the second line should read: "The most useful society is that with the greatest diversity..."

I agree that having the greatest amount of genes is good. But thats not original darwinism. according to Darwin there are specific genes that are the best genes, and so everyone who doesn't have those genes should be eliminated.

Darwin said that certain races are higher than others, he did not believe that all of humanity is equal.

I totally agree that a large gene pool is good though. I personally don't even believe in Macro evolution but I think that on the micro level things mutate quite often. I just don't buy the whole thing that over billions of years the micro evolutions become macro evolution.

and Utilitarianism is doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. So it doesn't have much to do with Darwinism. maybe I'm wrong though, so me! =)

Jman: I don't remember Darwin saying anything about there being "master races" and certain genes which are always better. Can you provide some evidence that he thought that?

He did not say that exactly, but those words are contained within his stated philosophy, if you know what I mean.

Tell me if I am wrong in this, but as far as I know Darwin had a theory called Natural Selection. The idea was that the weaker and less fit would die off and the stronger would continue to evolve higher and higher. This means that there always has to be one set of genes that is "best", correct? If everything is constantly progressing, there must be a scale of good and bad genes, because without it there would be no progress. This entire process of natural selection is called "science", right?

Now, I believe fervently


The idea of master races is inside his theory. He may not state it exactly, but it is contained between the lines to say the least.

Natural Selection implies that there is always an elite, always a group of people or genes that are better than the others. Because the "bad" genes would be the older ones, the evolutions from past centuries that haven't died out yet. The newer, "good" genes, are the current evolutions and theoretically they will continue to live while the ones with the older improvements will die out. See what I mean? There always has to be some sort of scale of bad and good genes in order for natural selection to work. Thus, there will always be "dominant" or "master" races. All of this is according to Darwin.

Jman, you are twisting Darwin's theories of evolution badly. You are taking the idea of "Social Darwinism" and trying to paint the theory of evolution with that brush. It's a strawman argument, and I'm calling you out on it.

Humanity long ago bypassed Evolutionary theory when the concept of altruism and social responsibility stopped the "survival of the fittest". And perhaps that's what some people refer to as a "soul". That doesn't make Darwin's theories invalid, it just means that Human intelligence (and stupidity) has overtaken the powerful but very slow forces of evolution.

Jman: Jabalcorn has defeated you in one. Actually the "fittest" means the best genes for the environment, and the environment changes (i.e. intelligence has only been a useful recently: mammals were more intelligent than dinosaurs, but what really worked then was size so the dinosaurs won. Now intelligence wins because the environment has changed). Therefore the best genes for the occasion are not always best.
This sort of fallacy is typical of those who want to discredit Darwin.

I researched it some more thoroughly and I think that I did en up with a straw man. Though it was unintentional and only occurred because I was given false information.

If you are right, and altruism and social responsibility has replaced the "survival of the fittest" ideology then darwinism is without a doubt much less dangerous than it was during the early 20th century. Because Nazi Germany was entirely based on the ideology of Natural Selection.

Not really. Nazi Germany was based on a belief in a "Master race", which as has been proved is completely unrelated from Evolution, and Antisemitism, which is as old as the hills. People have attacked Jews with the intention of eradicating them since the middle ages.

I apologize if I mis communicated. I assumed that jbalcorn was talking about the present when he said that natural selection was replaced with altruism. If I had known he was talking about it ALWAYS having encompassed altruism and social responsibility instead of natural selection I would NOT have agreed.

A heck of alot more people were killed in the holocaust than just jews. Of the 11 million killed, only about half were jewish. The rest were simply deemed "inferior" by the Nazi's. The idea of a "Master Race" IS related to evolution. It holds teh same values of Natural Selection that evolution did back then. Although it may not mean the same thing now, it did back tehn.

I can't keep this up cause I need to get school work done.

The Nazi ideology and "science" wasn't based on Darwinism, but on Eugenics. Not "Natural" selection, but selection to eliminate certain undesirable characteristics. Darwin didn't say that some genes were good and some bad, what he said was the natural variations in genome (which is now understood to also include natural mutations) will select for the optimum survival characteristics in the existing environment.

Evolution needs to be defended from those who would pretend it was responsible for the atrocities of Nazi Germany.

Well, this has certainly strayed from "God is Dead" and Nietzsche's questioning of morality...

