0:45 1:30 "Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?" 3:50 The Impact of Darwinism on German Socialists 5:37 Francis Galton and Eugenics, - Emerged after Galton's reading Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_ 7:43 Darwinism produced Moral Relativism - Darwinism undermines the value of human life 10:47 *Evolution requires Deviation, and therefore Inequality of Man* 14:30 *Inequality within society and ACROSS Societies* 17:48 2. Moral Relativism undermining Human Life + Darwin was optimistic a Good Human Nature would come through in Victorian man 19:40 *The Blurred Distinction between Man and Animal* 21:10 *The Denial of Body-Soul Dualism* 23:45 5. *The Human Struggle For Existence* (preceded by Thomas Malthus) 26:35 US Eugenics Movement 28:23 BETWEEN Societies 30:44 6. Darwinism saw Death as an Engine driving Progress 32:40 Abortion, Infanticide, Euthanasia 34:32 Darwinism and Nazism 36:45 _Hitler's Ethic_ 40:15 The Fall of The Nazis, but Darwinism remained 41:08 Peter Singer's Devaluing of Human Life 43:30 Daniel Dennett _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_ 45:35 Richard Dawkins 2001 Genetic Engineering Australopithecus article 47:35 James Watson 51:25 Darwinism Has Devalued Human Life
"If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil." - Charles Darwin
Weikart's book is rather atrocious to those that are familiar with the primary sources... Weikart simply reads into them the prejudices he has been conditioned with. parade example for eisegesis and 'reading out of context'. And well. even if his premises were true... it would still be a moralistic fallacy (It's bad, that's because it can't be true), but that's exactly where Weikart has a problem: With the basics of logic... which raises the question, what his relationship with Logos is.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 you are basically saying that morality is relative and therefore it doesn't make sense to criticise it? Darwin to Hitler is history. Also, Darwin's theory was quite incorrect either way even epistemologically.
@@crabb9966 Well, Guess one got to deal with Morality/Ethics and Empirical/Logical issues separately. If you can't do that, you are not up to the task. And it's a common problem. Must time wasting debates run around that issue. Well, Weikart's writings demonstrate how relative Morality towards POV is. He doesn't even get it separated himself that's how deep he is into it (Hence commits the moralistic fallacy, knowing fully well that this argumentation will be accepted by large sections of the audience). That doesn't actually mean that there isn't an objective Ethics, which can have an issue with accessibility, though. If Darwin was wrong (and I realize there are problems), why not address this way? Why try to come up with obscure insinuation of how 'dangerous' his idea is?
Francis Schaeffer wrote a book "How Should We Then Believe?" On page 200, Schaeffer quoted Edmund Leach, anthropologist at Cambridge University. Leach said that originally there were TWO theories of evolution. The one we are taught is that the human race began at one place at one time. The second theory has been suppressed by academia: the human race began in various places at different times. Since, according to Leach, this means that one branch of the human race is more advanced than another (because it started earlier), and because that branch that started first would be the most advanced, this would lead to racism. Because this other theory leads to bad political consequences, it was abandoned, and we are only taught the theory that the human race all began at one time in one place. Frankly, if vertical evolution really does happen, it would seem that it would occur at different times and at different places. Even before Hitler, according to the New World Encyclopedia article on William Jennings Bryan who opposed teaching evolution in public schools in the famous "Scopes/Monkey Trial", Germans thought they were a master race. Some German officers in WW1 were interviewed, and this sentiment was expressed by many of the educated officer class. Someone said Hitler had no original thoughts but simply assembled what was already in circulation.
I actually learned this fact at a debate with Christoper Hitchens. The auditorium was filled with scholars, including historians, & when opposing side brought this up, Hitchens or no one else challenged him on the numbers. I thought that was very interesting, so I decided to research myself. This is also my conclusion as of recent. There is a lot of revisionist history out there. I used to also believe Columbus was the first Euro to discover America because that's what was regurgitated to me.
