Runboard.com
Слава Україні!



Runboard.com       Registered Members Will See No Ads - CLICK TO REGISTER FOR FREE  LOGIN

 
alecsmithson Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 12-2004
Posts: 14
Reply Quote
Darwinism


Darwin set out with one basic premise when developing his theory: 'The development of living things depends on the fight for survival. The strong win the struggle. The weak are condemned to defeat and oblivion.'

According to Darwin, there was a ruthless struggle for survival and eternal conflict in nature. The strong always overcome the weak, and this enables development to take place. The subtitle he gave to his book The Origin of Species, "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life", encapsulates that view.

Furthermore, Darwin proposed that the 'fight for survival' also applied between human races. According to that claim, 'favored races' were victorious in the struggle. Favored races, in Darwin's view, were white Europeans. African or Asian races had lagged behind in the struggle for survival. Darwin went further, and suggested that these races would soon lose the 'struggle for survival' entirely, and thus disappear:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [1]

The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution imposed racism on the social sciences:

His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists. [2]
Darwin's source of inspiration on this subject was the British economist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population. Left to their own devices, Malthus calculated that the human population increased rapidly. In his view, the main influences that kept populations under control were disasters such as war, famine and disease. In short, according to this brutal claim, some people had to die for others to live. Existence came to mean 'permanent war.'

In the 19th century, Malthus's ideas were widely accepted. European upper class intellectuals in particular supported his cruel ideas. In an article titled 'The Nazis' Secret Scientific Agenda', the importance 19th century attached Europe attached to Malthus's views on population is described in this way:

In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered "Population problem" and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: "Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations," and so forth and so on. [3]

As a result of this cruel policy, the weak, and those who lost the struggle for survival would be eliminated, and as a result the rapid rise in population would be balanced out. This so-called 'oppression of the poor' policy was actually carried out in 19th century Britain. An industrial order was set up in which children of eight and nine were made to work sixteen hours a day in the coal mines and thousands died from the terrible conditions. The 'struggle for survival' demanded by Malthus's theory led to millions of Britons leading lives full of suffering.

Influenced by these ideas, Darwin applied this concept of conflict to all of nature, and proposed that the strong and the fittest emerged victorious from this war of existence. Moreover, he claimed that the so-called struggle for survival was a justified an unchangeable law of nature. On the other hand, he invited people to abandon their religious beliefs by denying creation, and thus aimed at all ethical values that could prove an obstacle to the ruthlessness of the 'struggle for survival.'

The dissemination of these untrue ideas that led individuals to ruthlessness and cruelty, cost humanity a heavy price in the 20thcentury.

 

The Role of Darwinism in Preparing the Ground for World War I

As Darwinism dominated European culture, the effects of the 'struggle for survival' began to emerge. Colonialist European nations in particular began to portray the nations they colonized as 'evolutionary backward nations' and looked to Darwinism for justification.

The bloodiest political effect of Darwinism was the outbreak of World War I in 1914.

In his book Europe Since 1870, the well-known British professor of history James Joll explains that one of the factors that prepared the ground for World War I was the belief in Darwinism of European rulers at the time. For instance, the Austro-Hungarian chief of staff, Franz Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorff, wrote in his post-war memoirs:

Philanthropic religions, moral teachings and philosophical doctrines may certainly sometimes serve to weaken mankind's struggle for existence in its crudest form, but they will never succeed in removing it as a driving motive of the world… It is in accordance with this great principle that the catastrophe of the world war came about as the result of the motive forces in the lives of states and peoples, like a thunderstorm which must by its nature discharge itself. [4]

It is not hard to understand why Conrad, with that ideological foundation, should have encouraged the Austro-Hungarian Empire to declare war. Such ideas at the time were not limited to the military. Kurt Riezler, the personal assistant and confidant of the German chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, wrote in 1914: 'Eternal and absolute enmity is fundamentally inherent in relations between peoples; and the hostility which we observe everywhere… is not the result of a perversion of human nature but is the essence of the world and the source of life itself.' [5]

Friedrich von Bernardi, a World War I general, made a similar connection between war and the laws of war in nature. "War" declared Bernhardi "is a biological necessity"; it "is as necessary as the struggle of the elements of nature"; it "gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things." [6]

As we have seen, World War I broke out because of European thinkers, generals and administrators who saw warfare, bloodshed and suffering as a kind of 'development', and thought they were an unchanging 'law of nature', The ideological root that dragged all of that generation to destruction was nothing else than Darwin's concepts of the 'struggle for survival' and 'favored races'.

World War I left behind it 8 million dead, hundreds of ruined cities, and millions of wounded, crippled, homeless and unemployed.

The basic cause of World War II, which broke out 21 years later and left 55 million dead behind it, was also based on Darwinism.
1- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178
2- Lalita Prasad Vidyarthi, Racism, Science and Pseudo-Science, Unesco, France, Vendôme, 1983. s. 54
3- Theodore D. Hall, The Scientific Background of the Nazi Race Purification Program, http://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.html
4- James Joll, Europe Since 1870: An International History, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1990, s. 164
 


 
www.muhammedhasenoglu.com
4/Jan/05, 20:36 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Firlefanz Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
Reply Quote
Re: Darwinism


alecsmithson,

what conclusions do you personally draw from the quote you presented here?

As far as this article goes, that's a statement of opinion, nothing more, nothing less. It's not something that I would discuss unless you show how this is supposed to influence my thinking or my life.

