Posted on 05/06/2008 3:49:16 PM PDT by wagglebee
In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following:
(a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered;
(b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap.
The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.
http://www.wise.virginia.edu/history/wciv2/kampf.html
Design is all about trade offs. Armor v. Speed. Simplicity v. Complexity. Multipurpose v. Single purpose. Top Grade v. economy grade. If your cheetah had no trade offs for its speed, it would overproduce, dominate, and then starve to death. Good design tends to last. Example: The hammer, the paperclip, the shovel, the wheel, the AK-47. All of which is relatively new compared to the cheetah. Therefore, cheetah = good design.
Hitler on the Jews: “Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord’s image.”
Thanks for responding, but where is the mention of “Darwin”
It is obvious to anyone that Hitler was speaking about “survival of the fittest.”
So what if he was? Does that have any bearing on the scientific veracity of evolution?
No.
Hitler used rockets to reign fire upon Britain; Wernher Van Braun used slave labor to build the V-2.
That doesn't make rocket engineers Nazis, nor does it make rocket science Hitlerian.
Herman Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", not Darwin. Further, Darwin was concerned with the evolution of one species into another, Hitler was committed to creating a master race within our species. His concept of eugenics has much to do with Plato's Republic and nothing to do with Darwin. That's why he NEVER mentioned Darwin.
Concur with Soliton, the idea of selective breeding goes back far before Darwin, who merely observed that populations experience natural selection in the absence of any human interference.
Hitler’s statements rely heavily upon human breeding of plants and animals to produce strains with collections of traits we consider desirable, and the dilution of these traits upon interbreeding of two different strains. There is nothing about, say, labrador retrievers that make them “better” than huskies, but a human might object to interbreeding the two strains since the offspring probably would combine traits in ways we don’t necessarily desire in a dog. This says nothing about the inherent value of the offspring (labrahusky?), it’s a human opinion based upon ideas that might or might not be defensible.
The observation of natural selection (slow rabbits get eaten!) is insufficient to draw conclusions for moral behavior. Attempting to do so is illogical and irrational (see Hume’s guillotine). Hitler did not base his motivation for eradication of the Jews upon the premise that ‘slow rabbits get eaten’, but upon the religious notion that his race best typified the image of God, so breeding with other lineages would dilute desirable traits and debase the image of God. This, IMO, is an indefensible opinion.
This is why Hitler praises "the Creator", but never mentions Darwin.
My point is that it isn’t reaching a very large audience at present, and doesn’t look like it ever will.
Accordingly, its impact on the ID debate probably is not going to be very large.
Excellent post milhous. It will go right over the head of most darwinists though since they believe that complex biochemicals such as ATPase self-synthesized by random chance over millions of years.
Pure BS.
Oh, I think the Bible does that pretty well. There ARE scientists who do believe in it as well. I have a friend who teaches it in high school and his examples are stunning.
If God “lives” outside of the laws of the universe, then in what way can he be said to exist?. Please give me your definition of “exists” and how we can test the idea that God meets the definition.
Hi Mr. Blind Man, this is the color “Red”!
Forget it.
That's funny, I'm a strong believer in the theory of evolution, and last time I checked, I've been solidly pro-life and anti-euthensia my whole life. The same can be said for my whole devout Roman Catholic family. The same can be said for the Pope, and most of the Popes in modern memory, who say "Darwinism" is compatible with Christianity and are so adamantly opposed to the taking of any human life that they don't even support capital punishment for convicted killers.
I took alot of heat on this board for supporting Mike Huckabee for President. I disagree with Huckabee on creationism as many of the Fred Thompson supporters disagree with their guy on McCain-Feingold. Huckabee got attacked alot for supposed being a mean nasty "bigoted" Christian, but I can safely that's say not true because Huckabee NEVER attacked the morality of those who disagreed with him on evolution, unlike your very first post in this thread.
