Talk:Evolutionist style

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Darwinism and the Holocaust

DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. BryonRichards 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. DanH 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! BryonRichards 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in survival of the fittest, and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--Aschlafly 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! BryonRichards 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between "points" 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. Murray 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. WilliamH 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about "creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins" is just a cover-story for our EVIL. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission directly from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --Gulik5 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--TerryHTalk 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic. AdenJ 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the uniformitarianism/abiogenesis/common-descent paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--TerryHTalk 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed? In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman. AdenJ 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You clearly do not understand the Crusades, or the history of Islam. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered Spain and tried to conquer France. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no positive statement that condemns a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The Bible says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why Martin Luther finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--TerryHTalk 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
(1 Sam 15:1-3 NIV)

Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. {2} This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. {3} Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

Exo 22:18

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Martin Luther The Jews and Their Lies:

Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self­glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them. ... I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God's wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated."

Yeah, I can't imagine how ANYONE could get craziness like the Crusades or the Holocaust from words of Love and Peace like those! Some people you just can't reach...
--Gulik5 11:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying "astronomy makes no positive statement' that condemns a Hitler". Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that. AdenJ 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Is Evolution Truly Scientific?

All right, AdenJ, pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by Andy Schlafly and myself, about the "evolutionist style." You keep saying that "evolution is science"—and by "evolution" I mean here the full paradigm of uniformitarianism, Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and "common descent from one ancestor."
So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes "millions of years" to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir Charles Lyell's word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.
And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space astronomy. What's this dark matter and dark energy we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that "dark matter" trick on the world once before—they invented a "planet" named Vulcan (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the planet Mercury that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then Albert Einstein showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.
Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first "dark matter" object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark energy, all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the "Higgs boson," an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.
Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter or dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing Edwin Hubble knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe did expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped—and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--TerryHTalk 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Funny thing, Terry--the scientists threw those theories out when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --Gulik5 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
For some science that is true, Gulik, but scientists these days hold onto things like Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolutionism with a near religious fervor despite the fact that these hypotheses are unproven and often disproven. Believe me, when they can't find the Higgs Boson, they'll just say "Oh well, we just need a bigger supercollider." And then we see a billion more in wasted taxpayer dollars. BryonRichards 00:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
If Anthropogenic Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolution had been disproven, they would be discarded, that's the point. Now, they've been modified, but that's also the point. Science changes its view of the world based on new information as it comes in. What you call "near religious fervor" is based on evidence gathered to date. If evidence comes up that appears to go against a widely held theory, fine, but unless the new evidence proves false or irrelevant all of the earlier evidence that lead to the theory attaining widely-held status in the first place, it's not enough to disprove the theory.--Frey 09:02, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
You might want to read some Kuhn, On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Your view of how scientific revolutions occur is a bit naive. The "scientific community" is notorious for hanging on to bogus ideas long after they've been discredited. They are humans, not prophets, and they are as subject to inertia, politics, and social pressures as anybody else. They just don't like to admit it. Ungtss 09:31, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
Is that true of all scientific ideas, or just the ones conservatives don't like?--Frey 10:19, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
All scientific ideas, of course. Copernicus and Galileo faced the same opposition from the same obtuse, egg-headed old-guarders that couldn't admit that the young whippersnapper was right and they didn't have a clue. Ungtss 12:42, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
This should probably go to one of our Debate Topics, but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --Ed Poor Talk 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Until that debate page is created, see my essay.--TerryHTalk 17:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

ET phone home?