I honest;y can't make out your positions, though- Darwinism? Scrooge? Utilitarianism (what a DISGUSTING word!) and Eugenics and all the rest...

who's saying what- here you go, I'm the convincable audience now, so everyone- give me your position, and I, as impartial judge, will say which ones I think best and which worst based on my life experience of 18 years. ;)

My position is that life is amazing.
I really do believe that.

I think all Eugenics should be sterilized. We don't to be passing the wrong ideas on to our ancestors.

offspring*

from religion to eugenics, interesting....

jbalcorn, that was an interesting article. It includes some pretty basic ideas that I'd certainly agree with, although it coopts them as something other than Christian.

I find myself agreeing with the idea that a personal relationship wit hthe resurrected Christ is essential. In essence what the author calls the resurrection (as I understood it the presence of Jesus Christ in her life), I would call the gift of the Holy Spirit. I have no problem with people being open to Christ working through their lives, the terms that they use to describe his presence are of secondary importance, in this case at least.

The idea of God being dead, and that freed from religion humans will be forced to develope into supermen who no longer worship at the false alters, who are no longer spoon feed security in simple packaged religion is flawed. Humans will always seek the path of least resistance, and if that means turned to religion to find the easiest way to be happy with their life, some of them will choose to believe in it.

Darwinism: First darwin didn't know about genes, they were discovered almost a century later and explained the mechanism which darwin's theory suggested existed. (that people inherit traits from their parents - so fat people have fat children, etc.) The idea of survival of the fittest was that some animals random mutation did not benifit them (in fact we know that the majority of mutations have little effect, some cause death - or failure to develop and miscarriage - but most are harmless, the odd few are useful, and when those ones produce more successful individuals in a species those characteristics are the ones which are prefered in the next generation (ie sucessful is defined by the number of offspring that an individual can spawn). Darwin i think said some things about different islands providing different enviroments and in each enviroment a different trait may be the most successful.

Darwin didn't ever talk about maco vs micro evolution because those are just terms made up by creationists. He talked about evolution - a changing of the traits in a given population of animals (and i don't say genepool because Darwin didn't know about genes, he didn't know HOW traits were passed from parent to child, he just knew they were.)

Darwin's ideas were taken up by a scientific community, and furthered to become the evolutionary biology we have today (especially after the discovery of DNA in the 50s) Darwins ideas were also taken up by the Nazi's in the form of social darwinism which proved flawed. (because if the Germans were really a master race they would have wiped out all opposition - thus preventing other genes from procreating, and increasing the chances of Germans genes surviving and being numerous in the next generation. I would note that if they had been successful i doubt there would be anyone left alive to claim that they were morally wrong or evil. We'd all be of the opinion that they were right, and history had proved this.)

Scrooge? the idea that money is more important than happiness - this has been expressed by many people in several threads. (that the poor contribute less to society, because contribution to society is based on the money given rather than the happiness generated) - Each person values different things in their own way. I can not tell you what is more important, or what you should value. I would prefer to be happy than rich(assuming they are or are not mutually exclusive).

Utilitarianism - the idea of usefullness to society, where rationally the greatest good for society means the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and thus whatever you do to the rest your ends are right.

It is not morally acceptable to most people to allow some members of society to suffer, never mind be killed to suit the majority, whatever the ends. Our morales are based largely on emotions rather than rationalizations. That some of us are capable of making up rationalizations to justify our feelings is remarkable. Most of us adhere to some philosophy/ideology which suits our emotional reaction to certain situations. That not everyone reacts emotionally in the same way to the same situation is likely a distinction based on our genes, at least according to the best modern science. Which philosophy/ideology prevails will have proved itself to be better than others simply by it's success, Utilitarianism may not have a chance.

Eugenics - the idea that we can 'play god' and control our own destiny is a tempting one, however we do not have the processing power to predict what will happen in the future, the enviroment we live in is just too complex, we have managed to undestand huge amounts of it, but we have only scratched the surface. Is it safer to allow nature take it's course? Or are we better off supporting genetic diversity at any cost? (thus not choosing any one set of genes, but encouraging many variations to flourish) - that would be the opposite of eugenics, but it doesn't have a name.

