The Black Vault

frrostedman wrote:Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means

FALSE.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

frrostedman wrote:, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

And Christianity has nothing meaningful to say about my underpants...

Seriously, though, Darwinism is not SUPPOSED to say anything meaningful about the origin of life, that is a different field altogether. That's abiogenesis, and abiogenesis has many interesting things to say about the subject.

Here's a hint, it's "Origin Of Species" not "Origin Of The Original Building Blocks Of Life That Had the Ability To Replicate So Went Through A Process Of Natural Selection Aided Evolution Driven By Imperfect Replication".

frrostedman wrote:Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

Ben Stein

Oh please.

frrostedman wrote:But the most thoroughgoing Social Darwinist of all was Adolf Hitler, whose Nazi party carried racial theory, nationalism, eugenics, and Nietzsche to their logical conclusion and put them into practice.

Really, Tom? You're going to stoop this low now?

Is it really worthwhile getting into a debate regards people abusing a scientific theory for their own evil means, in the same way your own religion has been abused?

Evolution as a theory is either correct, or it is false. If it is correct, then it is irrelevant how a FACT has been abused by bad people. Should we just ignore facts that might be abused?

The existence of Gravity is a fact, right? Well, Gravity has been used by many people to kill others by dropping things on their heads, or throwing them off buildings. Therefore, Gravity is bad and we should reject it as a theory?

I hear Hitler was a big fan of gravity...ohhhh noo. Must be satanic.

BTW Nietzsche's works were NOT taken to their logical conclusion by the Nazis.
Nietzsche's works were, while he was insane on his death bed, highly edited and taken out of context by his sister who was married to a Nazi official. They twisted his work to fit their beliefs. Kind of like Sproul twists the facts to support his beliefs. Fancy that.

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 182

I didn't "stoop low" though I was trying to make a point. I'm sorry you took such offense, but this thread is primarily intended for the scant few Christians we have. Points to ponder, as it were.

If you don't know what Social Darwinism is, look it up. It's not the same as "Darwinism."

The basic premise of Darwinism is 'survival of the fittest." Social Darwinists take that idea and apply it on a social scale. To the Social Darwinist, the inferior human beings will eventually be phased out and to the extremist, there's nothing wrong with prodding the process along... since one is just bringing about the inevitable anyway... only quicker.

I wrote nothing wrong, nothing insulting, and nothing incorrect.

humphreys wrote:Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 182

I didn't know Jefferson was allive in the 2nd Century but during his time I'm sure many priests were dreading the advances of science.

Seriously, though, it annoys me when people misrepresent Nietzsche like that.

mrshumphreys wrote:BTW Nietzsche's works were NOT taken to their logical conclusion by the Nazis.
Nietzsche's works were, while he was insane on his death bed, highly edited and taken out of context by his sister who was married to a Nazi official. They twisted his work to fit their beliefs. Kind of like Sproul twists the facts to support his beliefs. Fancy that.

I don't think Sproul meant that Hitler simply acted out what Nietzsche put on paper (not that it would stop you from arguing I said it, fancy that). He said that Hiter was a Social Darwinist--which he was--and that Hitler based his actions upon a combination of Social Darwinism, racial theory, nationalism, eugenics, and the writings of Nietzsche.

'Someone told someone's sister things that were out of context' is a very compelling defense of Nietzsche, but the fact is Hitler was for all intents and purposes obsessed with the writings of Nietzsche. Compared to any of us, Hitler would be considered a complete expert on the Nietzsche's writings. I'm not going to deny Hitler may very well have taken many things to the extreme but I'm not sure about the context part. It's amusing to hear a skeptic argue context especially with something so far less ambiguous than the bible, since Nietzsche's writings don't need to be interpreted 3 ways before we can understand it.

However... your suggestion that Sproul is some lone wolf out there who is carelessly spinning his facts by intentionally taking Nietzsche out of context... well... that would be incorrect.

This college student's thorough research paper is posted on the net and I use it here primarily for the Nietzsche quote:

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), a fervent philosopher who was anti-democracy, anti-Christianity, anti-Judaism, anti-socialist and self-acclaimed Anti-Christ, expressed his belief in a master race and the coming of a superman in many of his works. In his unique aphoristic style, Nietzsche wrote in The Genealogy of Morals (III 14):

The sick are the great danger of man, not the evil, not the 'beasts of prey.' They who are from the outset botched, oppressed, broken those are they, the weakest are they, who most undermine the life beneath the feet of man, who instill the most dangerous venom and skepticism into our trust in life, in man, in ourselves…Here teem the worms of revenge and vindictiveness; here the air reeks of things secret and unmentionable; here is ever spun the net of the most malignant conspiracy – the conspiracy of the sufferers against the sound and the victorious; here is the sight of the victorious hated.