Columbus was an incompetent explorer. Americo Vespucci, however, noticed they had reached a new mass o land - something the other Nordic sailors may not have noticed.
Evolution is the backbone of modern biology. Hitler, Stalin, etc are all irrelevant when we are literally analyzing how species adapt and change in a lab.
@@keithhunt5328 And? Bombing children is applied nuclear fusion and applied gravity. The application of a theory does not make that theory bad. It simply makes that application bad when used for evil.
@@keithhunt5328 Evolution is a fact. 100% fact. HOW that knowledge is used is a separate question entirely and whether or not its used for good *agriculture is applied darwinism as well!* or evil *Nazi's superhuman idea* doesn't change the fact that evolution is still a fact.
I hate it when people do this. Yes, eugenics relies on belief in evolution. This doesn't make belief in evolution bad, or evolution itself false. Let me put it more simply. Yes, pushing elderly women off cliffs relies on belief in gravity. This doesn't make belief in gravity bad, or gravity itself false.
I certainly do believe Darwinism devalues human life, no doubt about it. After all, if you think you're just an animal, it wont be long before you start to ignore all the things decency and morality teach us. We see the negative effects of Darwinism growing all around on a daily basis.
They say "this is not true! You took the lines out of context!" And then they will say something like "well, it's true though, the strong surviving is just reality, who cares"
wow, i wish all history teachers were this good! evolutionists get really emotional, so that they are no longer able to reason, as they have been indoctrinated, sadly. comments show that. this guy is great, really like him :).
Uh no. We are entirely logical. Emotional would be falling for the idea that evolution is some racist ideology that's lead to millions of deaths. THAT is appealing to emotions. It is logical to analyze that irrelevant of how many deaths may or may not have occurred in the 20th century due to the concept of evolution, the concept of evolution in and of itself a scientific fact with oodles and oodles of evidence for it. This is why 99.96% of biologists accept evolution, including Christians like Dr. Francis Collins. It's not because we are all just racists. Is that what you're suggesting? That all biologists are racists?
@@michaelarkell5437 Your history and science teacher needs to have their license pulled. Its hilarious how about a teacher of history and science is incorrect on both history and science. Evolution is a fact in biology. This is why 99.96% of biologists accept it as fact. There are more biologists who think HIV is a hoax than there are who think evolution is wrong. Are you suggesting that biologists are all just racists?
@@verzen it is not the acceptance or rejection of evolution per se, but whether ethics based on the survival of the fittest is accepted or rejected by a believer of the rational scientific worldview. Guided evolution is probably the majority worldview among thinking people of faith. Of course evolution happens. But it may favor intelligent creatures. But novel sections of new code, such as the complex code which changes a caterpillar into a butterfly, or the unique original code necessary to permit evolution without a deep intelligence behind it as absurd statistically as finding one specific atom in the Milky Way galaxy. No pre-existant ribosome+ chirality pure amino acids + ATP+ codons which match the correct amino acids+complex code which includes making more ribosomes+ 16 acylamino t-rna synthetases, also coded for=no life, and no evolution .
Hitler wasn't a Christian. He was raised a nominal Roman Catholic, but became more of a deist as he grew. During the period of his rule he was clearly a deist, believing some sort of god but rejecting traditional Christianity. To Hitler Jesus was some sort of Norse entity and he also respected Islam. For more read his Table-Top recordings that are freely available.
People often forget that science isn't bad or good, it's just descriptive. It shows how things work and how they're supposed to work. And it can be used for good and for bad.
Below is a two part quote from "Descent of Man"-do your own research, most of his books and notes are free on line. Above you mentioned that evolution didn't die with Darwin, it wasn't born with him either-regardless the ideology is ascribed to him. If it makes you feel any better-"the Darwinist ideology is a racist idea". BTW. What do you say "savage" meant (particularly when contrasted to "civilized")?
