Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert

LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/17/12 | Kathleen Gilbert

[narses]

Darwin was a nominalist, iirc.

The Nominalist Heresy

The doctrine of nominalism, often also called empiricism, positivism, or materialism, holds that only the individual is real. The universal is seen as a mental fiction useful in organizing the disparate aspects of reality so that they may be more easily studied or categorized. Nominalism explicitly denies any such reality as human nature being grounded outside the knowing mind. In fact, it denies the knowing mind in favor of sense perception alone. Reality is not intelligible, it is sensible only.

The implications of this doctrine are fearful. There is no order of truth in the traditional sense, there are only facts; there are no universally valid moral principles, but only relative moral standards; there is no hierarchy of meaning within reality to serve as a basis for judging which human attainments are higher than others; the denial of the intelligibility of the universe entails the denial of understanding and wisdom as the basis of authority and law, and substitutes wealth and power; the purpose of each individual human life within the created order loses its meaning, and the purpose of human life is not discovered by analysis of the real, but chosen by each individual to be whatever he wants it to be; and finally, the arts follow this downward spiral from dealing with the grand themes of medieval and renaissance art, through the sentimentalism of the romantic era, to the prevailing desire for immediacy.

Weaver traces the rise of nominalism in the fourteenth century from William of Ockham, through its further development by the British Empiricists in the eighteenth century, to its popular acceptance in the twentieth century. For its rapid spread from the end of World War I until the time of his writing of Ideas, Weaver credits what he calls “the great stereopticon.” That is, the movies, the press and the radio. Television had not achieved the status that it has today, but if Weaver had revised Ideas he certainly would have included television as even a greater force for cultural and social dissolution.

Read more: http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=11-06-021-f#ixzz1mwMXMbpX

[narses]

...stop the theory of marxism, smash the leviathan...

[allmendream]

Hitler was a creationist who believed in fixed kinds.

“This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed”

[Alamo-Girl]

And the program of statists like Obama is to retrofit us for paradise, their idea of paradise. But what about my idea of paradise that doesn't include them and their plans?

Indeed, dear aruanan!

The liberal worldview wants to manage our lives from womb to tomb just like cattle or pigs or chickens. The Nanny state is not far from Eugenics.

Girls are being convinced by them that they must look like Barbie dolls and therefore many girls now suffer from eating disorders.

And Michelle Obama and friends are enforcing diets on our children. How much longer before they make parents legally liable for the body shapes of their offspring?

In effect, the liberals are saying St. Bernards are not acceptable but Greyhounds are.

[wagglebee]

Hitler was a creationist who believed in fixed kinds.

Once more, the question of creation vs. evolution has NEVER been at the core of Darwinism.

Hitler and Nazism epitomized eugenics which IS at the core of Darwinism.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the link, dear narses!

betty boop and I have run into that worldview repeatedly over many years of crevo debates.

The fallacy of their worldview becomes clear when we examine their claim that the mind (soul or spirit) is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon which cannot cause anything to happen!

If they really believed this then they would insist that the physical brain is legally culpable as the cause of a civil or criminal offense. There could be no personal responsibility since the "person" is just an epiphenomenon that was incapable of causing anything to happen, good or bad.

They would refuse awards or bank deposits made out to their person since it does not exist. But who could cash a check made out to "central nervous system, cranium, 123 Easy St., Anywhere, US?"

By their actions they acknowledge that the person "is" - and that he is more than the sum of his parts.

[allmendream]

So I am supposed to take creationists at their word about what a movement they don’t understand and despise is really all about?

When they cannot even get through a paragraph without lies about Hitler and a lame attempt to make a evolution = Hitler formulation?

At the CORE of Darwin’s theory is that there are variations within a population and variations that will arise within a population, and that those variations that lead to favorable reproductive outcomes will predominate in subsequent generations.

[trisham]

God gave man dominion over animals, so it is permissible to do this, but even then it's an imperfect science. Look at horse racing, there hasn't been a Triple Crown winner in over thirty years; however, the science behind breeding (genetics, etc.), veterinary medicine, and nutrition are light years beyond what they were in the 1970s.

We will NEVER achieve perfection, but we can accept that we are perfect in that He created each of us EXACTLY THE WAY He wanted to.

*********************************

Exactly right. Imho, it may be that only those who despise mankind desire its physical perfection.

[wagglebee]

So I am supposed to take creationists at their word about what a movement they don’t understand and despise is really all about?

I fail to see what a person's views on creation vs. evolution has to do with the understanding of eugenics.

When they cannot even get through a paragraph without lies about Hitler and a lame attempt to make a evolution = Hitler formulation?

What LIE have I told? The manifestation of Hitler's Darwinism has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution.

At the CORE of Darwin’s theory is that there are variations within a population and variations that will arise within a population, and that those variations that lead to favorable reproductive outcomes will predominate in subsequent generations.

No, these are at the core of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is but a component of Darwinism. People often fail to realize that he Darwin family's work went far beyond the first half of the 19th century, by the late 1800s many of them had totally abandoned any pretense of science in favor of pure eugenics.

[allmendream]

You fail. You fail to see.

What lie? I never said YOU lied - I said the article you posted lied - the very first paragraph.

