Evolution

[Typhoon]

https://www.academia.edu/35550879/The_S ... card=title

The Social Weapon: Darwinism

Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless” exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies. The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin. As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior” was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest” would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”

I'm a bit puzzled as to why this Adnan Oktar / Adnan Hoca / Harun Yahya should merit his own thread in the Philosophy section.

[Doc]

https://www.academia.edu/35550879/The_S ... card=title

The Social Weapon: Darwinism

Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless” exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies. The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin. As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior” was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest” would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”

I'm a bit puzzled as to why this Adnan Oktar / Adnan Hoca / Harun Yahya should merit his own thread in the Philosophy section.

I get multiple articles like this emailed to me every day. Though generally they don't seem to be leaders of sex cults Yeah I did not know who this guy is. It was the message that points out the flaw of Darwinism, as well as the serious flaw in the thinking of mass movements, that caught my eye:

Throughout, we shall be emphasizing that the model pro-posed by the theory of evolution, regarding human beings as a species of animal, is an error based on ruthlessness, lovelessness,selfishness and self-interest. Darwinism seeks to construct a world where humans live and behave like animals. Social Darwinism's teachings and practices make this quite clear. According to its twisted views, it is perfectly acceptable for an elderly, needy per-son to be dragged out of his home and taken away to be killed; or for handicapped people to be rounded up and left to die in concentration camps. According to this distorted thinking, those in the “inferior” classes can be ruthlessly persecuted, exploited and eliminated. Those who believe that human society can progress only when these savage policies are implemented regard such slaughter, genocide, cruelty and ruthlessness as a kind of success.They maintain that individuals and societies—indeed, entire cultures and nations—unable to achieve that success, must be done away with.Without doubt, that is a most perverted and dangerous way of thinking. Perceiving this danger is of the greatest importance for those who oppose the theory and the ideologies based on it.Societal models based on Darwin and Darwinism are models that will lead to the most dreadful catastrophes. On the other hand, the

14

"In nature only the strong survive"

So how does Darwinism explain this?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nubc09jTW-M

Nubc09jTW-M

[Typhoon]

https://www.academia.edu/35550879/The_S ... card=title

The Social Weapon: Darwinism

Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless” exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies. The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin. As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior” was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest” would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”

I'm a bit puzzled as to why this Adnan Oktar / Adnan Hoca / Harun Yahya should merit his own thread in the Philosophy section.

I get multiple articles like this emailed to me every day. Though generally they don't seem to be leaders of sex cults Yeah I did not know who this guy is. It was the message that points out the flaw of Darwinism, as well as the serious flaw in the thinking of mass movements, that caught my eye:

Throughout, we shall be emphasizing that the model pro-posed by the theory of evolution, regarding human beings as a species of animal, is an error based on ruthlessness, lovelessness,selfishness and self-interest. Darwinism seeks to construct a world where humans live and behave like animals. Social Darwinism's teachings and practices make this quite clear. According to its twisted views, it is perfectly acceptable for an elderly, needy per-son to be dragged out of his home and taken away to be killed; or for handicapped people to be rounded up and left to die in concentration camps. According to this distorted thinking, those in the “inferior” classes can be ruthlessly persecuted, exploited and eliminated. Those who believe that human society can progress only when these savage policies are implemented regard such slaughter, genocide, cruelty and ruthlessness as a kind of success.They maintain that individuals and societies—indeed, entire cultures and nations—unable to achieve that success, must be done away with.Without doubt, that is a most perverted and dangerous way of thinking. Perceiving this danger is of the greatest importance for those who oppose the theory and the ideologies based on it.Societal models based on Darwin and Darwinism are models that will lead to the most dreadful catastrophes. On the other hand, the

"In nature only the strong survive"

So how does Darwinism explain this?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nubc09jTW-M

Nubc09jTW-M

The phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin, who used the term "natural selection" in his treatise "On the Origin of Species".

