"<<The bottom line, Randy, is that in order to be logically consistent, if you
argue against evolution science because Hitler abused it, you need to be
prepared to argue against Christianity because it is mistakenly used to
promote racial purity.>>
You've mistated the argument. Hitler did not ABUSE evolutionism. He followed
its logical consequences. Those who misuse Christianity, however, can be
called to account by the tenets themselves. You can't do that with the former.
So the logic is consistent. Evolutionism is unable to distinguish between good
and evil; Christianity can.
A simple way to prove this is to try, based on evolutionism alone, to prove
Hitler was wrong. Give it a whack.
Jim"
Jim,
Reread what he said: "evolution science". You said "evolutionism". If
by evolutionism you meant what he meant by evolution science, I think your
statements are incorrect. By itself, evolution science, or any science, has
NO "logical consequences" for the governmental decisions of Hitler or any
other head of government. Your words "Evolutionism [I read evolution science]
is unable to distinguish between good and evil" are exactly right, because true
science does not ask those questions. This does not mean those questions are
not important, and it does not mean there are no answers to those questions; it
means that using science on questions of good and evil is like using a
telescope to figure out the concentration of chemicals in a puddle next to you.
Science, for example, can tell you how much damage an all-out nuclear war will
cause - but something besides science will tell us whether that damage is good
or bad.
These examples point out ways to abuse science, many of which Hitler
probably did. Abuse #1: lying about what science's conclusions are, factually
(examples would be saying "nuclear war won't kill anyone" or "nuclear war will
kill all life" - this abuse is generally used to strengthen the rest of one's
argument by exageration of consequences). Abuse #2: Saying that science
answers certain questions it does not (generally one provides the answers one
likes and uses the authority of science to defend them - the example would be
saying the telescope tells me that there is a high lead ion concentration in
the puddle). Abuse #3: Saying that what science can't answer, isn't important
(eg, I don't care what's in the puddle, and neither should you).
Science is useful in questions of morality and decision only in that it
provides the facts - eg, if someone says "humans are important because the
earth is at the center of the Universe". Note that science says nothing about
whether or not humans are important, just that the earth is not the center of
the Universe. "Evolutionism" (evolution science) cannot prove Hitler wrong (or
right, incidentally); neither can the theory of plate techtonics, but nobody
casts plate techtonics in a bad light because of that fact.
Now, if by "Evolutionism" you meant something akin to Social Darwinism,
then you are talking about something completely different than the person you
were reacting to. Whether or not Hitler used it correctly (as social
darwinists meant it to be used) or incorrectly (as he used Christianity
incorrectly) is something I am not an expert on. Personally, I think social
Darwinism is an abuse of evolution science (abuses #2 and/or 3, generally).
Christianity can (it does not necessarily) abuse science, too - abuses #1
and/or 2, usually - as can any philosophy or religion when it gets it's reasons
for making it's assertions mixed up.
There. Hope I didn't swamp you in my diatribe. Would like to hear what
everyone thinks.
Nick
PS - Does anyone know if Hitler ever wrote or said, for example, the words
"Darwin" or "evolution" (refering to the science and not just meaning
"change"). Did he even read about it? The closest thing I've seen is that
Hitler read (misread) Nietzsche, and Nietzsche refers to Darwin and evolution
in some of his writings. Thanks.