Thanks carriebrk, you've done a great job here of showing that: A. You don't have a leg to stand on, these are specific lines fished out of Darwin's writings to support something the man clearly didn't. B. Darwin was indeed a man way ahead of his time, morally and intellectually. What a great guy he is, and what a dishonest little weasel you are. :D
funnybot152, please read my response to understand that when Darwin referred to the extermination of 'savage' races, he was merely either A. referring to non-human species that were dying out or B. Referring to tribes of peoples that he believed would be killed off by colonialism. 'Savage' carries a negative connotation, though he never viewed them as subhuman.
The only Savage here are the European colonists who raped murdered, theft and enslaved. The destruction of indigenous civilizations , the burning of books and texts , theft of priceless artefacts clearly show you are indeed SAVAGE
What about the Truth? Is that acceptable? The Word of God is profound Wisdom and a lie for the truth has been unveiled. So long as the religion of big bangs and evolution and preservation of favored races not destroy minds and lives with unscientific speculation and conjecture... The religion of our time.
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people." - Adolf Hitler
Boston psychiatrist Leo Alexander was consultant to the Secretary of War in 1946 and 1947. He was on duty with the office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes in Nuremberg. Alexander outlined the problem in his paper Medical Science under Dictatorship. Alexander wrote about his vital concerns in 1949.
@@laosi4278 Hitler likely accepted evolution because most rational minds did saying just because Hilter believes in evolution, makes evolution bad, is just immature
@@parsivalshorse i couldn't confirm if this book was burned, however that wouldn't suprise me as the Nazis are well known to have made up their own evolutionary pseudoscience probabally so they could make their own version
Hitler began by forced sterilizations of "undesirables". Mentally or physically impared etc. He was also the first Western power to practice abortion for the same purposes. In Darwins writings he questioned the wisdom of helping and caring for such people because they "weakened the species". Christianity ascribes equal worth to all humans because they are all made in the image of God. Christian ideology sees all of equal worth and importance.
The science of that time included phrenology, imagine that.....Racial differences, superiority, etc were common to that period. Darwnism was simply used to rationalize already existing attitudes.
@@michaels4255 getting an impression from wiki.... some people did, i mean remeber how it was back then a bit more polarised... people even had theories like matter is made of ice etc it's like say in Nazi germany, you had "scientists" and they where proving racial theories..... imagine a world in these centuries where we don't know what we know today.... we'd all believe at least one or two things that where dumb
Once again some person stoops to the Hitler fallacy! If you have to compare or link some person or event to Hitler in order to prove your point you are tacitly admitting your argument has no merits!
You could say that bacteria form "adaptations" to their evironment, much like the Galápagos finches. But you wouldn't say the bacteria "evolves" into a completely new cell (like a blood cell, or skin cell). At least I wouldn't say that.
@@ozowen5961 Bacteria are observed, bacterial adaptations are observed, but actual new complex organisms that evolved from bacteria is inferred not observed.
And how could it without the circulatory system or skin organ that supplies the "necessity" to evolve? There's no reason for a bacteria to evolve into anything but a different kind of bacteria, so, no evolution into a blood cell.
He was countering Prof Shcaa.. who was ascribing the differences in races to different origins-another words they descended from separate species. Darwin held to the belief that all humans descended from the same line, but at different rates. As I said before you can see it for yourself in his book "Descent of Man" it's a pdf on line
This is an amazing lecture and I’m grateful to hear it. Regardless of what we feel about the sanctity of human life as those who believe in God- we are continually assaulted by Darwin’s thoughts in schools where then kids are taught bullying laws and are written up for any assault on the grand idea of equity. It’s bizarre.