While the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used to mean "natural selection", it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading. For example, survival is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important. Another problem is that the word "fit" is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness. In the evolutionary meaning "fitness" is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.

What this yahoo is going on about is the now long discredited beliefs of Social Darwinism, not Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Anyways, he does not warrant his own thread in the Phil. section. Will be stuffed into the Evolution thread for novelty - an Islamic creationist.

As for the video, don't know the context.

[Doc]

https://www.academia.edu/35550879/The_S ... card=title

The Social Weapon: Darwinism

Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) The twentieth century was one of the darkest and most deadly in all of human history. Vast amounts of blood were spilled and people subjected to the most terrible fear and oppression. Such dictators as Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot inflicted genocide on millions. Hitler had those whom he regarded as “useless” exterminated in the gas chambers. Hundreds of thousands of people in many Western countries—from Great Britain to Germany, from the USA to Sweden—were compulsorily sterilized or left to die just for being sick, crippled or old. All over the world, people were oppressed and exploited because of ruthless competition. Racism became the ideology of certain states, and some races were not even regarded as human at all. Because of the conflicts and hot and cold wars between East and West, the peoples of communist and capitalist countries, and even brothers, became one another's enemies. The main point not generally realized, however, is the nature of the ideological foundation that propelled the 20th century towards such disruption, chaos, war and conflict, and gave rise to such hatred and enmity. The groundwork of this ideological foundation was laid by the British economist Thomas Malthus. This twisted concept, widely accepted by people far removed from religious moral values, was further strengthened by another Briton, the sociologist Herbert Spencer, and disseminated by the theory of evolution put forward by yet another Englishman, Charles Darwin. As dictated by the ideology they advocate, these three figures entirely ignored such religious moral virtues as cooperation, altruism, protecting the poor and weak, and regarding all human beings as equal. In contrast, they proposed the falsehood that life is a battlefield, that the oppression and even extermination of the poor and those races whom they regarded as “inferior” was justified; that as a result of that pitiless struggle, the “fittest” would survive and the rest would be eliminated—and that all this would lead to human “progress.”

I'm a bit puzzled as to why this Adnan Oktar / Adnan Hoca / Harun Yahya should merit his own thread in the Philosophy section.

I get multiple articles like this emailed to me every day. Though generally they don't seem to be leaders of sex cults Yeah I did not know who this guy is. It was the message that points out the flaw of Darwinism, as well as the serious flaw in the thinking of mass movements, that caught my eye:

Throughout, we shall be emphasizing that the model pro-posed by the theory of evolution, regarding human beings as a species of animal, is an error based on ruthlessness, lovelessness,selfishness and self-interest. Darwinism seeks to construct a world where humans live and behave like animals. Social Darwinism's teachings and practices make this quite clear. According to its twisted views, it is perfectly acceptable for an elderly, needy per-son to be dragged out of his home and taken away to be killed; or for handicapped people to be rounded up and left to die in concentration camps. According to this distorted thinking, those in the “inferior” classes can be ruthlessly persecuted, exploited and eliminated. Those who believe that human society can progress only when these savage policies are implemented regard such slaughter, genocide, cruelty and ruthlessness as a kind of success.They maintain that individuals and societies—indeed, entire cultures and nations—unable to achieve that success, must be done away with.Without doubt, that is a most perverted and dangerous way of thinking. Perceiving this danger is of the greatest importance for those who oppose the theory and the ideologies based on it.Societal models based on Darwin and Darwinism are models that will lead to the most dreadful catastrophes. On the other hand, the

"In nature only the strong survive"

So how does Darwinism explain this?'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nubc09jTW-M

Nubc09jTW-M

The phrase "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer, not Darwin, who used the term "natural selection" in his treatise "On the Origin of Species".

I am using "Darwinism" in the broad sense. However


https://www.history.com/topics/early-20 ... -darwinism

Herbert Spencer

Yet in an attempt to convey his scientific ideas to the British public, Darwin borrowed popular concepts, including “survival of the fittest,” from sociologist Herbert Spencer and “struggle for existence” from economist Thomas Malthus, who had earlier written about how human societies evolve over time.