Still we lose bio-diversity (the diverse and different gene of life on earth, not just humans) by expanding our homes, taking advantage of natural resources and hunting to extinction. We are creating the natural enviroment which selects the species that will survive in the wild, whether we know it or not.

Is my position clear? I may have been drinking again, so i apologise for any typos...

@ orothatic not trying to be too flippant, but I think from what you describe the advocates of Eugenics should spend a little time with my great-aunt's spoiled teacup poodle (and it's bad hip).

@jbalcorn (again)

There are certainly some points in the article with which I disagree. The author uses the Scripture to back up the idea that Jesus should not be considered King, Lord, or Saviour. The idea being that this keeps us from having a close relationship with him and hinders our ability to do good works in his name. The passage cited was John 19: 1-3 in which Christ was mocked with such titles as the "King of the Jews". Yet a chapter later in John 20: 28-29 Thomas hails him as "My lord and my God" and Jesus does not correct him. If it were somehow inappropriate to see Jesus Christ as Lord and King that would have been the time to tell us.

The author also seems to imply (just missing stating it outright) that most Christians seem to see accepting Jesus Christ as their personal saviour, and enjoying Christmas and Easter are quite enough for salvation. The implication being that once they have made profession of faith everything is back to status quo minus consequences for our actions.
I can not speak for even a large portion of CHristians, but my own church preaches quite the opposite. The expectation is that you live out Christ's teaching in you day to day life. Just as the author states that salvation is a real current and Jesus' teachings are an invitation to explore the depths of that current (nice imagery, I really liked that passage), I see the Gospels as an invitation as well. One to embrace a way of life that will ultimately lead to salvation. For me, Christ is anything but "glorified and enthroned in unapproachable Heaven" but a companion and guide on the way there. By his example I have a standard for which to strive. Yet, I'll never reach that standard, so by his mercy I receive salvation. Not before I go out show his love to the world, but after I have done my level best to do so.

@CA: In my expierence most Irish Christians I know would be considered lapsed.

They go to mass at most at Christmas and Easter(if at all), they have baptisms, weddings, and funerals in their local churches, but the thought of studying the bible or listening to their local priest or following the teachings of Jesus in daily life is far from their minds.

I will not be following in their hypocritical footsteps, and marrying in a Catholic church, and fortunately my family will not mind. (or those of them that do will not influence my choice) Several friends i have talked to are not in this position, they would think it a terrible thing to let their family down by getting married in a registry office.

Well, enough playing around it's time I made my point I guess.

Item #1 There was a historically verifiable man named Jesus of Nazareth. (as of yet a couple of people have agreed outright and nobody has attempted a refutation. Therefore we can take that as acquiesence)

Item #2 If we agree that Jesus existed, then it's not too much of a stretch to theink that he was actually crucified in the manner described in the Gospels. Crucifxion was a common method of exectution and nailing a victim to the cross (while rare) was not unheard of. There is archaeological evidence (a human heel with a nail through it found in Judaea) that suggests that people were nailed to the cross from time to time. So there is little reason to assume that Christ's death was other than that described in the Synoptic Gospels.

FYI - there is some suggestion that nails would not be enough to hold a body up, that human hands would rip apart with the weight of the body, so either rope or some other simple mechanism would have to have been used to keep a body on a cross for three days. (though that doesn't mean you can't nail and tie someone... and i think it depends on the size and shape of the nails... )

Also where they are nailed, as a nail through the wrist and ankle would suffice. Christ was on the cross for three hours not three days as well. Crucifixion reinactments are done in the Phillipines each year, and they apparently have little trouble with nailing volunteers to the cross.

http://www.iexplore.com/dmap/Philippines/Event/11176


(I've heard that linguistically the Hebrews considered the wrist part of the hand, anyway. But as I have no independent resource to quote that will be the detail that comes up being wildly inaccurate)

i had been under the impression that Romans had crucified people for days on end, possibly letting them die of thirst. However you are of course right, that is not what the biblical sources tell us.

Also the three hours on the cross is probably church tradition, the Book of John doesn't mention a length ot time. ONly that it was less than one day because they did not want him hanging on the cross on the Sabbath (the next day, which started at sundown).

St. Andrew, on the other hand, hung on the cross for three days. This is likewise according to church tradition. I don't know af any Scripture that its based on.

As far as I know, you could be lucky and die in ten minutes or linger for quite a long time on the cross.