@@Charlie94781 "the creationists present their own opinions" The thing I've noticed is materialist do the same thing, they more often than not resort to Name Calling, and not addressing the ideas presented by Creationists. BTW when you say creationist, are you talking Young Earth, Old Earth, Theistic Evolution? Because there are differences you know. "maliciously linking them to genocide" Some do. The question is, is it in error?
no it's just if you can't accept evolution you can't really be taken seriously as a biologist, you'll just make these people's science a mockery with that in mind.... why would you want to study science, you can study religious studies and you're just fine instead you want to shove your opinions into a science, and sciences are not actually places you can just take a 2000 year old book as evidence.... as it's not reliable data say i am trying to track some plants for example... i'm looking for closely related species so i'm searching the evolutionary tree.... what are you going to do, look in the bible for these plants?
@WanderingSeer I think your referring to the guy who was complaining about being spamed. The new you tube format can be a little confusing especially when burning the midnight oil with drowsy eyes. If I'm mistaken please clarify. I know the spam guy said the bible was edited. Is that what your referring too?
We've stumbled in the dark at everything when we look back with hindsight, we can't stop trying to understand ourselves and the world because of it. I think this video is a sad but necessary examination of ourselves, but would rather see the cause as innocent ignorance with some arrogance rather than premeditated evil. It might rid us of some arrogance about extrapolation of ideas beyond their immediate proof.
Michael Harris progress into genetics halted upon darwinism. Carl Linneaus and Gregor Mendal did more in 300 years because they were Christian and saught to understand the "kinds" God created using the bible as their guide. Evolution has proved nothing and provided nothing. Even now as science EVOLVES while, ironically, evolution still doesn't acknowledge it has been proven wrong through epigenetics. Epigenetics only reinforces Mendal's teachings of gene variety and gene activation. Variation is not evolution. Denying and dismissing evidence that shows progress is anti-evolution. I'm not even a creationist, but I'm not an evolutionist anymore. Questioning everything I've every known and was taught shed light on everything. We're living in the darkest times since the dark ages, right now.
Advocatus Diaboli I think your phrase: I'm not an evolutionist anymore will be the expression of the future. It was a shock for me when I realised the evidence pointed away from Darwin's theory. Suddenly I had no theory for how species got here. I looked at all life differently, as a mystery not solved. And looked at the paradigms of science and that the public do not yet realise that Darwin's theory is dead. The internet speeded my awakening as I'm sure it'll do for many others.
The national Academy of Science even has you tube video celebrating his birthday and singing happy birthday. Afterward they each gave a testimonial to how grateful they were to him, and what he meant to them personally, and said thank you, as if he was in the room with them, Really a little freaky if you ask me. That's kind of over doing it. If Newton wasn't already dead he would be die of jealousy.
"Just imagine that these events were to become known to the enemy! And were being exploited by them! In all probability, such propaganda would be ineffective simply because those hearing and reading it would not be prepared to believe it." The Reichskommisar for the Ostland to the Reichminister for occupied Eastern territories June 18, 1943
@prschuster Correction. Evolution is fine. How can anyone refute the evidence? Still, don't confuse factual evolution with Darwinism. One is a viable theory; one is not.
Thats fucking point he makes it clear that These people r Nazis are not real professionals but yet have agendas to depopulate human life for their own gain. I don’t think you understand evolution theory was made by a man and it’s a theory and it happens to be the guy who made it is a fucking Nazi So you guys are supporting around Nazi theories ha ha Ha Seems to me the socials have infiltrated not only education but many of peoples minds I hate Nazis and they will fall all of them
@@BrittardWatts Darwin was a nazi now? A party that existed in Germany, not England, where Darwin was from? A party that didn't exist until the 1900s when Darwin was born in the 1800s?
He believed certain races were related to animals more than others. Specifically, Caucasians, were at least in Charles Darwin’s words superior to other races. He didn’t have the genetic knowledge that we know of today. Scientists today know now that all humans originated from the same place. Humans regardless of their skin color are of the same race. The human race.
