Evidence for God from Science

I wanted to get peoples input here on what they think regarding the influence or non-influence that Darwin had relative to the Holocaust. This topic has been of interest in many other blogs and forums, thought it would be of interest here as well (unless this has been covered on another thread).

If you watched Expelled, then you know it made at least an indirect (if not direct) link between Darwin and Nazi Germany.

My opinion on it now is that Darwin's ideas had little to do with it, but nevertheless I do see much correlation and that people are justified to make such a connection if they feel its the right thing to do.

This is a matter of philosophy and not science the way I see it. Philosophy borrows from science much like science borrows from philosophy.

If you watched Expelled, then you know it made at least an indirect (if not direct) link between Darwin and Nazi Germany.

I have yet to see Expelled. But it does look good. As far as Darwinism and Nazi Germany, from what I understand about "natural selection" and how it was applied by Hitler, he had turned it into humanism. I could be wrong.

Hitler used Darwin's ideas of natural selection and directed them at the Jewish people. He felt that the evolutionary curve wasn't working as it should and took matters into his own hands.
That may be the only connection. Hitler twisted it, just as some twist scripture. To him the Jewish race were nothing but "sub-human" to him. Or, non-evolved.

That may be the only connection. Hitler twisted it, just as some twist scripture. To him the Jewish race were nothing but "sub-human" to him. Or, non-evolved.

I agree, the only connection between Darwin and the holocaust is the connection Hitler made. Whatever Darwin wrote is of no significance since we can't imply a direct connection and we can't say whether the same thing would or wouldn't happen if Darwin did not exist.

The basic message of Darwinian evolution is that some humans were "more evolved", in the sense of their divergence from apes, than others... Darwin wrote numerous times about how other races were more "evolved" than the savage ones. As an example in "Descent of Man" Darwin wrote these comparisons on how man had become more evolved than women.

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses”

"If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison"

"Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman and has more inventive genius".

"Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman."

My best response would be we just don't know if Darwinism led to the Holocaust or any other type of persecution.... To say that Darwinism automatically leads to racism I believe is false the same way how one could say that all religion leads man to claim a moral superiority over others as well. We simply can't pinpoint the blame on any belief system, although I think this question does raise some other questions on where the moral ball is bouncing.

Our website proposes that the evolutionary theory does have some moral implications particularly around the use of Eugenics...

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/m ... enics.html

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... tions.html

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses”

"If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison"

"Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman and has more inventive genius".

And all these are refuted just by the fact that without women, men would not even exist in the first place. I'm starting to get the impression that Darwin may have really wanted people to hear what he had to say, he needed severe attention it seems and I bet if he lived long enough he might have found that he got much needed attention from notable characters such as Hitler and the liberals. Of course, nobody can be sure if Darwin would want that upon the human race. Saying is one thing, doing is another.

My best response would be we just don't know if Darwinism led to the Holocaust or any other type of persecution....

I would say deffinately not. Darwin or not, the persecution of the Jews during that time would have happened anyway. I believe that Satan found a tool to use, Hitler, to try and destroy God's chosen people. Satan is against everything that God loves and cares for.
Is it harsh to say that God let it happen? Yes. But who are we to call into question what God allows. He allows us to be tried as much as He knows we can handle to grow us spiritually.

My understanding is that the church as a whole was not as unified against evolution as it is today until Henry Morris, et al came around in the 1960s (for instance, B.B. Warfield was a theistic evolutionist, as am I), so I'm not as sure about how the church reacted as a whole. However, Christians need to be in tune with modern philosophies and cultures and evaluate them from a Christian perspective and recognize when anything (evolution, science, whatever) is being hijacked. There were many other philosophies/fields than evolution that were being hijacked. Hitler, for instance, used revisionist versions of history to spread his propaganda. This does not mean that history, or even necessarily propaganda itself, was inherently bad.

The reason I say that Christians need to be in tune with these things is because a half-truth can be much more dangerous than a full lie, and Hitler knew this, and how easy it was to prey on the ignorant.

Hitler used artificial selection, not natualral selection or anything to do with it. The kind of thing Hitler was trying to do is very much like breeding dogs, not at all like natural selection.

