Conflict (gotcha?) in Creationist Claims

[Mr. Scott]

I just realized Creationists/IDers had a conflict in the claims they make:

1) Microevolution (improvement withing a kind) happens.
2) Macroevolution (development into new kinds) doesn't happen.
3) Darwin, and evolution, were responsible for the Nazi holocaust.

The Nazi's, with their policy of exterminating people with attributes they didn't like, were manipulating microevolution, which creationists and IDers do not dispute. They were not attempting to create a new species. They were perfecting their breed, just like dog breeders, horse breeders, and farm breeders, using methods that predated Darwin and do not conflict with church ideology. Indeed, Hitler's mission had the support of the Catholic church.

Is this really a gotcha? Has this point been made before? Any answers from Creationists/IDers?

 

[MG1962]

Indeed, Hitler's mission had the support of the Catholic church.

Umm no

 

[Lowpro]

I just realized Creationists/IDers had a conflict in the claims they make:

1) Microevolution (improvement withing a kind) happens.
2) Macroevolution (development into new kinds) doesn't happen.
3) Darwin, and evolution, were responsible for the Nazi holocaust.

The Nazi's, with their policy of exterminating people with attributes they didn't like, were manipulating microevolution, which creationists and IDers do not dispute. They were not attempting to create a new species. They were perfecting their breed, just like dog breeders, horse breeders, and farm breeders, using methods that predated Darwin and do not conflict with church ideology. Indeed, Hitler's mission had the support of the Catholic church.

Is this really a gotcha? Has this point been made before? Any answers from Creationists/IDers?

Ya know while this isn't a great gotcha (sorry but you give too much credit to the abilities of Hitler's Eugenics program) I think there should be some historical context of eugenics during those times. Eugenics was QUITE preferred and there were a few models well before Hitler's time for human beings. The ethical implications hardly existed then, it's just that when you mandate them by force that it got a bit hard to swallow.

 

[Lowpro]

Umm no

Well it had neither support nor hindrance from the Catholic Church officially, though I'm sure there were Catholics who condemned the actions of the Nazi's. There may have been some who supported it too, though I haven't heard them

 

[MG1962]

Well it had neither support nor hindrance from the Catholic Church officially, though I'm sure there were Catholics who condemned the actions of the Nazi's. There may have been some who supported it too, though I haven't heard them

Hitler never got any real political traction from Catholics. There better organised than the Jews so Hitler didn't get serious about them till after the jews and communists were squared away.

Some high ranking Catholic clergy definately embraced Hitler, but as to their motive I can not be sure if it was true protection for their flocks or true fanboi action.

Jewish sources suggest the vatican may have saved up to 900,000 Jews during the war. But with the constant refusal by the church to allow researchers to examine their records, it is hard to know how accurate this number might be

 

[Wowbagger]

The Nazi's, with their policy of exterminating people with attributes they didn't like, were manipulating microevolution, which creationists and IDers do not dispute.

Hitler's brand of "microevolution" would not have worked: Not unless it was applied persistently for many, many, many, many generations, which is very highly unlikely. The variety of genes spread throughout the species would cause those "undesirable attributes" to pop right back in again, from their own bloodlines, in all of those generations along the way.

I think Creationists, who bring up the Nazis, feel that their plan was doomed to failure, though their reasons for thinking so might be different from the scientifically established ones. The idea is that "Evolution leads to dangerously wrong ideas such as eugenics" would seem to make sense from this mentality.

Though, it is important to realize that the real Darwinian-style science evolution was not really applied in those evil plans. Only a distorted version that re-defined "fittest" as absolute instead of relative.

 

[Mr. Scott]

A new analysis of this:

We always get a blending of the unrelated ideas, if evolution is true or false, and if evolution is good or bad.

The matrix:

1) Evolution is false and bad.
2) Evolution is false and good.
3) Evolution is true and bad.
4) Evolution is true and good.

The creationist/ID people claim #1, and this is argued in the film Expelled. However, the type of evolution they don't believe (macroevolution) is not the same type they say is bad (microevolution, the basis of eugenics and Nazi extermination strategies).

If IDers know what they are doing, they are making an appeal to emotions by shifting Darwinian macroevolution to microevolution/eugenics, effectively blaming Darwin for the extermination of six million Jews. It's dishonest sleight of hand (again lying for Jesus) and they should be called on it. I suspect, however, many of them are unaware of their flawed logic.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Of course this is a conflict. And of course the creationists won't care.

Whatever exactly Hitler and Nazi racial ideology was on about it all took/was to take place in what Creationists would call the human baramin. No universal common descent needed. Not even human-chimp kinship.