@earlysda Hitler rejected Darwin in private conversations, in his public pronouncements, and ultimately banned Darwin by law in 1935. Hitler's references to a creator are common. He wasn't a Darwinist, he was a creationist, like Moses, who invented genocide, like Innocent lll, and his genocide in Languedoc, like Sigismund and his genocide in Bohemia. like Theodora.and her genocide in Armenia. Evolution isn't a religion, and it certainly isn't a failure. Religion brings darkness and death
Your own personal beliefs have nothing to do with what you do as a scientist, as long as you can keep those biases at home. What Darwin reportedly observed would have come after he postulated his theory, and Darwin isn't the only one who supported evolution. Huge amounts of scientific research were done after he died, and are even being done today, which confirmed the theory of evolution. It didn't just die with Darwin.
The killings in the Soviet Union (in particular the 1920-1950) was partly done by the communists and also by the axis troops in WW2. That sum come up to about 50 million or so in total. About 20 million was killed under Stalin and 9 million in the Russian civil war. However, you expect the majority to be Orthodox as most Russians were, and are, Orthodox. This of-course includes the people that did the actual killings, most of those were Orthodox. Including Stalin -who even studied in seminary.
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out." -Adolf Hitler
You’re a fucking bullshitter this man called out all of these guys work from the 1900s if these people are Nazis and this is their work this not acceptable for modern 21fst century
Evolution doesn't end at Darwin, doesn't matter what his personal philosophy seemed to be from all of the research that he conducted. The fact that evolution has withstood the scientific scrutiny over all of these years is only a testament to it's validity.
a quote from Mein Kampf: "The folkish minded man in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave man their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys his work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, his divine will" That isnt mined that is the whole section.
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children." -Adolf Hitler reflecting on World War I
@Ozzyman200 5) "DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards still were genetically identical to the source population. The phenotypical changes can easily be explained by adaptation to distinct environmental condition. " If those lizards were returned to their original environment they would revert to their original size and features. No new species, they can still interbreed, no new information. Science is about evidence, not speculation, exaggeration, story telling, imagination!
Evolution is real. Facts don't care about your feelings. I believe that all races of humans should be treated as humans, and that there is a great deal of diversity in every race and a great deal of overlap among races in terms of abilities. I therefore disagree with a lot of what Charles Darwin said. However, evolution is a reality. Should we pretend that it is not?
@@KARAIsaku, there is a tremendous amount of evidence, and the theory makes perfect sense. I will touch on some of the evidence. Humans bred wolves over thousands of years into chihuahuas, poodles, etc. That is verified by generations of human records. If that can happen by deliberate human selection, it can happen by natural selection. Viruses mutate on their own all the time. Human embryos look like fish embryos. There is a 99% genetic overlap between humans and chimpanzees. Etc. I don't think evolution disproves the existence of God or rules out the possibility that The Bible is an allegory, though.
@@reignsupreme7701 Creationists have sought to smear Darwin as a racist by dishonestly conflating the two terms. You are yet another of these creationist liars. Get out of your gutter and do better...be more honest.
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will." -Adolf Hitler
It occurred to me once when I was watching some speculative science show on Discovery (or TLC, w/e). It showed earth millions of years in the future, how certain strange animals would be likely to evolve, etc. One thing always missing from these speculations: PEOPLE. It's always assumed that we will be extinct by then. They don't account for the fact that we can and will survive, especially because we are now armed with knowledge about evolution, selection, etc.
"Listen, people in West tend to ignore killing from 1918 to 1934. Which were carried by Lenin" No, no, Lenin died in 1924! It is correct that a lot of the Orthodox churches were attacked. The reason for that was that the Church openly supported the Tzar, and later the White army during the Russian civil war. If you are on the loosing side in a civil war you will be treated harshly. The same thing happened to the nobility of Russia after the war.
Jmndmb32 lmao I made this exact comment. Dude I’ve seen so many professors with absurd ticks like this guy has... one who said “um” twice as much as this guy grunts. It’s very very annoying.