While the phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used to mean "natural selection", it is avoided by modern biologists, because the phrase can be misleading. For example, survival is only one aspect of selection, and not always the most important. Another problem is that the word "fit" is frequently confused with a state of physical fitness. In the evolutionary meaning "fitness" is the rate of reproductive output among a class of genetic variants.

What this yahoo is going on about is the now long discredited beliefs of Social Darwinism, not Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Anyways, he does not warrant his own thread in the Phil. section. Will be stuffed into the Evolution thread for novelty - an Islamic creationist.

As for the video, don't know the context.

The context is that even Darwin himself used Spencer's and Malthus's words to explain his theory. Sex cultist or not If Darwin can use Spencer's and Malthus's words that ended up killing 100's of millions of people in the 20th century seems under moral relativism rather trivial.

This thread was not meant about a sex cult leader but Social Darwinism. Which in fact is alive and well and in fact thriving under the "woke" banner. COVID has added fuel to that fire.

Back in the 1800's around the time of Origin of the species the movement to free slaves was already thriving. In fact that was what the American civil war was about. A mass movement that thought if we only freed the slaves (world wide) those slaves would prosper. AS it turned out many didn't because they were 1) living hand to mouth. and 2) uneducated. Thus they in general had no means to succeed or understanding of what they had to do to succeed. When they did not succeed in thriving the mass movement either forgot about them, or in many cases turned against them. Humans have way too short an attention span and willingness to understand consequences of their basically mob mentalities.

Which ironically is what Darwinists, Eugenicists and even Economists do.. IE The short attention span of Mob Mentality.

Economist assume that everyone has perfect knowledge of the markets and the rationality to act on that knowledge.

In the book "Chaos" Their is an antidote that the Santa Fe Institute almost fell apart right at the beginning when The Physicist members got together with the economists. Apparently the Physicists were rolling their eyes too much when the economists started explaining their theories, and claims of a precision that was only assumption of non quantified facts.

They did of course work things out and avoided that impending disaster but does go to show that claims of "real science" is hard to justify.

[noddy]

evangelical auto fellatio masquerading as information.

[Doc]

evangelical auto fellatio masquerading as information.

Darwin ?

[Typhoon]

evangelical auto fellatio masquerading as information.

Darwin ?

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

[Doc]

evangelical auto fellatio masquerading as information.

Darwin ?

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

And yet Darwin regularly quoted Spencer and Malthus....

I am not saying "Evolution is wrong" I am saying it is CLEARLY an incomplete theory. Popularization of it lead to the ideology that lead 157 million plus(and counting) people murdered in the twentieth century. Mostly be their own governments.

But clearly animals in nature "Where only the strong survive" have absolutely no reason to save other animals. I suppose if they were black the non- cis gendered woke Bear Hippos and baboons would say they are actually Oreo's. Or just flat out white in cis gendered racists.

A few years ago I got booted from a geneticists comments section after he claimed as a geneticist there was nothing wrong with Eugenics. (Seriously you want to talk about "evangelical auto fellatio masquerading as information."?)

I am sorry you all are not seeing my point here that this is about "Darwin, Social Darwinism, and Genocide" That I am certain you don't understand my point by the complete lack of reply to what my points here are. It is not about Turkish sex cult leaders or Darwin. It is about where we are and how we got here.

Though I do find it amusing that a Turkish sex cult leader is not woth posting here but Darwin whose theory that he popularized in terms that were later turned into eugenic pseudo science that lead to millions and millions of murders is fine.

[noddy]

excellent point.

we didnt have plenty of reasons to butcher each other till the 1800's.

cant believe nobody else has noticed this, you should write a book.

[Parodite]

The dying of the weakest is clearly an important part of life and death, driving evolution as a directional force. Does it explain all of how evolution works? Maybe not. Strong+weak are always in a mode of exchange of forces and energy. Maybe entropy, probability? There are more ways to describe what happens.