 

[Perpetual Student]

...
If IDers know what they are doing, they are making an appeal to emotions by shifting Darwinian macroevolution to microevolution/eugenics, effectively blaming Darwin for the extermination of six million Jews. It's dishonest sleight of hand (again lying for Jesus) and they should be called on it. I suspect, however, many of them are unaware of their flawed logic.

Allow me to point out that the total deaths attributed to WWII (and hence, Hitler's "master race" delusions) is estimated to be over 60 million.

 

[foxholeatheist]

A new analysis of this:

We always get a blending of the unrelated ideas, if evolution is true or false, and if evolution is good or bad.

The matrix:

1) Evolution is false and bad.
2) Evolution is false and good.
3) Evolution is true and bad.
4) Evolution is true and good.

The creationist/ID people claim #1, and this is argued in the film Expelled. However, the type of evolution they don't believe (macroevolution) is not the same type they say is bad (microevolution, the basis of eugenics and Nazi extermination strategies).

If IDers know what they are doing, they are making an appeal to emotions by shifting Darwinian macroevolution to microevolution/eugenics, effectively blaming Darwin for the extermination of six million Jews. It's dishonest sleight of hand (again lying for Jesus) and they should be called on it. I suspect, however, many of them are unaware of their flawed logic.

Good/bad are irrelevant when talking about natural phenomena or science and technology. Nature is indifferent to our value judgement. Humans impose value.

I posit that good/bad are human constructs which say nothing on the validity of Evolution. Let's say that it was bad; that doesn't make it wrong.

Had it not been for Hitler Von braun may not have gotten any significant funding and had he not gotten funding he may have never developed the V2 and had he never developed the V2, rocket technology would have been set back decades, perhaps centuries and had the Americans not captured Nazi technology and scientists we would not have been able to put men on the moon in 1969.

So without absolute pure evil we would not have a space program as we know it.

 

[theprestige]

Mr. Scott, I'm having trouble following your train of thought. It seems to be composed almost entirely of non-sequiturs and unsupported assumptions.

Are you able to cite some creationists who clearly state the beliefs you claim they hold? Do you know of any notable creationist (or any creationist at all), who believes, as you claim they believe, that "Darwin, and evolution, were responsible for the Nazi holocaust"?

For example, I'm pretty sure creationists everywhere blame Adolf Hitler, not Charles Darwin, for the Holocaust.

And where the Christian leadership of the period made decisions to oppose support, or accede to Hitler's demands, they seem to have done so for a variety of reasons unrelated to their views on evolution. Certainly Protestant leaders in Germany like Friedrich Bonhoeffer were vehemently opposed to Hitler and the Nazi program. And the Catholic church's dealing with Hitler at the time seems to have had nothing at all to do with the Catholic church's stance on evolution and Charles Darwin.

Also, you seem to be conflating the true|false value of an idea itself with the good|bad value of promoting an idea you believe to be false.

 

[MaxMurx]

Discussing the topic, don't forget:
The American Breeders Association
The Human Embetterment Foundation
Buck vs. Bell
Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Charles M. Goethe
Lothrop Stoddard
Harry Laughlin
Paul Popenoe

Thanks

 

[MaxMurx]

Conflict

Isn't the main confllict that something having "created" a system like our natural environment now is supposed to be wasting its time to control if the creations obey a few stupid laws of procedures, threatening them to be punished for disobedience.
1. The "creator" has to be aware that those flaws are flaws of the system itself, meaning his/hers/its own mistakes during "creation".
2. The most stupid approach creating anything is to "punish" it for malfunction. Intelligent designers learn from own mistakes and recreate improved systems.
3. Where is the logic that only humans have to marry for copulation? Why not the ants, protozoa or cats?

(That is a logic which can be assumed to be also the creator's logic, assumed that we are "created". Creators never deviate from own logic. Their logic must be ours.)

 

[theprestige]

Mr. Scott, I'm having trouble following your train of thought. It seems to be composed almost entirely of non-sequiturs and unsupported assumptions.

Are you able to cite some creationists who clearly state the beliefs you claim they hold? Do you know of any notable creationist (or any creationist at all), who believes, as you claim they believe, that "Darwin, and evolution, were responsible for the Nazi holocaust"?

For example, I'm pretty sure creationists everywhere blame Adolf Hitler, not Charles Darwin, for the Holocaust.

And where the Christian leadership of the period made decisions to oppose support, or accede to Hitler's demands, they seem to have done so for a variety of reasons unrelated to their views on evolution. Certainly Protestant leaders in Germany like Friedrich Bonhoeffer were vehemently opposed to Hitler and the Nazi program. And the Catholic church's dealing with Hitler at the time seems to have had nothing at all to do with the Catholic church's stance on evolution and Charles Darwin.

Also, you seem to be conflating the true|false value of an idea itself with the good|bad value of promoting an idea you believe to be false.