Context is a critical factor to understanding Nietzsche's philosophy. Nietzsche's reference to the sick, their vengeful attitude and conspiracy, and in related writing, the Jews, parallels the concepts and terminology used in Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Tom, the author blamed Darwinism for the rise of social Darwinism, implying that thereore Darwinism itself is inherently bad. Ergo my response was both justified and valid.

frrostedman wrote:

mrshumphreys wrote:BTW Nietzsche's works were NOT taken to their logical conclusion by the Nazis.
Nietzsche's works were, while he was insane on his death bed, highly edited and taken out of context by his sister who was married to a Nazi official. They twisted his work to fit their beliefs. Kind of like Sproul twists the facts to support his beliefs. Fancy that.

I don't think Sproul meant that Hitler simply acted out what Nietzsche put on paper (not that it would stop you from arguing I said it, fancy that). He said that Hiter was a Social Darwinist--which he was--and that Hitler based his actions upon a combination of Social Darwinism, racial theory, nationalism, eugenics, and the writings of Nietzsche.

'Someone told someone's sister things that were out of context' is a very compelling defense of Nietzsche, but the fact is Hitler was for all intents and purposes obsessed with the writings of Nietzsche. Compared to any of us, Hitler would be considered a complete expert on the Nietzsche's writings. I'm not going to deny Hitler may very well have taken many things to the extreme but I'm not sure about the context part. It's amusing to hear a skeptic argue context especially with something so far less ambiguous than the bible, since Nietzsche's writings don't need to be interpreted 3 ways before we can understand it.

However... your suggestion that Sproul is some lone wolf out there who is carelessly spinning his facts by intentionally taking Nietzsche out of context... well... that would be incorrect.

This college student's thorough research paper is posted on the net and I use it here primarily for the Nietzsche quote:

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), a fervent philosopher who was anti-democracy, anti-Christianity, anti-Judaism, anti-socialist and self-acclaimed Anti-Christ, expressed his belief in a master race and the coming of a superman in many of his works. In his unique aphoristic style, Nietzsche wrote in The Genealogy of Morals (III 14):

The sick are the great danger of man, not the evil, not the 'beasts of prey.' They who are from the outset botched, oppressed, broken those are they, the weakest are they, who most undermine the life beneath the feet of man, who instill the most dangerous venom and skepticism into our trust in life, in man, in ourselves…Here teem the worms of revenge and vindictiveness; here the air reeks of things secret and unmentionable; here is ever spun the net of the most malignant conspiracy – the conspiracy of the sufferers against the sound and the victorious; here is the sight of the victorious hated.

Context is a critical factor to understanding Nietzsche's philosophy. Nietzsche's reference to the sick, their vengeful attitude and conspiracy, and in related writing, the Jews, parallels the concepts and terminology used in Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Oh, Tom. First off, I never said YOU said it.

Second of all, nobody told anybody's sister anything. It is a fact that Nietzsche's last published works were culled from notes and old writings, edited and published by his sister and her Nazi husband. Nietzsche had as much to do with it as Walt Disney did with the movie Cars. The fact is that the Nazis were desperate for things to base their idiocy on, and they found a perfect scape goat to take advantage of.

I never said Sproul was a lone wolf. It is a common misconception of Nietzsche that he was a Nazi sympathizer. He was nothing of the kind. He was quite fond of the Jews as a race.

Nietzsche was indeed anti Christianity, and I suspect that Sproul, like many others, has taken that to mean that everything people say about him is true. He was anti religion in general, but he was not anti-semetic in the least.

Read his own works and correspondence untouched by his sister and her husband to see the truth. Here are some links to help you along if you are interested.
http://www.nikutai-to-kageboushi.com/discourse/discourse.html
http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/2007/11/nietzsche-on-jews.html
Personally, I prefer to read philosophy in book form, but both of those websites quote directly from text of his various works.

I get the feeling we have middle ground we can agree on. Look, it is clear that Nietzsche was convinced that as mankind continues to evolve and improve, it is the sick and weak that will eventually be eliminated, naturally... though they represent the most difficult challenge for progress... bigger than evil.

Hitler using Nietzshce to in any way justify the holocaust (which by the way started "Nietzsche style" with just ending the lives of the sick and weak... but then evolved to wiping out a whole race), is akin to the KKK or an abortion clinic bomber using the bible to justify their actions.

Though in each case they felt like they have justification through the writings and/or Scriptures, what they are instead are twisted "extremists." Same goes for the jihadists.

I don't believe Nietzsche ever intentionally suggested or implied that people should jump start human progress by physically terminating those who might slow it down.


But looking at it from the "Social Darwinist" point of view: Hitler, the KKK, Dahmer, Manson, Stalin, Mao, and everyone else... instead of being evil or wrong... might they instead be powerless to the effects of human evolution? Maybe they represent the sudden mutations that spark the changes necessary to evolve.