Is it possible we are missing something, even a lot? Probably. Also the physical world as we know it is some sort of a representation that arises in our human brains, which is always a red flag not to jump too fast to the conclusion that things in-and-of-themselves are identical to how we perceive them to be. (Of course the fun part is that also "the physical brain" belongs to that same representation, which begs even more questions)

Enough room to speculate and fantasize! I personally believe that since the language of empirical science is mathematics, it probably is the only "code" that is really universal as it apparently is able to transmit through our experiential interface.

Darwin - social darwinism - eugenics: Survival of the fittest is already popular for hundreds of millions of years. To win battles of all sorts. Hierarchical societies with most power at the top. It is everywhere in nature. Eugenics as an extension more fuel on that fire. I'd say inevitably used and abused. As with all the tech and tools we have developed. But survival of the fittest does also include better chances at survival through co-operation. To kill and co-operate, the eternal twins.

[Typhoon]

evangelical auto fellatio masquerading as information.

Darwin ?

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

And yet Darwin regularly quoted Spencer and Malthus....

I am not saying "Evolution is wrong" I am saying it is CLEARLY an incomplete theory. Popularization of it lead to the ideology that lead 157 million plus(and counting) people murdered in the twentieth century. Mostly be their own governments.

But clearly animals in nature "Where only the strong survive" have absolutely no reason to save other animals. I suppose if they were black the non- cis gendered woke Bear Hippos and baboons would say they are actually Oreo's. Or just flat out white in cis gendered racists.

A few years ago I got booted from a geneticists comments section after he claimed as a geneticist there was nothing wrong with Eugenics. (Seriously you want to talk about "evangelical auto fellatio masquerading as information."?)

I am sorry you all are not seeing my point here that this is about "Darwin, Social Darwinism, and Genocide" That I am certain you don't understand my point by the complete lack of reply to what my points here are. It is not about Turkish sex cult leaders or Darwin. It is about where we are and how we got here.

Though I do find it amusing that a Turkish sex cult leader is not woth posting here but Darwin whose theory that he popularized in terms that were later turned into eugenic pseudo science that lead to millions and millions of murders is fine.

Hum Gen Ed | Eugenics: past, present, and the future

[Doc]

excellent point.

we didnt have plenty of reasons to butcher each other till the 1800's.

cant believe nobody else has noticed this, you should write a book.

That is perfectly true for Butchering on an industrial scale.

Two years after Origin of the species was publish was the start of the first industrialized war. Which happened to be the world's first "war to set other men free". And published ironically 10 years after the invention of the cotton gin. Which turned Slavery from a dying business into a highly profitable industry.

[Doc]

evangelical auto fellatio masquerading as information.

Darwin ?

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

And yet Darwin regularly quoted Spencer and Malthus....

I am not saying "Evolution is wrong" I am saying it is CLEARLY an incomplete theory. Popularization of it lead to the ideology that lead 157 million plus(and counting) people murdered in the twentieth century. Mostly be their own governments.

But clearly animals in nature "Where only the strong survive" have absolutely no reason to save other animals. I suppose if they were black the non- cis gendered woke Bear Hippos and baboons would say they are actually Oreo's. Or just flat out white in cis gendered racists.

A few years ago I got booted from a geneticists comments section after he claimed as a geneticist there was nothing wrong with Eugenics. (Seriously you want to talk about "evangelical auto fellatio masquerading as information."?)

I am sorry you all are not seeing my point here that this is about "Darwin, Social Darwinism, and Genocide" That I am certain you don't understand my point by the complete lack of reply to what my points here are. It is not about Turkish sex cult leaders or Darwin. It is about where we are and how we got here.

Though I do find it amusing that a Turkish sex cult leader is not woth posting here but Darwin whose theory that he popularized in terms that were later turned into eugenic pseudo science that lead to millions and millions of murders is fine.