I mean, if you want a "gotcha" for Christians, what about the differing accounts of Judas's death in the book of Matthew and the book of Acts? There's a "gotcha" that can be cited, chapter and verse--literally!

If you walked up to a devout Christian and asked them, "if the Bible is the inerrant word of god, how come there's one account of Judas's death in Matthew 27:5, and a different account in Acts 1:18?", he'd stare at you bug-eyed as he tried to come up with a satisfactory answer. And he'd probably fail.

If you walked up to a devout Christian and asked them, "if you believe in microevolution and don't believe in macroevolution, why do you blame Darwin and evolution for the Holocaust?", he'd stare at you bug-eyed because it's not even a satisfactory question!

 

[Mr. Scott]

Good/bad are irrelevant when talking about natural phenomena or science and technology. Nature is indifferent to our value judgement. Humans impose value.

I posit that good/bad are human constructs which say nothing on the validity of Evolution. Let's say that it was bad; that doesn't make it wrong.

Had it not been for Hitler Von braun may not have gotten any significant funding and had he not gotten funding he may have never developed the V2 and had he never developed the V2, rocket technology would have been set back decades, perhaps centuries and had the Americans not captured Nazi technology and scientists we would not have been able to put men on the moon in 1969.

So without absolute pure evil we would not have a space program as we know it.

I know, but Creationists and Religulous and Atheists do this a lot -- flipping between what's good/bad, benign/harmful, and true/false. Sometimes it makes me crazy.

The father of modern rocketry, BTW, was Goddard, an American.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Mr. Scott, I'm having trouble following your train of thought. It seems to be composed almost entirely of non-sequiturs and unsupported assumptions.

Are you able to cite some creationists who clearly state the beliefs you claim they hold? Do you know of any notable creationist (or any creationist at all), who believes, as you claim they believe, that "Darwin, and evolution, were responsible for the Nazi holocaust"?

It's the thesis of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," which quite literally asserts that Darwinism was responsible for the Nazi's extermination of the Jews. The whole movie is in 10 parts on YouTube. This section includes that assertion.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Isn't the main confllict that something having "created" a system like our natural environment now is supposed to be wasting its time to control if the creations obey a few stupid laws of procedures, threatening them to be punished for disobedience.
1. The "creator" has to be aware that those flaws are flaws of the system itself, meaning his/hers/its own mistakes during "creation".
2. The most stupid approach creating anything is to "punish" it for malfunction. Intelligent designers learn from own mistakes and recreate improved systems.
3. Where is the logic that only humans have to marry for copulation? Why not the ants, protozoa or cats?

(That is a logic which can be assumed to be also the creator's logic, assumed that we are "created". Creators never deviate from own logic. Their logic must be ours.)

Yes! Though that is more religion/philosophy than science.

The dumbness of the idea, that God created free willed creatures, then punished them for not doing what He wanted, is smartly portrayed here:

 

[Mr. Scott]

I mean, if you want a "gotcha" for Christians, what about the differing accounts of Judas's death in the book of Matthew and the book of Acts? There's a "gotcha" that can be cited, chapter and verse--literally!

If you walked up to a devout Christian and asked them, "if the Bible is the inerrant word of god, how come there's one account of Judas's death in Matthew 27:5, and a different account in Acts 1:18?", he'd stare at you bug-eyed as he tried to come up with a satisfactory answer. And he'd probably fail.

If you walked up to a devout Christian and asked them, "if you believe in microevolution and don't believe in macroevolution, why do you blame Darwin and evolution for the Holocaust?", he'd stare at you bug-eyed because it's not even a satisfactory question!

Sure, there are innumerable gotchas in all religions, but this one re. evolution I'd not seen pointed out before, so next time a Creationist tries to argue that Darwinism was responsible for the Nazi's master race crusade, know the refutation by drawing attention to their inconsistency.

 

[Tacita]

In one story he hung himself. In the other his body fell and guts ran everywhere. The two do not contradict each other.

No really. That's what they say. They don't stare bug-eyed.

 

[sphenisc]

I just realized Creationists/IDers had a conflict in the claims they make:

1) Microevolution (improvement withing a kind) happens.
2) Macroevolution (development into new kinds) doesn't happen.
3) Darwin, and evolution, were responsible for the Nazi holocaust.

The Nazi's, with their policy of exterminating people with attributes they didn't like, were manipulating microevolution, which creationists and IDers do not dispute. They were not attempting to create a new species. They were perfecting their breed, just like dog breeders, horse breeders, and farm breeders, using methods that predated Darwin and do not conflict with church ideology. Indeed, Hitler's mission had the support of the Catholic church.

Is this really a gotcha? Has this point been made before? Any answers from Creationists/IDers?

Where's the conflict?