Tom Frame #fundie

Tom Frame #fundie smh.com.au

The problem I face is weariness with science-based dialogue partners like Richard Dawkins. It surprises me he is not chided for his innate scientific conservatism and metaphysical complacency. He won't take his depiction of Darwinism to logical conclusions. A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide. Publicly, he advocates none of them.

68 comments

old comment by Mister Spak

"A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide. Publicly, he advocates none of them. "

"I believe that I am acting in accordance
with the will of the Almighty Creator:
by defending myself against the Jew,
I am fighting for the work of the Lord"
--Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

The first of such organisations to be
founded in that country, the German
Freethinkers League had by 1930 a
membership numbering around 500,000.
The League was closed down, however,
in the Spring of 1933 when Hitler
outlawed all atheistic and freethinking
groups in Germany. 'Freethinkers Hall',
the national headquarters of the League,
was then converted to a bureau advising
to the public in church matters.

Among its Chairmen was Max Sievers,
who was beheaded at the guillotine by the Nazis in 1944.

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."

- Adolf Hitler, 1933 speech in Berlin

"... I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity."
Adolf Hitler, February 15, 1933, speech in Stuttgart

"National Socialism neither opposes the Church nor is it anti-religious, but on the contrary, it stands on the ground of a real Christianity."
Adolf Hitler, August 26, 1934, speech in Koblenz

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

"I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence."
Adolf Hitler, 1944

Hitler's Table Talk, July 25, l942:

'From where do we get the right to believe, that from the
very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at
Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals
changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a
kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump,
as Man must supposedly have made, if he has
developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.'

old comment by zz tops

He is right that the logical implication of evolution is that social engineering is acceptable and desirable as it helps us be better equipped to survive. We now have tools that allow us to do social engineering in non-violent ways, such as gene therapy and once we finish the human genome project we'll be able to target out genes and recode DNA in embryos and fetuses (kinda science fiction-y, but a strong possibility).

Scientific advance will "obsolete" violent forms of social engineering (genocide, forced sterilization, other ones Tom Frame mentions). So yes, Tom Frame might be right that the logical conclusion of Darwinian evolution is accepting that social engineering is desirable because it improves our chances of survival (it's a form of hedging our natural selection chances), he is wrong in which methods will/should be used.

old comment by David B.

@Thinking Allowed: "A dedicated darwininan? Sorry, but there's no such thing."

TA, this is a response to Dawkins' own statement in A Devil's Chaplain, "As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, believing that natural selection is, if not the only driving force in evolution, certainly the only known force capable of producing the illusion of purpose which so strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist, I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to politics and how we should conduct our human affairs."

(On Google Books.)

Or are you suggesting Darwinians can be passionate, but not dedicated?

old comment by FMG

Ah Darwinism...

Imperialism - Survival of the species is a whole not at the sacrifice of individuals. Imperialism reduces survivability of the entire species.

Genocide - See here again. Genocide never happens because of lack of percieved genetic fitness. It happens because you don't like group A and their pointy hat dance. If its survival you are worried about you want to have sex with those people and raise children.

Mass Deportation - See above. If its darwinian fitness you want ethnic minorities to have sex with so your species becomes more diverse.

Eugenics - We already have this in the abortion of children with massive disorders such as Harlequin Icthyosis

Euthanasia - Its voluntary. I would like it to be in place so I have the option.

Forced Sterilisations - ARE against Darwinian evolution. However education to reduce numbers of children to ensure greater resource allocation is not.

Infanticide - Why would a theory that relies on having children kill children?

In short they are illogical conclusions.

old comment by Giveitaday

He won't take his depiction of Darwinism to logical conclusions.

Evolution is an open ended theory, the is no point at which it would reach a conclusion. What you are doing is chiding someone for not behaving as you demand, Just because you say X is Y, doesn't mean that it is.

A dedicated Darwinian would welcome imperialism, genocide, mass deportation, ethnic cleansing, eugenics, euthanasia, forced sterilisations and infanticide

No, they wouldn't, you are purposely confusing evolutionary theory with social darwinism (Which has nothing to do with Darwin's theory, nor did he advocate any such thing.) Anybody who knows even the basics of evolutioary theory would not that such a thing is not the case, the mechanism that drives evolution is Natural Selection, what you saying that evolutionary theory advocates is not natural selection, it's unnatural selection.

old comment by ????

Imperialism: That's Christians, not Athiests.
Genocide: See above.
Mass Deportation: See above.
Ethnic Cleansing: A Christian view, and very bad for the gene pool anyway.
Eugenics: Human genetics are too complex, it's unethical, evolution doesn't need our help, and we'll have genetic engineering soon anyway.
Euthanasia: Only for the already dead.
Forced Sterilisations: Bad for the gene pool and unethical, but sometimes I feel it's necessary for people like you.
Infanticide: Nooooooo... If you mean abortion, then it's both ethical and against 'Darwinist' principles, if you mean actual infanticide, it's unethical and against 'Social Darwinist' principles.

old comment by P

Actually Dawkins *does* favor euthanasia. voluntary that is. This ignorant "professor" doesnt understand what euthanasia is - the assisting of an incurable person in choosing to end their own life, not murdering them.

@zztops -you, like Tom, are wrong. The facts of evolutionary history have no implications for our present moral choices, which we are free to make as we wish. Apart from that fact, we have clearly evolved so that most of the time most of us find not merely fascism but social darwinism repugnant.. Hence apparently evolution would suggest we should avoid them. The great success of human beings is undoubrtedly primarily driven by our ability to co-operate rather than compete. Alas we apply that to violence, so that we are violent collectively against other human groups.but again, we are free to both reject our predispositions and choose our own goals and values. if we do not overcome this tendency and destroy ourselves before getting off the planet, then we can console ourselves that natural selection will operate throughout the universe. On another planet at another time in this vast, almost timeless cosmos, surely an intelligent species will evolve that will overcome the problem and spread far enough to make themselves secure. The meek may not inherit the earth - but they may inherit the universe.

Tom Frame #fundie smh.com.au

68 comments

Confused?