@unassumption It was the creationist Edward Blythe that proposed natural selection, Darwin just took credit for it. Darwin proposed Pangenesis and the Christian monk Mendel destroyed that hypothesis. If you define evolution as limited change through time, then everyone can agree, but If your referring to the modern Darwinian synthesis then we run into problem. We have been breeding dogs for thousands of years and their still dogs. The fossil record does not show a Darwinian transition.
B) this argument could be used to against religion as well (the crusades, extremists and fundamentalists) C) eugenics was supported by many evangelical christians D) as for the holocaust, christianity has had a pretty big role to play in anti-semitism, and again I'm not sure how killing an entire section of able-bodied/ able-minded people leads to something positive for a species
@@joeschmotz3000 religion is something always controlled by the state in the past actually.... so you could say no the state built the west, and the churches
Ozzyman200 Lol. I should be asking you to prove it. My explanation is consistent with the way Hitler carried himself. Furthermore, the three animals he used are famously used to speak of certain types of people. The real question is: how are you so ignorant and naïve to have never picked up on this? Why don't you locate that quotation, come back and place that same quotation in this thread for all to see *with the contextual surrounding text.* I wonder how this isolated quotation will appear in *that light.*
You made a claim, so you need to prove it. You explanation conflicts with his actions, mine does not. Prove that he was definitely not talking of species. How are you ignorant and naive that you haven't bothered to do any research and look for the contextual surrounding text?
The quote, from Mein Kampf, is taken out of context. The last sentences of the immediately preceding paragraph says: "The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all." In other words, as can be seen in this quote and many others, clearly Hitler believed in Darwinian evolution and thus was not a creationist. Essentially what Hitler was saying in his statement about the fox, goose, and tiger, is that a "fox" that loses the characteristics of foxes is no longer a fox, etc., and thus he was preaching against allowing his "superior" arian race to breed with those of "lesser" races, as can be seen from the following quote, also from the immediately preceding paragraph of the fox/goose/tiger quote in question: "Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general." Anyone who would consider Hitler a creationist, or a Christian for that matter is, to borrow a phrase from Dawkins, "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
@@kevinmark6180 well but I don’t see why this should be darwinistic (Though I know what you mean) but he couldn’t really thought high about Darwinism because evolution is a phenomenon and not a logic. So, if he hadn’t traveled around the world just to observe if somehow and somewhere a human being actually ,evolved‘ in something ,better’ (and this is not even a scientific term) and anyone could have seen it, I don’t from know where his idea of a superior race should actually stem from (it was not Darwin by the way). This is neither creationism nor Darwinism what Hitler is speaking about no matter how much he believed in evolution or in Darwin’s works in its entirety: The Nazi ideology cannot be based on the same kind of ,evolution‘ what Darwin meant by this term as he never wanted to point out what could finally be found to be considered as the universal ,best‘ of animals or of humans or of something in nature in the first place. Moreover this could even be seen to be entirely contradictory to what he really found out: that an animal evolves in order to fit in its surroundings and to survive but that doesn’t mean (and that’s the point) that this one winning animal can be sure to be ,the best‘ in this area as of any other part of this world or of its kind, everywhere could await him a fight for survival (or not) but nothing more; to be alive is always the best outcome. The notion of human or even ,aryan’ superiority as a ,reality’ is therefore not just highly questionable it was invented fiction right from the start and Darwinism challenged this thought way more than it could have entirely proven it. So I don‘t know what the Nazis made out of it.
The first inquisition was against the Albegencies, it lasted 10 years - an entire people were obliterated and their writings burned. Even the reformers were rough on the biblical Christians, they called them anibaptists because they "baptized again" not believing in infant baptism. It's a fascinating study. We are fortunate to live in a free country where religion is not dictated by the state. Point being-evangelicals and Romanists are not the same.
it hasn't withstood scrutiny. For example-there is no explination for how or why assexual reproduction "evolved" into sexual reproduction, there should be intermediate fossils, irreducible complexity etc. That is why it is still debated and the law of gravity, or laws of genetics are not.
