Talk:Essay: Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution

Article or Essay?

This is a great essay. However, it's not an encyclopedia article. Stryker 11:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

What on Earth are you talking about? This is a great conservative encyclopedia article. Secular humanist suppression of the truth doesn't hold water here on CP. PerMoberg 19:10, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

This is a great article

Keep up the good work. DaiseyCutter 17:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

No, it is certainly NOT a great article...

Saying that the "theory" of evolution is why people like Hitler and Stalin exist or have existed is absolute trash and intellectually faulty.Jros83 20:53, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Agreed - it's a very poor article indeed. If you believe the theory of evolution is wrong because it influenced Hitler, then you MUST believe that Christianity is wrong because it influenced Pope Innocent III (and various other, extremely unpleasant, so-called religious leaders).

By the way, Stalin didn't believe in Darwinian evolution. That was precisely the problem with Trofim Lysenko, who persuaded Stalin that Soviet plant breeding should be based on the pre-Darwinian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics - with disastrous results.KennyMac 18:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

KennyMac, thank you for your strawman. The article never states that macroevolution never happened because it influenced Hitler and Stalin. The article merely states that it influenced Hitler and Stalin in a negative way. Secondly, Christianity may have influenced Pope Innocent III, but the question is how did it influence him? Is there anything in Christ's teaching that influenced that Pope in a negative way? If so, and I don't believe it is so, you have certainly failed to mention it. Of course, perhaps if the Pope in question was not influenced by Christianity he would have been a far worse individual in terms of his actions. I say that as a Protestant who is not exactly enamored with many of the acts of the Pope in question. Certainly Stalin and Hitler were individuals who were at the bottom of the barrel in terms of their deeds.conservative 20:57, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah well, you're distinguishing between what a modern, bible-based Protestant calls Christianity and the much broader, more general idea of Christianity elsewhere in the world and at other times. No, I can't point to a specific passage of the bible that influenced Pope I3 but I don't think you can say that he would have been an even worse person if he hadn't been influenced by Xtianity. His actions followed a very consistent pattern with an aim of strengthening the Catholic (i.e. universal) church on the basis of all authority stemming from the pope in Rome. That accounts for his promotion of crusades within Europe and the fourth crusade which he encouraged to destroy the Byzantine Empire.

The serious point is that you (or at least other CP users) can't attack the theory of evolution just because some of the worst people in history have been influenced by it. Exactly the same is true of Christianity. KennyMac 19:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Flawed Logic

Following the arguments made within this article, all articles focusing on Christianity should be lined with pictures and references to those who have appropriated the tenets of Christianity for evil and despicable ends. There shouldn't be a shortage. Reeperbahn 20:06, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

re: alleged no shortage: I see you did not name one. The irony is delicious. conservative 20:49, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Happy to start the list: Pope Innocent III (see above). Vile by present standards and despised by many people in his own day (early 13th century). He extended the control of the Catholic church over previously non-Catholic or pagan parts of Europe but the people who became Catholicised (or Christianised) didn't exactly have much choice in the matter. Not to mention his leadership role in the destruction of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade, the centre of the Christian world at the time, a fact which was very inconvenient for a pope who aspired to rule the Christian world from Rome.

Others please continue. The list could be very long indeed. Many people involved in the First Crusade (who merrily destroyed several Greek towns before massacring the Muslim, Jewish AND Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem), almost anyone involved in the Fourth Crusade (see above), the Teutonic Knights (forced conversion of Prussia), the Spanish Inquisition (you should know this one), several Byzantine emperors (for whom narrow-minded religious bigotry was a perfectly good reason for massacring thousands of their subjects)... KennyMac 19:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

For the sake of fairness, I could add that many great and worthy people have been motivated by Christianity just as they have by other religions. KennyMac 12:57, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Hitler not a socialist

Hitler was not a socialist, he knew that social democracy was popular at the time in germany used that as a ruse to gain power in the country. After that he basically shifted to Fascism and towards the extreme right wing of the ideological spectrum(If anyone here believes for a second that Extremism in either ideological direction is good in any way is stupid really, Communism is an example of a terrible and oppressive system to the extreme left on the ideological spectrum and Fascism and Nazisms are examples of terrible and oppressive systems to the extreme right on the ideological spectrum). Otherwise why would he be so opposed to communism? As socialism and communism are not very far apart ideologically. If you need anymore evidence, then just look at the alliances Hitler made in the beginning, the majority of them were right wing parties.

Name misspelled

Hitler's first name is misspelled as 'Adolph' in the picture caption and once in the article. AngusF 11:15, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

Is this about evolution or the theory of evolution?

The article starts: "There have been great social effects of evolution..." Yet the title of the article is "Social effects of the theory of evolution." The article seems to be about the theory of evolution rather than the scientific fact of evolution, making the beginning sentence un-encyclopedic. The first sentence should start "There have been great social effects of the theory of evolution..."

Also, the partial quote from Sir Arthur Keith, “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." is egregiously incomplete, changing its meaning. The complete quote is "The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application." Incomplete quoting, or quote-mining, is un-encyclopedic. PaulBurnett 21:12, 23 January 2010 (EST)