Question

cashmcall

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2012
Messages
1,594
Consider Darwin's tautological premise: The fittest survive.

Therefore, if I kill you, then I am by definition the fittest, and my fitness/greatness is defined by my being a murderer, and as such my lack of morality makes me a superior being.....

Terror, anybody?

Was not Darwinism the justification Hitler used for the Holocaust?

Yes, it was.

Then why are we teaching this unprovable, evil, ends justify the means tautology, which has led to the mass murders of millions, in our schools, and why do we esteem the creator of such a disgusting philosophy as one of the greats? Just asking...
 
Werbung:
Well its really more the threat. Kill one as an example to the rest.

Darwin would likly point out that among the rest of the life forms its not restricted to murder and mayhem.
 
Cash call's understanding of Darwinism is risible

Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with murderous intent of an individual

It is about the increased suitability of one gene pool over another to prevailing conditions

Nor is it a statement about morality. It is merely the description of a clear fact

You really do have to be thick to be religious don't you?
 
Cash call's understanding of Darwinism is risible

Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with murderous intent of an individual

It is about the increased suitability of one gene pool over another to prevailing conditions

Nor is it a statement about morality. It is merely the description of a clear fact

You really do have to be thick to be religious don't you?
What took you so long? You look at Darwin the same way you look at the Bible..you see what you want to see..
 
Whatever that means

You don't understand Darwinism and the straw man you make is ludicrous

Like your religious views

Get some education
 
I am trying to believe but it is sooooo hard

I ask you guys to explain and all I get is bullshit

No explanation of how a human could walk on water

You can't really blame me

You believe it implicitly but can't explain it to me

That is so cruel

Keeping all those religious facts to yourself

Aren't you supposed to convert people?

Go on, please tell me how it could happen

Or accept that it didn't
 
I am trying to believe but it is sooooo hard

I ask you guys to explain and all I get is bullshit

No explanation of how a human could walk on water

You can't really blame me

You believe it implicitly but can't explain it to me

That is so cruel

Keeping all those religious facts to yourself

Aren't you supposed to convert people?

Go on, please tell me how it could happen

Or accept that it didn't

Only YOU can believe. We can't make you believe.

I suggest you get a Bible and read it.
 
Darwin modify his beliefs on the survival of the fittests. That why he is buried in Westminuster Abbey,
 
Darwin modify his beliefs on the survival of the fittests. That why he is buried in Westminuster Abbey,

sure about that ?

seems more a case of not wanting to miss an opportunity to glom onto his acclaim. nevermnd that this would be priest abandoned Christianity. CofE has it's character issues as well as do others.


Their talk turned to religion, and Darwin said "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age." He agreed that Christianity was "not supported by the evidence", but he had reached this conclusion only slowly. Aveling recorded this discussion, and published it in 1883 as a penny pamphlet.[75][76] Francis Darwin thought it gave "quite fairly his impressions of my father's views, but took issue with any suggestion of similar religious views, saying "My father's replies implied his preference for the unaggressive attitude of an Agnostic. Dr. Aveling seems to regard the absence of aggressiveness in my father's views as distinguishing them in an unessential manner from his own. But, in my judgment, it is precisely differences of this kind which distinguish him so completely from the class of thinkers to which Dr. Aveling belongs."[77]

Darwin's Westminster Abbey funeral expressed a public feeling of national pride, and religious writers of all persuasions praised his "noble character and his ardent pursuit of truth", calling him a "true Christian gentleman". In particular the Unitarians and free religionists, proud of his Dissenting upbringing, supported his naturalistic views. The Unitarian William Carpenter carried a resolution praising Darwin's unravelling of "the immutable laws of the Divine Government", shedding light on "the progress of humanity", and the Unitarian preacher John White Chadwick from New York wrote that "The nation's grandest temple of religion opened its gates and lifted up its everlasting doors and bade the King of Science come in."

