Posting:

Due to the current troll infestation we will be requiring you to sign in to leave a comment. Also, please note that we will be very nice in the regular posts, but we will not be gentle in the Sunday Blaspheme posts. You will be expected to back up any ideas with facts.

I am always happy to answer any questions I can:)

New Rule! Staff reserves the right to cuss you out and post your correspondence if you send us annoying emails.

Best!

Brett

Monday, May 5, 2008

Hitler and his moral foundation


This is for everyone who keeps saying Evolution leads to Nazis.

It says:

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life" ('My New Order', Adolf Hitler, Proclamation of the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933)

Hat tip to Pharyngula.

Best,

Brett

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sometimes you just have to laugh at what gets reprinted. Let's see, Hitler killed millions of Jews, non-Arians, and Christians, but somehow we are to believe he was not capable of lying or misrepresenting the truth? You do watch political campaigns don't you? You are familiar with the concept of spinning the truth right?

The first installment - a 120-page report titled "The
Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian
Churches" - was prepared by the Office of Strategic
Services, a forerunner of the CIA.

"Important leaders of the National Socialist party
would have liked to meet this situation [church
influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and
the substitution of a purely racial religion," said an
OSS report in July 1945. "The best evidence now
available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan
is to be found in the systematic nature of the
persecution itself.

"Different steps in that persecution, such as the
campaign for the suppression of denominational and
youth organizations, the campaign against
denominational schools, the defamation campaign
against the clergy, started on the same day in the
whole area of the Reich . . . and were supported by
the entire regimented press, by Nazi Party meetings,
by traveling party speakers."


Let's not misrepresent what opponents of evolution are actually saying the connection is between Darwin and Hitler. Darwin influenced Hitler, Evolution allowed for, but did not cause Hitler to act or believe as he did. Hitler used a survival of the fittest rationality for genocide, that doesn't mean everyone who accepts evolution is a supporter of mass-murder.

-Steve

Brett said...

LOL! Do you not see what this is? It's the same thing as adding under god in the pledge. To 'show' that we Americans are the moral Christian right and that the communists/dictators are the evil Atheists. Of course you would miss that.

And the CIA is well known for it's ability to tell the truth. Weapons of mass destruction anyone.

Almost all of Hitlers buddies were Christians. He even state in his book that he's Christian. The people who were torchered and killed by him say it wasn't evolution, Hundreds of years of anti semetic History says it wasn't evolution.... Come one Steve, you can't change the facts just because you want them to be different.

As I've said before, Genocide is NOT natural selection. It's breeding, it's farming! So are you now going to blame the damn farmers for the holocost?

The more I read this stuff from Answers in Genesis and this total right wing stuff the more I can't believe it. You preach morals and the 'christian way' but it's just full of lies.

Brett

Anonymous said...

Brett,
Your logic is a bit faulty. The OSS nor the CIA has ever tried to portray themselves as having any religious connections. Please support your accusations with facts. Which of Hitler's buddies were Christians? And why did he kill some Christian believers and not others? Why aren't his own actions a better indicator of his beliefs than your interpetations of his supposed beliefs? Again I can dress up in a brown skirt and try to sell cookies, but that does not make me a girl scout, it makes me an imposter. Please instead of using straw men arguments about farmers, point to how belief in a more fit master race does not allow for belief also in all other races being inferior? Why have secular scholars for decades connected Hitler's beliefs with his Darwinistic world view? Are they all wrong?

Jess said...

Sign your comments or I will delete them. Period. I don't care if you make up a name.

Jess

Brett said...

No my logic is based on the facts I'm not going to waste my time pointing these things out if your going to completely ignore them, which is what happens time and again. You can look it up, the web is a marvelous thing, although I'd stay away from Answers in genesis. I can say that Hilter's SS (Himler or something) buddy was thought to be into the occult. and the vast majority of the officers were christians, although I'm sure they won't be 'your kind' of Christians.