Hum Gen Ed | Eugenics: past, present, and the future

Exactly:

Conclusions
It is sometimes difficult for us to reflect objectively
concerning our actions and practices-particularly
with regard to how new advances in science and technology
and their applications to genetic counseling
and clinical care in medical genetics can possibly be
deleterious to our patients. In the past, however, we
have seen how rather innocuous medical practices or
public policies have been distorted to be applied as
negative eugenics abrogating the rights and privacy of
millions of individuals. It is painful to realize how
some of our accepted practices today (e.g., prenatal
diagnosis and MSAFP/HcG screening) can be considered
as negative eugenics. However, when these technologies
were introduced into medical practice, it was
on the basis of a patient/physician relationship. In the
future it could become public policy, and individual
patients might lose, in many instances, their right to
make a decision. This might not be their choice but one
dictated by the subtle influences of economic pressures
and by the increasing reliance on utilitarian costeffective
criteria for making genetic decisions (Chapple
et al. 1987; Clarke 1990a, 1990b; Wilfond and Fost
1990).
These technologies will increase in scope and effectiveness
with each subsequent year. It is important
that we, as geneticists, physicians, or other health care
providers, realize the importance of protecting our
patient's right to make his or her own decisions and
to protect the confidentiality of his or her genetic records
in the workplace, in relation to third-party carriers,
the government, and other individuals. We must
respect human life, protect those with birth defects
and genetic disease, and support public policy from
the standpoint of providing support for these individuals
as far as educational opportunities and care. An
important step in this direction was the signing into
law by President Bush on July 26, 1990, of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. This new law will help an
estimated 3 million Americans with disabilities and
has the force of a national law.
After reflecting on the Nuremberg trial for the Nazi
medical crimes, a Protestant theologian, Dr. Karl
Barth (1961, p. 424), wrote: "No community whether
family, village or state is really strong if it will not
carry its weak and even its very weakest members.
They belong to it no less than the strong, and the quiet
work of their maintenance and care, which might seem
useless on a superficial view, is perhaps more effective
than common labor, culture or historical conflict in
knitting it closely and securely together. On the other
hand, a community which regards and treats its weak
members as a hindrance, and even proceeds to their
extermination, is on the verge of collapse."

I don't agree the sentence is always true but that is a sign of collapse in many cases.

[Parodite]

In others words, seek co-operation and avoid killing where and whenever possible.

[Doc]

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/14067110 ... rrer=drf30

[Parodite]

2doP_3juV2Y

Surviving for more than 250.000 years in eurasia... a pity we now only have 3% of their genetics left in our genome. They were also climate change proof, surviving serveral ice ages and warmer climates in between

They seem to me the founding fathers of engineering.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

Exhuming the body, I think it appropriate that both sides of the Creationist/Evolution battlefront admit their sins.....

The Creationists misrepresent Scripture and are caught up in idolatry. Their commitment to physicalism reduces main figures in the Bible and God Himself to supernatural beings more appropriate in a bronze age religious cult and nothing close to what Christianity represents........

The Evolutionists need to admit the damage done by Social Darwinism to the culture and human well-being, and make allowances for how this damaged popular perceptions of evolutionary theory and science in general. Why religious people may not accept the 'this just is' model of the world and 'humans are just evolved apes' as good news. If western civilisation is to admit to the harm done by colonialism and exploitation of non-euro cultures, they can do the same....'>.......

[crashtech66]

Seneca said that a confession of sin is proof of a sound mind.
I wish I knew of a pithy saying about the disregarding of nuance. Ideologues have no use for it, yet few things can be properly explained without it.

[Parodite]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ4CUw9RcuA

NQ4CUw9RcuA

Awesomish...

[crashtech66]

I do not think I have been exposed to the hypothesis that radiation from uranium was responsible for the creation of life.

[Typhoon]

Quanta Mag | Single Cells Evolve Large Multicellular Forms in Just Two Years

Researchers have discovered that environments favoring clumpy growth are all that’s needed to quickly transform single-celled yeast into complex multicellular organisms.