Natural selection (evolutionism) => Eugenics => Nazi Germany

[McBell]

ID says we can change things in plants and animals OUTSIDE of natural selection.

Will you please link to where you got this particular idea about ID?
I have searched but have yet to find anything that even comes close.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No, we practice bio-engineering.

How is that NOT intelligent design? Should I start another thread on this?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Will you please link to where you got this particular idea about ID?
I have searched but have yet to find anything that even comes close.

The Intelligent Design Movement

You are so caught up making it into a heinous religious movement, that you completely miss the OTHER implications of ID.

 

[McBell]

The Intelligent Design Movement

Perhaps you presented the wrong link.
There is nothing in that one that even hints that ID "says we can change things in plants and animals OUTSIDE of natural selection."

It states that ID is the search for evidence to show that life was intelligently designed.

You are so caught up making it into a heinous religious movement, that you completely miss the OTHER implications of ID.

I will not dignify this blatant BS with a reply.

 

[Magic Man]

How is that NOT intelligent design? Should I start another thread on this?

OK, you're talking about two different versions of intelligent design. By your standards, a house in intelligent design.

The ID movement is only concerned with the origins of all life. Humans couldn't have had a hand in the origin of all life, and neither could aliens. If all life was intelligently designed, then the designer must have been God.

If you just want to talk about the concept of "intelligent design" outside of the movement and religion, then, sure, humans are intelligent designers. The thing is, no one (or at least not many) will disagree with that. However, it also gets you nowhere. Let's say we all agree that intelligent design takes place because humans are intelligent designers. Then what?

 

[Magic Man]

The Intelligent Design Movement

You are so caught up making it into a heinous religious movement, that you completely miss the OTHER implications of ID.

What are the other implications?

Also, the ID Movement is a religious movement. They try to hide it in an attempt to gain credit, but their real goal is to prove that God is the intelligent designer.

 

[McBell]

What are the other implications?

Other than Pete's semantics games, I have not found any.
The link he provided sure does not support it.

Also, the ID Movement is a religious movement. They try to hide it in an attempt to gain credit, but their real goal is to prove that God is the intelligent designer.

All the evidence I have seen thus far, to include Pete's link, agrees with you.

I even took Pete's suggestion that I look up and learn about creationism and ID and still, I have found nothing to support his semantics from the creationist or ID sites.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yet, we practice ID. ID says we can change things in plants and animals OUTSIDE of natural selection. Most colleges have entire departments devoted to bioengineering.

No, that's not what ID says. At its core, ID says two things:

- that evolution as the standard theory presents it (i.e. a long history of incremental change through adaptation to the immediate local environment) is not sufficient to cause either the variety of life on Earth or the history of its development.

- that the variety and/or history of life shows marks of having been designed by some sort of intelligence.

Now... I know plenty of theists that would agree with the second point above, but not with this next point, which is the kicker if you want to call ID "science":

- that both points above are supported by (or, when put forward as a hypothesis, that they could conceivably be supported by) physical, measurable evidence.

The Intelligent Design Movement

You are so caught up making it into a heinous religious movement, that you completely miss the OTHER implications of ID.

What are they?

Edit: it seems like you're working on a different definition of "intelligent design" than the rest of us. Dembski's definition in the article you quoted seems generally adequate (though I strongly disagree with his characterization of ID as a theory):

Within biology, Intelligent Design is a theory of biological origins and development. Its fundamental claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complex, information-rich structures of biology, and that these causes are empirically detectable.

 

[Alceste]

I agree. Unfortunately, this is how Hitler saw it:

"The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all..."

"If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile..."

"By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency. The decrease in numbers therefore implies an increase of strength, as far as the individual is concerned, and this finally means the invigoration of the species."

"For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned."​

Hiya, rocketman. I will quote this post since you referred to it in your last post as evidence that the Nazi party was influenced by Darwin's "Origin of species".

In short, I think this falls well short of evidence. Can you please cross reference this with any similar passage from Darwin's writings? I don't recall anything about Nature having a "will" that could be "scorned", or that organisms have a "higher nature", or a obligation not to breed with "lower" individuals, or that "weakling" species look upon nature as "cruel", or, well any of it. Also, Origin of Species makes no reference to race. No reference to humans at all, in fact.