I was told long ago that dogs were NOT an indication of Natural selection. They were artificially created. So if you breed humans for specific appearances like you do dogs this is artificial, not natural selection. No evolution involved, so no Darwin. It proves my point. No straw man. I never said anything about inferior races. There are none, just like there are no inferior species. There are just different races and species. Each adapted for their specific enviornment.

Brett

Anonymous said...

Hey the above comment was me (Steve) I did sign it, don't know why it did not post.

Now things are getting interesting... So if dogs and people are selectively breed- and this is not natural, but a process of an intelligent force designing a breed for a desired outcome. Would you call this proof of how intelligent design can work to change a breed? I was under the wrong impression that materialists viewed engineered experiements such as the fruit flies with four wings and such as proof for evolution (that is how they appear in biology books.) So is your view consistant, and would you discount any experiments and/or selective breeding examples that are orchestrated by man to prove evolution?

interesting article on Hitler and Christianity here:
http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

I guess you can see how I'm a bit confused that Hitler had strong Christian beliefs and surrounded himself with mainly followers of Christ and at the same time came up with this anthem for children to sing:

"We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
Away with incense and Holy Water,
The Church can go hang for all we care,
The Swastika brings salvation on Earth."

-Steve

Brett said...

Steve I think you got suckered, here's the wikientry for that song:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst-Wessel-Lied

Those lyrics don't appear anywhere. This looks like propoganda to me. Oh wait that's a Christian site...

As for the fruit flies, no. Selective breeding as opposed to changing the enviornment, one shows artificial selection while the other natural. One is guided (the dog breeding) while the other shows what would happen with a natural enviornemental change or isolation (the Flies.) The flies were not selectively breed. It's completely different. Most of the more modern breeds of dog were 'guided' heavily by man for appearance, but the older breeds were breed for performance.(Or left to fend for themselves the canary dogs are quite interesting while they hunt and live around the natives they aren't breed or helped by them. They get a small reward for the hunt and that's all they breed themselves so that would be more natural selection, similarly the Dingos of Australia,, who are totally wild now.)

And to use your own argument against you. Most of the dogs can still be breed together. So your ID doesn't make species;)

Seriously though, dogs are not the same as wolves, but they can still interbreed with them and also with coyotes. Species is an arbitrary thing that we humans have done, not nature. Tiger and lions can interbreed as can horses and zebra or donkeys. Most of these offspring are infertile, but every now and then some can reproduce.

Brett

Anonymous said...

from Steve:

Well, maybe you have me on the song, maybe you don't. I guess short of finding a film clip with kids singing it I guess we won't know. Still it is pretty silly to continue to suggest Hitler had any connections to the Church. The real evil the Christian Church committed was being silent during the holocaust, some congregations did not act when they should have, and they remained complacent rather than get involved. Some religious bigots in direct opposition to God's commands allowed their Jewish neighbors to be round up and sent to gas chambers rather than oppose the SS. Not all religous people were idle, but the minority that did nothing did give the church a real black eye. If you want some real ammo against us Christians that is where you should start. No one is going to take you serious if you suggest Hitler had any sort of Theistic faith based worldview, well maybe a few who will believe any negative gossip they hear against Christians, but they are nuts.


4 winged fruit flies are genetically engineered and not naturally occurring. They do not reproduce and are less fit than normal 2 winged fruit flies. They are strong evidence AGAINST evolution because it shows how mutations cripple a species rather than help, but still it is taught as evidence for evolution in some science manuals lagging decades behind in the fact department.

Here is a quote from Jonathan Wells:
"To show how genetic mutations can provide raw materials for anatomical evolution, many biology textbooks feature pictures of a four-winged fruit fly. Fruit flies normally have two wings and two “balancers”--tiny appendages behind the wings that enable the insect to stabilize itself in flight. A skilled geneticist, however, can combine three separate DNA mutations to produce a fly in which the balancers are transformed into a normal-looking second pair of wings. Since some insects have four wings instead of two, the four-winged fruit fly seems at first glance to provide evidence for how one kind of insect evolved into another.