---
- Firlefanz

Reading: "Sword-Dancer" by Jennifer Roberson
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book

My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
5/Jan/05, 16:02 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 
Addi Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator
 

Runboard user emeritus

Registered: 11-2004
Location: US
Posts: 681
Reply Quote
Re: Darwinism


This would be more appropriate under Evolution of Man - it's being moved accordingly. emoticon
6/Jan/05, 23:36 Link to this post PM 
 
alecsmithson Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 12-2004
Posts: 14
Reply Quote
Re: Darwinism


In our day, some circles hold the view that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution does not contradict with religion, and that those who renounce the theory of evolution unnecessarily promote it. This view, however, includes many misconceptions. It is the result of a failure to grasp the main tenet of Darwinism and the extremely dangerous outlook it mandates. That is why, for those who have faith in the existence of God, the mere Creator of all living-beings, yet carry the conviction that "God created living beings through evolution", it would be quite useful to primarily review the fundamental tenets of the theory. And this has been proved scientifically that there is no example of a beneficial mutation or there is no example of a fossil belonging to transitional types. Although it has been 140 years that paleoontology has been working, it has been proved to be no evolution.
Plus, according to human genome project, we have more genes common with the potatoe. Then french fries must be our ancestors.

visit www.muhammedhasenoglu.com or harunyahya.com they are very useful sites about the issue

7/Jan/05, 23:01 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Firlefanz Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
Reply Quote
Re: Darwinism


alecsmithson, your post shows that science taken out of context is bad science and prone to be misquoted and misused.

Evolution does not state that potatoes are the ancestors of humans. However, cells needs quite a lot of processes to function, and they are similar in potatoes and humans, as both are alive. That's all what similar genes are proving at this instance. Nothing to get exited about.

The fundamental tenets of the Theory of Evolution have been reviewed for more than a hundred years by hundreds of thousands of scientists and have been found to be useful for scientific predictions. That's what a scientific theory does. It's not a basis for faith, but a system of logic that helps scientists explain what they see in nature and to predict what will happen in experiments.

The claim that no beneficial mutations have been found is patently wrong and shows a flawed understanding of the science of evolution (probably by the author of the site you are quoting.). Palaeontology has helped to explain the development of numerous species, in detail and to the satisfaction of most scientists working in the field. This includes several transitional fossils, for example of early whales.


If you want to find out more, check out this site:

The Talk.Origins Archive

---
- Firlefanz

Reading: "Sword-Dancer" by Jennifer Roberson
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book

My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
9/Jan/05, 18:05 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 
alecsmithson Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 12-2004
Posts: 14
Reply Quote
Re: Darwinism


T he trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology.
This eye emerged 530 million years ago in a perfect state. No doubt, the sudden appearance of such a wondrous design cannot be explained by evolution and it proves the actuality of creation.

Moreover, the honeycomb eye structure of the trilobite has survived to our own day without a single change. Some insects such as bees and dragon flies have the same eye structure as did the trilobite.* This situation disproves the evolutionary thesis that living things evolved progressively from the primitive to the complex.


9/Jan/05, 18:17 Link to this post Email   PM 
 
Firlefanz Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Senior Member
 


Registered: 05-2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 560
Reply Quote
Re: Darwinism


Two reasons why your argument is flawed:

- Fossil record. It certainly isn't perfect for all times and all species.

- The same sort of adaptive mechanism can evolve more than once, independently. In fact, the theory actually predicts that.


Please rememember that absence of proof in a single case does not prove a theory wrong. You would have to come up with something that the theory of evolution does not cover. Trilobite eyes as well as bee and dragonfly eyes are easily explained, without resorting to God.

Please remember also that quoting scientists out of context doesn't help to prove your point. What David Raup says might well be correct - but he doesn't state that he believes this trilobite eye has been created by God, even as a reader is meant to think this. (From which article is this quote, if I may ask? Honest scientists generally mention their sources.)

This kind of misquoting or "quote mining" is a standard trick employed by Creationists. Usually short sentences are taken completely out of context and used to support the contrary of what the scientist was saying in the article.

I would like to point you once again to Talk.Origins. If you are willing to learn, this is a site where the science of evolution is being explained.


I will also not persue this discussion any further, as I'm probably wasting my time. I don't believe you are interested in a real discussion about evolution. And you will most certainly not be able to convince me to believe in Creation, so you'd be wasting your own time as well.


Last edited by:
Firlefanz, 10/Jan/05, 10:29


---
- Firlefanz

Reading: "Sword-Dancer" by Jennifer Roberson
Rewriting: "The Cloth-Merchant's Daughter", 2nd Lar Elien book

My board - Schreiberlinge unter sich
10/Jan/05, 0:45 Link to this post Email   PM  Blog
 
mollecon Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Member
 


Registered: 03-2005
Posts: 15
Reply Quote
Re: Darwinism


! To Firlefanz!

It seem to be a quite common notion among some, that a scientific theory claims to explain all that happens within a click of a finger. And, if it doesn't, there are super natural powers at 'the loose'.

It's a bit like when an un-explainable phenomenon is seen in the sky - the UFO lovers immediately claims, that the fact it cannot be explained, proofs it's un-earthly, or proof of aliens.

But, lack of proof doesn't prove the opposite - if there isn't a good explanation now, it may turn up later. And doesn't necessarily involve 'God' or 'Aliens'.
27/Aug/05, 0:21 Link to this post Email   PM 
 


Add Reply






You are not logged in (LOGIN)