Do you think there is a similarity because he used the word "evolution" (or, rather, its German equivalent)? Darwin himself did not use this particular word to describe his theory, in part because it was already in use by biologists in other fields to describe unrelated processes, and because it suggested a type of progress his preferred term "descent with modification" does not imply. In any case the word evolution existed and was in use elsewhere before his theories on speciation were published. So did the word "nature" and the word "species".

If you are going to argue there is an influence present, you'll have to go much further than quoting sentences which happen to include particular words that the "influencer" is believed (in this case falsely) to also have used.

Am I correct in assuming you haven't read On the Origin of Species? It is online, if you're interested. Reading it would be a healthy start on the road to establishing whether or not the Nazis were influenced by Darwin's book. The next step would be to compare this with the influence of the widespread anti-Semitic Christian writings (which were widely acted upon by both church and state hundreds of years before Darwin's birth). These writings insist the Jews are an inferior / diseased / accursed race whose survival is offensive to God or nature.

 

[Alceste]

... continued

This talk of Hitler's religious motivations is irrelevant.

I think it serves rather well to demonstrate that Hitler borrowed any concept he thought might be useful to his mission to become the absolute ruler of an unthinking public. He's quite clear (in Mein Kampf, at least) that the mission of the Nazi party could not be accomplished unless the religious ideals of the "common folk" were redirected to the will of the state (i.e. his will). It is understandable (as much as anything a fascist sociopath does is "understandable") that he would become bitter when his efforts to impose a state religion failed.

In any case, he used explicit references to theistic concepts (i.e. the "will" of Nature) at least as regularly and prolifically as references to "survival of the fittest" (which in any case was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin). The point of bringing religion into it is that if the TOE is "dangerous" because the Nazis misused or misunderstood it, then so is Christianity.

Read further and you will see that it was only when he saw the Jews were different 'people' that he knew he wanted to oppose them. So I don't see religion as being his motivation. And as you will see, religion was not his cup of tea anyway. Hitler was an expert at manipulating lots of people with propoganda, and especially deception. And you are one of them.

Do you see the hypocrisy of this? You begin by taking Hitler's thoughts on Jewish race at face value, claiming this demonstrates he was influenced by Darwin, and conclude by saying I am deceived because you think I took his thoughts on religion at face value (and I didn't, as explained above) to assert he was influenced by religion.

Think about it.

(quotes omitted for space) and so on... These are considered his true to form opinions, which he happily began sprouting once he was in absolute command. You can buy the whole collection here.

Hope that helps.

Again, his use of the word "evolution" without a Darwinian idea attached does not denote any relationship to the theory of descent with modification, and his hatred of Christianity does not denote a lack of supernatural theistic belief.

Anyway, rather than wait for a response to my invitation to demonstrate a connection, I went looking for one myself and found an article that might interest you. link I can accept the arguments he's presented as reasonable and well-supported by the facts. I would conclude that while there is no explicit connection between Darwin and the Nazis, Darwin's theories had spread broadly enough in the public awareness that some of the Nazis would have been aware of the existence of it - after all they banned books about it and mandated it unfit for an Aryan education.

 

[rocketman]

Hiya, rocketman. I will quote this post since you referred to it in your last post as evidence that the Nazi party was influenced by Darwin's "Origin of species".

Er, sorry, you didn't seem to get my post at all Alceste. I never used the word 'influence'. I said they thought they were helping natural selection. They even said so. Please go back and read my post more carefully. Thank you.

Also, Origin of Species makes no reference to race. No reference to humans at all, in fact.

Darwin's next book certainly does, and it suggests that some men are less evolved than others. This was well known by the 1930s in Europe. But again, I said it was not the direct motivator, rather that they can see themselves as the victors in the story of struggle, savvy?

 

[rocketman]

The point of bringing religion into it is that if the TOE is "dangerous" because the Nazis misused or misunderstood it, then so is Christianity.

The words in your sentence are jumbled the wrong way around if they are meant to be assigned in some way to me. It's the misuses which are dangerous, not the TOE. I said as plain as daylight that the science is neutral, and you are (hopefully unintentionally) completely mis-characterising my overall thrust.