As I pointed out in Icons of Evolution, however, fruit flies with four normal-looking wings do not occur in nature; they must be engineered in a modern genetics laboratory. Furthermore, the extra wings have no muscles, so the mutant fly is a hopeless cripple that has great difficulty flying or mating. Outside the laboratory, natural selection would quickly eliminate it. Far from being raw material for evolution, the four-winged fruit fly is an evolutionary dead end. [16]"

NOTES:
[16] On what it takes to produce four-winged fruit flies, see E. B. Lewis, “A gene complex controlling segmentation in Drosophila,” Nature 276 (1978): 565-570; E. B. Lewis, “Control of Body Segment Differentation in Drosophila by the Bithorax Gene Complex,” pp. 269-288 in Max M. Burger & Rudolf Weber (editors), Embryonic Development, Part A: Genetic Aspects (New York, Alan R. Liss, 1982); E. B. Lewis, “Regulation of the Genes of the Bithorax Complex in Drosophila,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 50 (1985): 155-164. On the absence of flight muscles in the extra pair of wings, see J. Fernandes, S. E. Celniker, E. B. Lewis & K. VijayRaghavan, “Muscle development in the four-winged Drosophila and the role of the Ultrabithorax gene,” Current Biology 4 (1994): 957-964; Sudipto Roy, L. S. Shashidhara & K. VijayRaghavan, “Muscles in the Drosophila second thoracic segment are patterned independently of autonomous homeotic gene function,” Current Biology 7 (1997): 222-227.

Anonymous said...

Well, I never read Darwin's "Descent of Man." If this review is true then Darwins's eugenic theories were a lot closer to Hitler's than I previously believed. Scary stuff.

http://www.discovery.org/a/5159

-Steve

Brett said...

Well since the only translations I found were pretty much the same as mine. I'm pretty darn sure your is a fake made up by those lying Christians. I was hoping you might actually see this at some point but it's not going to happen. These 'moral' Christians think it is OK for them to keep making this stuff up. I don't blame the Christians for what the Nazis did, since the Nazis did it! I have shown you repeatedly that Evolution does not lead to Nazis but you keep covering your eyes and slicking your head in the sand. the Nazi's were some sick feckers, it shows you the evils men are capable of.

As for the fies. You didn't read the info I sent. Yes 4 winged flies are breed like dogs and cows. BUT the papers I sited were NOT the 4 winged fly papers. In the experiment they split up a population, changed the enviornment for both and left them alone for 37 or so generations. After that the placed them all back together. The 2 sets of flies would not interbreed. They stuck to their own kind. That is speciation.

John Wells is a disco guy, but he's just a writer, NOT a scientist. He's also an HIV denilaist. He's a crank.

I keep telling you that eugenics is not he same thing as natural selection. Think about it, if you pick who gets to reproduce that's artificial selection. That's what farmers and dog breeders do. That is NOT natural selection. Are you just skipping this information or are you ignoring it because it makes sense and refutes you?

Brett

Anonymous said...

Brett,

Sorry I thought you missed the point of your own reference. The flies chose not to interbreed is what I got from the article, not that they were incapable of it-which would be speciation.

As for the Hitler song, I found dozens of references to the accuracy of how I quoted the lyrics. Your wiki article doesn't contradict what I wrote, it in fact supports it. The tune was used for many different variations and verses. The anti-Christian one I quoted is included on many Christian and anti-Christian websites. The point being Hitler and the Nazis had nothing to do with Christianity.

I also find it disturbing you misquote me. Again, evolution did not give rise to the Nazis, but the worldview of Evolution and specifically evolutionary eugenics allows for a racial superiority view. Doesn't cause it, but doesn't contradict it. Morality must always be a guide for how to guide science since sience does not touch on moral issues. It may tell us how a car runs, but not where to drive it.

-Steve

Brett said...

One of the hallmarks of new speices is refusal to interbreed with others of different species. It doesn't mean they can't as I've said before. Mules, wolf/coyote hybrids. Ligers Tigons. The point is they prefer their own kind. That's speciation.

As I have said repeatedly, eugenics is NOT evolution. You just keep on thinking what you want, you won't listen to reason.

I'm done listening to this.

Brett