Darwin decided to leave a posthumous memoir for his family, and on Sunday 28 May 1876 he began Recollections of the Development of my mind and character. He found this candid private memoir easy going, covering his childhood, university, life on the Beagle expedition and developing work in science. A section headed "Religious Belief" opened just before his marriage, and frankly discussed his long disagreement with Emma. At first he had been unwilling to give up his faith, and had tried to "invent evidence" supporting the Gospels, but just as his clerical career had died a slow "natural death", so too did his belief in "Christianity as a divine revelation". "Inward convictions and feelings" had arisen from natural selection, as had survival instincts, and could not be relied on. He was quick to show Emma's side of the story and pay tribute to "your mother, so infinitely my superior in every moral quality... my wise adviser and cheerful comforter".

The Autobiography of Charles Darwin was published posthumously, and quotes about Christianity were omitted by Darwin's wife Emma and his son Francis because they were deemed dangerous for Charles Darwin's reputation. Only in 1958 Darwin's granddaughter Nora Barlow published a revised version which contained the omissions.[78] This included statements discussed above in Autobiography on gradually increasing disbelief, and others such as the following:...
 
Darwin did not come up with the term "survival of the fittest" in his evolutionary theories and it was actually Herbert Spencer, a British sociologist, who linked biological evolution to racialist ideas taken up by National Socialists in the 1930s and Charles Darwin would not have endorsed Spencer's views.

This attempt to explain the evolution of complexity was radically different from that to be found in Darwin's Origin of Species which was published two years later. Spencer is often, quite erroneously, believed to have merely appropriated and generalized Darwin's work on natural selection. But although after reading Darwin's work he coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest' as his own term for Darwin's concept,[6] and is often misrepresented as a thinker who merely applied the Darwinian theory to society, he only grudgingly incorporated natural selection into his preexisting overall system.
Herbert Spencer
 
I will have to do more research but Third Term is right Darwin did not come up with Survival of the fittest, Henry Spencer did. ":Darwin did not believe that evolution follows a predetermined direction or that it has an inevitable goal. His explanation that evolution occurs as a result of natural selection implied that chance plays a major role. He understood that it is a matter of luck whether any individuals in a population have variations that will allow them to survive and reproduce. If no such variations exist, the population rapidly goes extinct because it cannot adapt to a changing environment. Unlike Lamarck, Darwin did not believe that evolution inevitably produces more complex life forms and that the ultimate result of this process is humans. These were shocking, revolutionary ideas even for scientists who accepted evolution."

The idea of the survival of the fittest as developed by Spencer and Hitler that one race was superior and would survive , while others would not , is post Darwin thinking.

Darwin was not a committed Anglican when he died but nor were many others buried in Westminster Abbey.\
 
Werbung:
I will have to do more research but Third Term is right Darwin did not come up with Survival of the fittest, Henry Spencer did. ":Darwin did not believe that evolution follows a predetermined direction or that it has an inevitable goal. His explanation that evolution occurs as a result of natural selection implied that chance plays a major role. He understood that it is a matter of luck whether any individuals in a population have variations that will allow them to survive and reproduce. If no such variations exist, the population rapidly goes extinct because it cannot adapt to a changing environment. Unlike Lamarck, Darwin did not believe that evolution inevitably produces more complex life forms and that the ultimate result of this process is humans. These were shocking, revolutionary ideas even for scientists who accepted evolution."

The idea of the survival of the fittest as developed by Spencer and Hitler that one race was superior and would survive , while others would not , is post Darwin thinking.


while chance is a part, no telling when if or of what sort of variants might occur, its the result of the variant that causes the natural selection to be made. in a real sense those varients made them more fit. just sayin...

by the way, crocs gators and such have hardly varied at all and have been amazingly successful.

Darwin was not a committed Anglican when he died but nor were many others buried in Westminster Abbey.

very true, as much a matter of fame as anything else. the english love native sons as much as anyone. and as CofE is a church born of convenience (I am of the Anglican Communion but cant deny simple facts God found a way to get what he was going for in spite of Henry more than because of him) fudging some details like this cant be seen as meaningful.
 
Back
Top