Do you see the hypocrisy of this?

No. I'll show you why. What he said about having reason to hate the Jews was later shown to be correct, he really was a racist. So that part of Mein Kampf can be considered true to form. So religion as a motivator is out. As for his gilding the lily over theology, that part can be considered crap, based of his later admissions. You seemed to be boasting that religion was as big a factor as anything but you have yet to provide evidence. Certainly there is far more talk of 'natural' than 'supernatural' in relation to the 'final solution' across all of the works I have read from that time period. How much of it was Darwin's concept is debatable, but no one can deny that the concept of 'helping natural slection' was a primary justification. I was in the end only trying to clear a few things up for you.

Again, his use of the word "evolution" without a Darwinian idea attached does not denote any relationship to the theory of descent with modification, and his hatred of Christianity does not denote a lack of supernatural theistic belief.

I made no highlight or mention of the word 'evolution' in those quotes about religion, but you have. I quoted them to show where he stood on christianity, which is the religion you boasted in post #64 as having been one of the key factors:

" ... in order to establish whether Hitler was more influenced by Christianity or evolutionary biology... And I will! If you are not yet convinced!"

As I've shown, we can rule out christianity. If he had another religion, it does not seem to have been recorded anywhere. Just out of curiosity, can you supply details? Especially on how that 'religion' factored into the 'final solution'?

Anyway, rather than wait for a response to my invitation to demonstrate a connection, I went looking for one myself and found an article that might interest you. link

"smoothed the path for Nazi ideology" (Weikart) ;

".. contributed to the rise of Nazism.." (Stephen Gould)

... Neither of which are claims that the TOE caused the genocide.

The essay you cite is interesting but largely subjective. For balance, may I suggest this response:

Response to Richards

 

[rocketman]

The ID movement is only concerned with the origins of all life. Humans couldn't have had a hand in the origin of all life, and neither could aliens. If all life was intelligently designed, then the designer must have been God.

I'm growing tired of this. It doesn't have to be about the ultimate cause, anymore than evolution has to be about abiogenesis. Dawkins' quip about 'higher intelligences' correctly pointed out that they would have had to come from somewhere too, and it follows that the extra 'somewhere' could be outside the scope of the study of ID. So logically, even if you could show there was a designer, you would NOT necessarily be showing that it was a GOD. It could assist in making belief in a God more intellectually attractive, but that's all folks.

 

[Magic Man]

I said they thought they were helping natural selection.

The guys who crashed the planes into the World Trade Centers thought they were helping God. Should we blame that on religion, then, if we are going to blame the Holocaust on Darwin or evolution? Or would it be more fair to blame them both on inadequacies in the perpetrators brains?

(I haven't read your whole exchange here, so this might be taken somewhat out of context. Disregard it if you're not suggesting there's a problem with evolution because Hitler might have used it as motivation.)

Darwin's next book certainly does, and it suggests that some men are less evolved than others. This was well known by the 1930s in Europe. But again, I said it was not the direct motivator, rather that they can see themselves as the victors in the story of struggle, savvy?

I would like to see that. I would expect it to say something more like that some races have gone through a more extensive evolutionary change because of their moves to different climates. I would be utterly shocked if it suggested that those races which were "more evolved" were "better" than others. "More evolved" would probably mean "different" rather than "better".

 

[rocketman]

Why then do you think that so many pro-evolutionists (most of are not even scientists) feel the need to assign this as being ALL about religion. Are they simply over-reacting to the Religious Right's adoption of this area of science? I noted in the paper that McClintock had to endure hostility as well in her getting started. Is this just status quo? Open a new line of thought only to have the Blue Meanies beat you up first?

Good question, thanks for asking. I think human nature is one of the biggest factors: the fear that ideas change society into something that is different and perhaps unpleasant. I think this fear is unfounded, especially in most nations were secular law maintains a healthy barrier between religious freedom and religious rule.

For all of it's fits and starts and less-than-honest characters, there is nevertheless enough substance to the preliminary concepts of ID, that although they are not always easily detached from religiosity, they certainly have the technical potential to break forth into something undeniable, (and many sharp minds instinctively know this). That makes ID dangerous in a cultural sense. And perceived danger makes people do funny things.

