinism is to blame for the atrocities of Nazi Germany? Doesn't the responsibility still lie with the individuals such as Hitler himself and the Germans who empowered him? After all, you can't argue that there is a ne...

It seems that this discussion has been derailed by a different straw man now, and that is the question: who is to blame for Genocide and antisemitism. I could suggest a rather disappointing option now: no single person or idea is responsible for any of this.

Since the question of the impact of Darwinism has been diverted to the question of "who is to blame for the Holocaust" I will raise my points in a different forum.

Still, is it not slightly disingenuous to suggest that Darwinism is to blame for the atrocities of Nazi Germany? Doesn't the responsibility still lie with the individuals such as Hitler himself and the Germans who empowered him? After all, you can't argue that there is a necessary and exclusive connection between belief in evolution and the commission of genocide, since there are not only non-eugenic genocides, there are also lots of regular people who believe in evolution who don't commit genocide. To suggest that their beliefs somehow link those people to Hitler is needlessly inflammatory and sensational. I'm very tired of hearing the Holocaust and Nazi Germany being invoked at every corner by both sides of the political media.

If I may be allowed to offer my perspective, I believe that the tension on this thread resulted from Mr. Kennedy, far more than any of us.

That is to say, by choosing to use the example of the Holocaust in what would be an otherwise reasonable critique of Social Darwinism (and the connection between Social Darwinism and the ideas of Charles Darwin is worth discussion) Kennedy made the issue needlessly inflammatory.

For those of us whose families suffered during the Holocaust (Not only Jews, but Gypsies, Slavs, and many who were not sent to the camps but became victims in their own villages throughout Eastern Europe) it seems, I say again, disingenuous reductionism to attribute the causatio...

If I may be allowed to offer my perspective, I believe that the tension on this thread resulted from Mr. Kennedy, far more than any of us.

That is to say, by choosing to use the example of the Holocaust in what would be an otherwise reasonable critique of Social Darwinism (and the connection between Social Darwinism and the ideas of Charles Darwin is worth discussion) Kennedy made the issue needlessly inflammatory.

For those of us whose families suffered during the Holocaust (Not only Jews, but Gypsies, Slavs, and many who were not sent to the camps but became victims in their own villages throughout Eastern Europe) it seems, I say again, disingenuous reductionism to attribute the causation to a particular ideology, aside from to Nazism itself. (Although, I can only say I speak for myself.)

On some level I am offended by every politician and pundit who invokes the Holocaust simply to add weight to their own agendas.