Hitler was not a Darwinist - he was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God.

The theory of evolution is the intellectual contribution of Darwin to the world. It is the only biological explanation for diversity of species, the diversity of humanity, the rise of antibiotic resistance, and any number of other biological phenomena.

That nutcases on both sides try to make of this simple theory an overarching philosophy of everything doesn’t change Darwin’s central contribution to science or discredit the use of that theory for further discovery fun and profit.

[wagglebee]

You fail. You fail to see.

Trust me, if I wanted your opinion about my comprehension abilities I would have asked.

Hitler was not a Darwinist - he was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God.

Again, it is totally wrong to define Darwinism within the confines of belief in the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is the intellectual contribution of Darwin to the world. It is the only biological explanation for diversity of species, the diversity of humanity, the rise of antibiotic resistance, and any number of other biological phenomena.

Perhaps, but the Darwin family's legacy extends much further.

That nutcases on both sides try to make of this simple theory an overarching philosophy of everything doesn’t change Darwin’s central contribution to science or discredit the use of that theory for further discovery fun and profit.

Really? Who are the "nutcases" who tried to stop eugenics?

Do you even know what eugenics is? Do you know who Francis Galton and Leonard Darwin were? What about the Huxleys?

[allmendream]

First of all it would be rather difficult to understand what eugenics was and what it was likely to accomplish without an understanding of the theory of evolution - so if you fail to see what the theory and acceptance of it has to do with eugenics - you FAIL.

Oh, I see. You are using “Darwinsim” as a catch all for everything Creationists disagree with. Therefore geology is “Darwinism”, archeology is “Darwinism”, physics is “Darwinsim”, and astrology is “Darwinism”.

Taking the lying pronouncements of Creationists for what evolution and science is ‘really all about’ is sort of like taking a Communists’ word for what Capitalism/Free Markets are and what they stand for, believe in, and accomplish.

Darwin's “family legacy” was negligible - the contributions of a scientist to a scientific theory is not abrogated by what his descendants chose to do. Leonard Darwin was a nobody with a famous name - used by some more influential eugenicists because of his famous name and the associations to actual science it would bring.

Anyone who advocates eugenics needs to take a long hard look at a race horse. Sure they are faster - at the expense of just about everything else - long fast legs are prone to breaking - thin heat exuding skin is prone to cracking, etc, etc.

Eugenics is based upon a rather idiotic idea that selective breeding of humans will unequivocally produce a “superior” human being. That is completely contrary to any understanding of actual evolution.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Antagonistic pleotropy, etc.

Eugenics might well produce a taller human, or a smarter human, or a longer lived more healthy human - but at a COST.

[allmendream]

Eugenicists are to Evolution as Socialists are to Capitalism.

Both see a system of an unregulated “market” that is highly responsive and productive.

Both tend to think a ‘central planner’ will predict what the ‘market’ will want far better than millions of independent actors acting upon their own best interest.

There is a good reason why the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory - it smacked too much of Capitalism - with independent actors acting in their own self interest - a ‘reward’ for ‘individual excellence’ - and no easy way out of the reality of “no such thing as a free lunch”.

[wagglebee]

Darwinists can try all they want to divorce themselves from eugenics, but it's there.

The Darwin family was not "used" by the eugenics movement for their name, they FOUNDED the eugenics movement.

As for your assertion that the communists rejected Darwinism, that is completely unfounded. The ONLY people who try to say this are Darwinists.

[BrandtMichaels]

Pfffttt...

amd ~ ‘The theory of evolution is the intellectual contribution of Darwin to the world. It is the only biological explanation for diversity of species, the diversity of humanity, the rise of antibiotic resistance, and any number of other biological phenomena.’

So where are your thousands upon thousands of missing links?

The biological creation phenomena has God’s fingerprints all over it NOT evolution (aka devolution).

[metmom]

amd:What lie? I never said YOU lied - I said the article you posted lied - the very first paragraph.

Um, no you didn't. You didn't specify who it was you thought was lying.

What you said here was this.....When they cannot even get through a paragraph without lies about Hitler and a lame attempt to make a evolution = Hitler formulation?

You're hatred of creationism is blinding you to objective, rational thought on the matter. wagglebee is absolutely correct about the distinction between the ToE and Darwinism. the problem is that most evos are really at heart, Darwinists.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Mr. Owen doesn't sound like a very good Catholic. See Pope John Paul II's comments.

[wagglebee]

Not quite, we are discussing Darwinism, not simply evolution.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I peeked at Mr. Owens website. While most of it doesn’t work, I don’t get the impression that he’s a very good Catholic and he claims he is in his article to boost his credentials.

[allmendream]

Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science by Valerie Soyfer explains the history you are so woefully ignorant of.

The Communists rejected Darwinism and genetics in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism championed by Lysenko.

In the Soviet Union you could (and would) get sent to Siberia if you taught about genetics or Darwinian evolution.

My Molecular Genetics teacher was banned from teaching in Russia and was only allowed to immigrate into the USA via the intercession of Ronald Reagan.

So the ONLY people who say the Soviet Communists rejected Darwinian evolution are those with KNOWLEDGE.

Something you are evidently lacking...... in spades.