So yes, I think it is an over-reaction, although there have been instances where the reaction is partly warranted, such as the wedge document, which set ID back years in terms of reputation.

 

[painted wolf]

Darwin's next book certainly does, and it suggests that some men are less evolved than others. This was well known by the 1930s in Europe. But again, I said it was not the direct motivator, rather that they can see themselves as the victors in the story of struggle, savvy?

It seems to me they were attempting artificial selection on humans... not natural selection.
They had several breeding programs to develop the "perfect stock".

So really they were more influenced by the sections of Darwin's book detailing artificial selection but seemingly confused it with "natural selection". Likely to make it more palatable.
No one likes to be told they are going to be treated like a cow. Especially not the "super race".

As for Darwin's views on human evolution. He made no distinction between physical and social evolution. He thought that giving the gift of English 'civilization' would uplift all mankind to the lofty English ideal. Fairly typical of the era, even Abraham Lincoln didn't think so highly of lessor races. (He was against African Americans being fully American and wanted them to have a country of their own.)

wa:do

 

[Magic Man]

I'm growing tired of this.

You're not the only one.

It doesn't have to be about the ultimate cause, anymore than evolution has to be about abiogenesis.

Why not? What's the use in talking about whether or not we were created by an alien race like us? In fact, evolution can't be about abiogenesis. It's just not possible. ID is only about the ultimate cause, unless you can give me a good reason for taking the idea of aliens having created us seriously.

Dawkins' quip about 'higher intelligences' correctly pointed out that they would have had to come from somewhere too, and it follows that the extra 'somewhere' could be outside the scope of the study of ID.

No, then those aliens would also have to have been intelligently designed. Or else, they evolved, in which case, where have we really gotten?

So logically, even if you could show there was a designer, you would NOT necessarily be showing that it was a GOD. It could assist in making belief in a God more intellectually attractive, but that's all folks.

You're right, you could show that an alien race designed us intelligently, and not necessarily be showing that it was God. However, that's just putting the problem off a bit. Then, you have the question of where those aliens came from, and the two possible answers are they were intelligently designed or they evolved through natural selection.

The whole idea of the ID movement is to guide us to the belief in God.

 

[rocketman]

(I haven't read your whole exchange here, so this might be taken somewhat out of context. Disregard it if you're not suggesting there's a problem with evolution because Hitler might have used it as motivation.)

Disregarded. Better to read through first I think, this only complicates the thread needlessly.

I would like to see that. I would expect it to say something more like that some races have gone through a more extensive evolutionary change because of their moves to different climates. I would be utterly shocked if it suggested that those races which were "more evolved" were "better" than others. "More evolved" would probably mean "different" rather than "better".

Different, yes, not better. He even tried hard to explain we are one species. However, his view of 'savages' and 'civilized' in the same book gave rise to wrong-minded thinking that was mis-used.

 

[Magic Man]

For all of it's fits and starts and less-than-honest characters, there is nevertheless enough substance to the preliminary concepts of ID, that although they are not always easily detached from religiosity, they certainly have the technical potential to break forth into something undeniable, (and many sharp minds instinctively know this). That makes ID dangerous in a cultural sense. And perceived danger makes people do funny things.

So yes, I think it is an over-reaction, although there have been instances where the reaction is partly warranted, such as the wedge document, which set ID back years in terms of reputation.

This is really simple. ID is not science. At all. It is a possible answer to a philisophical question. ID is not dangerous. It has been the belief of the majority in Western culture for many centuries now. What's dangerous is believing in ID and believing that it's scientific while evolution is not.

Again, the ID movement is all about God. That's the whole goal. If it wasn't, then there would be no perceived overreaction.

 

[rocketman]

You're right, you could show that an alien race designed us intelligently, and not necessarily be showing that it was God. However, that's just putting the problem off a bit.

Hooray! He is finally starting to get it! And putting it off is a question of perspective: it may come to pass that any higher level of designer is forever outside the scope of ID.

The whole idea of the ID movement is to guide us to the belief in God.

But it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE! That is why any attempt to investigate it more thoroughly should not be treated as if it were the bloody second coming of the plague.