Post no. #8 and #14 hit the nail on the head. Evoking the bible as Jesus to preach hatred and stereotypes of people who disagree with your views is no different than what Obama's pastor Rev. Wright does so well. He could have just have easily delivered the same sermons against Darwin's teachings by saying "the German government LIED about using Darwinism as a means of genocide against Jews and people of color! The government lied!!" and "Ben Stein knows what it's like to be living in a country and a culture owed by, and controlled by, rich, powerful evolutionary scientists!"
The ironic thing here is that most of the Islamic fundamentalists Muslims are hardcore believers in the bible view of creationism, yet they have no problem embracing the culture of Death and strapping dynamo's to their kids and preaching racial superiority against "the Jews", do they? Fortunately no "evil-utionist" in this country would stoop so slow as to blame creationist beliefs for their suicide squads.
Since you constantly refer to those who accept modern evolutionary theory as "Darwinists", please feel free to cite the exact passage in any of "Darwin's" writings where he states that "biochemicals such as ATPase self-synthesized by random chance over millions of years"
Last time I checked, this theory was never an element of "Darwinism" Darwin theorized on how life on earth changed and reached its present state, not how life on earth began. "Darwinism" doesn't answer that question or even venture any ideas on the subject.
The problem with you guys constantly referring to modern scientific teaching on evolution is that many of its breakthroughs were developed by dozens of pioneering scientists over the years, so it make as much scene to sneer as evolutionary science as "Darwinism" as it would be to call all modern physics "Newtonism" Darwin was a launching point, certainly not the end-all of evolutionary science.
The funny thing is if any of the "Darwin" bashers ever got around to studying the stuff they ridicule and dismiss because it's not the bible, they'd find out that guy who came up with most of the ideas on races of people and generic inheritance, biological superiority and inferiority (you know, that stuff they like to blame for the holocaust on all that) was the work of a scientist named Gregore Mendel, not Charles Darwin. Mendel is widely known as "the father of modern genetics", my father graduated from Gregor Mendal High School.
But then again, Gregor Mendel dedicated his life to Christ and was a fervant Catholic Monk, so don't dare mention him. After all, it goes against their "Darwinists are all atheists" talking points.
Kinda sucks, you'd like to smear his teachings for causing the holocaust but you just can't acknowledge his existence. Oh well, we're falsely attibute "biochemicals such as ATPase self-synthesized by random chance over millions of years" and "racial inheritance of dominient genes" on "Darwinism"... nevermind that Charles Darwin wouldn't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
With the exclusion of a Creator, there is no objective reason for right and wrong, and if totally uncreated natural selection resulted in what we are today, an advanced species, and more to the point, the most advanced “race”, then there’s no reason not to “help” evolution along by selective breeding and, more to the point, selective “non-breeding” (extermination).This is a complete misunderstanding of modern science. Evolutionary psychology talks a lot about the evolution of morals, trust and empathy.
What's interesting about most IDers is that they view science and religion through the view of the enlightenment. IDers repeat one of the enlightenment's biggest mistakes(one that classical economics makes as well), the belief that humans are purely rational actors. Modern economics, psychology and biology have pretty much proven that people aren't.
Religion or no religion people are capable of discerning right from wrong given a secure and nurturing environment. It's only when you have a fascist or consumerist society which emphasizes selfishness and narcissism that you end up with disasters like you had in the 20th century.
It's not the *absence* of morality that's the problem. It's the imposition of a twisted moral system.
Perhaps you were not clear on what I meant by Darwinism. I view evolution as a COMPONENT of Darwinism; however, there is far more to it than that.
The Darwin family (Charles Galton and Leonard Darwin) developed and advanced the eugenics movement and it is this movement that can be DIRECTLY LINKED to over ONE AND A HALF BILLION DEATHS worldwide in the past century.
I’m not really interested in any creation vs. evolution debates. I don’t think they resolve much and few minds are changed on either side. Additionally, what actually happened in the formation of the universe and everything in it is the truth whether we believe it or not.
They can try to deny it, but history proves otherwise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.