But artificial selection works on the same principles as natural selection, it is on'y that the people are selecting the genetic traits, versus the organisms fitting the environment. In both, those that are reproducing the most pass down the genes into the next generation.

I found it interesting what Darwin said about the "lower" evolved races. If he said anything like that today he easily would have been kicked out of any college or tarred and feathered and hung from the highest rafter... He gets none of my support.

I am a creationist.
Lets be accurate in analysis.
First only those who commit and those who consent to a particular evil are responsible. Theres no lead up to things in evil doing.
Therefore evolution was not responsible for the Jewish holocaust.
It was responsible for setting up a establishment in Europe in which people were seen as innately better then others. with that the idea to arrange for the better people to prevail. Eugenics in other words.
When Hitlers ideas came there was no acedemic or otherwise establishment to fight him before the masses. His ideas in premise were common establishment beliefs.
Evolution is responsible for the dumbing down and the tendency against human dignity and equality. So it was running interference to historic ideas and any ideas that might of helped fight nazism.
However it was not the origin of the holocaust. The holocaust was a ordinary slaughter of one people against another just like in a few cases in Africa today.

The persecution of the Jews began long before Darwin was even a glint in his father's eye. It is merely racist. Darwinism and the theory of evolution did not cause rascism. It is sometimes used to justify rascism but it does not cause racism, racism has existed long before the theory of evolution.

PS: On a sidenote "anti-semitism" is a terribly inaccurate term. It is used to describe rascism against Jews but that is wrong as semites include most Arabs, Lebanese, Philistines an others so anti-semitism despite it's popular useage is completely inaccurate. You can't accuse Arabs of being anti-semitic.

Leprechaun wrote:PS: On a sidenote "anti-semitism" is a terribly inaccurate term. It is used to describe rascism against Jews but that is wrong as semites include most Arabs, Lebanese, Philistines an others so anti-semitism despite it's popular useage is completely inaccurate. You can't accuse Arabs of being anti-semitic.

Actually, Jews trace their ancestry through the mother (i.e. you're only an ethnic Jew if your mother was as well), and the Bible says that Isaac (the ancestor of the Arabs) had an Egyptian mother and an Egyptian wife, so Arabs are not Semites. Plus, the modern usage of "Semitic" to refer to Jews is pretty much the same principle as using "American" to refer specifically to the United States, even though technically Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean islands, and the South American countries are all American as well.

On a side note, the Philistines were Greek, not Jewish or Arabic, so they weren't Semitic in any sense of the word.

Actually, Jews trace their ancestry through the mother (i.e. you're only an ethnic Jew if your mother was as well),

I'm Jewish through my mom, through hers, through both of my grandmother's parents, and both of theirs, etc....

Now, in order for me to claim Ahlya, they look at the fathers side of the family and if you are jewish through that side.

and the Bible says that Isaac (the ancestor of the Arabs) had an Egyptian mother and an Egyptian wife,

Not sure if Sarah was Egyptian, doubt it though, and his wife was a relative of Abraham. So she was not Egyptian either.

Plus, the modern usage of "Semitic" to refer to Jews is pretty much the same principle as using "American" to refer specifically to the United States, even though technically Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean islands, and the South American countries are all American as well.

Semetic is Shem in Hebrew, it means "name" in Arabic. (The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites) From Wikipedia.

From Wikipedia also

The term "anti-Semitic" (or "anti-Semite") usually refers to Jews only. It was coined in 1873 by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in a pamphlet called, "The Victory of Jewry over Germandom". Using ideas of race and nationalism, Marr argued that Jews had become the first major power in the West. He accused them of being liberals, a people without roots who had Judaized Germans beyond salvation. In 1879 Marr founded the "League for Anti-Semitism".

I'm Jewish through my mom, through hers, through both of my grandmother's parents, and both of theirs, etc....

Now, in order for me to claim Ahlya, they look at the fathers side of the family and if you are jewish through that side.

Huh. Everything I've read says that being an ethnic Jew is traced matrilineally.

Not sure if Sarah was Egyptian, doubt it though, and his wife was a relative of Abraham. So she was not Egyptian either.

Shoot, I got my names confused. I meant to say Ishmael, not Isaac. *smacks self* Ishmael is the Arabs' ancestor, and his mother and wife were Egyptian.