Is Darwin-ism any different to you than Lamarkian-ism?
Eugenics existed as a pattern of thought long before Darwin formulated his theory - many people assumed that humans could be selectively bred for desired traits and that undesirable traits should be eliminated. Darwin's theory gave a veneer of scientific respectability to the field that was undeserved - but they glommed onto anyone with the NAME of Darwin to try to prop up this association.
I am not at all adverse to discussing eugenics. I believe I stated clearly the problem with eugenics, that being their basic misunderstanding that a ‘central planner’ is not more responsive and productive than millions of independent actors in pursuit of their own interests.
Eugenics is not Darwin's theory. Eugenics is not evolutionary biology. Eugenics is not accepted by the vast majority of those who accept Darwin's theory. Advocacy of eugenics is not dependent upon acceptance of Darwin's theory - many advocated eugenics using different rationalizations.
So still no evidence that Stalin ever recommended someone read Darwin. Yet you base SO MUCH of your argument on that little bit of fluff.
The FACTS are that Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God - and that the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism.
Lies about historic facts do not advance the Creationist argument.
When Creationists make these arguments it shows just how desperate they are that they have to make up lies just to make an illogical argument of guilt by association and an appeal to consequences.
Do you believe in God?
Yes, the Darwins were eugenicists, Lamarck wasn't.
Eugenics existed as a pattern of thought long before Darwin formulated his theory - many people assumed that humans could be selectively bred for desired traits and that undesirable traits should be eliminated.
Perhaps, but they didn't conspire to prevent the "undesirables" from reproducing.
Darwin's theory gave a veneer of scientific respectability to the field that was undeserved - but they glommed onto anyone with the NAME of Darwin to try to prop up this association.
The Eugenics Society was FOUNDED by a Darwin.
So still no evidence that Stalin ever recommended someone read Darwin. Yet you base SO MUCH of your argument on that little bit of fluff.
The basis of everything I've written on this thread is Darwinian eugenics, NOT evolution.
But, go ahead and look here:
The FACTS are that Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God - and that the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism.
Yet Hitler's evil legacy is pure eugenics, unless of course you can find where Lamarck suggested killing and sterilizing the disabled and exterminating entire races.
Lies about historic facts do not advance the Creationist argument.
Go back and read through the thread, my ONLY comments about Creationism is to state that there is more to Darwinism than evolutionary theory.
When Creationists make these arguments it shows just how desperate they are that they have to make up lies just to make an illogical argument of guilt by association and an appeal to consequences.
You have yet to establish that ANYONE on here lied.