If it wasnt for people 'wasting' billions you wouldnt have your PC, your microwave, your fridge to chill your beer etc etc. This anti-science stuff is funny when you consider the irony. AdenJ 19:05, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

ROFL. And how did Project SETI give us integrated circuits, microwave cooking, or refrigeration? Refrigeraion predates that project—and the other two things you mentioned owe more to Project Apollo than to any other project. (Oh, and BTW, I don't imbibe alcoholic drinks or any other intoxicating beverage.)
Of course, you missed the point of why I said that Project SETI is a waste of time: it's because they're looking for something, or rather someone, who cannot possibly exist.--TerryHTalk 19:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
Because the Bible doesn't mention them? Last I checked, some other things the Bible doesn't mention anywhere: Microbes, North and South America, Space-time distortion in gravity fields, DNA, internal combustion engines, radioactivity, eyelash mites, the planet Neptune, heat vent worms, and democracy. Should we conclude they don't exist, either? --Gulik5 02:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
Concerning ET's: Not only because the Bible fails to mention them, but because their presence would contradict the purpose of Jesus Christ's visit to earth. And also because no serious astronomer, when pressed, would be able to give an answer that could hold up to the question of where ET could come from. FYI, our Sun is in the middle of a thin "habitable ring" that is probably not much wider than the span between the perigalacticon and apogalacticon of the Sun vis-à-vis the Galaxy. Further to that, we're in a sparsely populated zone and hence not subject to lethal doses of ionizing radiation from neighboring stars. And don't go looking to Alpha Centauri, either—that's a double star, and rocky planets cannot be habitable in double-star systems. (Again, too many rads.) In sum, ours is an extra-special star in an extra-special place in an extra-special galaxy, made just for us.--TerryHTalk 10:09, 19 April 2008
From the theological aspect, I think C. S. Lewis wrote some interesting fiction assuming that Earth was the only planet where the Fall happened--the aliens were JUST FINE until humans went and messed things up for them. As for the habitability zone, don't assume that life can't possibly exist anywhere just because it would be uncomfortable to your grandmother. Remember those heat-vent worms I mentioned? Their preferred ecological niche is around volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean, in boiling sulfuric acid at pressures that would crush wimps like you or me flat.
Marvelous stuff, nature. It's part of why I find most religion's "supernatural" so unconvincing--it's not even as weird as the things we KNOW exists. --Gulik5 11:43, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
  1. Don't confuse allegory (and fiction!) with legitimate scientific modeling.
  2. We have by now established that Mars and Venus are uninhabited.
  3. You haven't even begun to build a model for extremophilic intelligent life forms.--TerryHTalk 13:12, 19 April 2008 (EDT)


Pay no attention to the man working the muppet waldoes! The Great ET has spoken!

I would interested to know how you know that other species in the universe cannot possibly exist. Hahahahaha. AdenJ 19:24, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

This (yawn) is getting (yawn) so (yaw-w-w-wn) tiresome, but...
Read my first-ever essay for details.--TerryHTalk 19:31, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

You are quite the expert Terry. You should hit the lecture circuit. AdenJ 19:33, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.--TerryHTalk 19:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

migration, homing, and whales

"Deliberate ignorance about phenomena that evolution cannot explain, such as remarkable migration and homing, or the existence of the whale"? What? I can provide perfectly good evolutionary explanations for all of these. Do you really want me to do so? Or should this line simply be deleted from the article? Humblpi 12:30, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Use of bizarre jargon

If the deployment of "jargon such as 'quote mining,' 'moving the goalposts' and 'fundies'" by "evolutionists" is "bizarre", how should one characterize the use of jargon such as "evolutionist style", "professor values" and "public school culture" at Conservapedia? Dadsnagem2 13:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Good question. Please join me in debate at Conservapedia:What constitutes jargon? if you have time. --Ed Poor Talk 10:52, 30 April 2008 (EDT)


This page spews overgeneralized allegations without evidence. I propose nuancing it (to "fundamentalist evolutionists," "evolutionary extremists," or something like that) and then using specific examples to back up each of the allegations. Seconds? Ungtss 09:13, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Good luck. HelpJazz 13:48, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
The flu line is very misleading. The vaccine creators got the formulation wrong. Considering that the flu vaccine was first mass produced in the 1950's and that since that time there have only been a handfull of cases where the vaccine was not robust enough to prevent the flu, the track record speaks for itself. I suggest finding another source.--Able806 15:45, 9 October 2008 (EDT)