Good and evil is completely relative. Like his example of the worst case, if Hitler agreed w u and he helped u liked him. If u suffered under Hitler to u he's evil.
At least he has 'morals' not so sure about atheist though if they did they would admit to themselves that the Nazis used Darwinism to their twisted advantage. can you refute any of the info in this lecture?
@@jacktheboss1896 They may be secular now, but they have a long christian tradition. They still have christian values (separation of church & state, love your neighbor, care for the poor, etc) Naturalism on the other hand gives us no ground for morality. Most atheists these are humanists with christian values. They are not really living according to their belief ("there is no god, do whatever you want"), because it is just a lie and destroys morality and civilisation.
J the Magic Robot Countries such as North Korea may appear secular until you realize that the people are basically worship the dictator. The dictator is their god.
@benthemiester You've heard it before but - the evil deeds done in the name of Mao or Stalin, were done in their name, not the name of 'not believing in god,' whereas evil deeds committed by religious people were the result (perhaps of manipulative people abusing) the religious beliefs and convictions of the people. Unless you show a causal link, that if the Soviet union was the same country except christianity was mandated (christian communists in S America propose) atrocity wouldn't happen
@T.Great Island Of The World Forever please my friend leave Islam. You have been deceived into stone worship. . Lev 26 "'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God. Please run away from Islam
@T.Great Island Of The World ForeverMy friend Worshiping a stone that pagans worshiped, for the purpose of unification? Unifications to whom? To the pagans ? And you talk about making sense? My friend it seems to me that you try hard to make sense of a religion that doesn't makes sense at all just for the purpose of traditions. Run away from it please.
@T.Great Island Of The World Forever To follow a man that did horrible things to Aisha and killed so many people and taught you to worship a stone it is perfectly sensible ? It is perfectly sensible to run away from a man like that isn't it! Mohammed said....Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled. Paul said..For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms
@T.Great Island Of The World Forever Sorry I missed your text. Some Christians make a distinction between worship and veneration I personally do not feel comfortable to do that myself, but God is all knowing He knows who belongs to him. Paul said ...... Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. Rom 14-4 About the curse Paul said...Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. Gal 3-13 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Rom5-8 Jesus become a curse on my and on yours behalf. I am sorry but Abraham never built the kaaba it was an abomination to him. In the Bible it says...."'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God. Lev26-1
As far as editing of scripture, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated how accurate the people of that day were, not just of the scribes, but also of the oral traditions. No one is forced into believing anything they don't want to believe in. However if you don't believe there is enough empirical evidence to support Darwinian macro evolution, then you can be penalized with your grades as a student or loss of job by a teacher, to even question it will put you in legal trouble.
No. Evolutionary theory is just a description regarding the diversity of life, and how it got to be so varied after life began. Notice that I said, "after life began." Evolution only deals with life after it began - which means that your god could start life magically, and evolution would just explain how it got from the start to where it is now. You are way off. If you are actually interested, you can learn this with google. I think you're a troll though.
@benthemiester Is it speciation that troubles you, I didn't understand it myself until I looked at ring species; this 11 minute video summarizes the various means of speciation and numerous case studies for each - How Evolution Works 7: Speciation by Donexodus2 a theistic evolutionist on youtube. Do you accept that animals in a population vary in their traits, like height or fur color, and some of these are more likely to survive than others in that habitat?
The reason for disparity is that some people are incredibly productive and that others are not though. This is particularly true with regards to farmers in the west, where agriculture is developed to the point where a single farmer can do the work of many thousands, if not millions, of people in earlier times. Nobody has to defend their right to their own production as it would not exist at all without them. The only question is why poor countries fail to organize themselves and improve.
Thanks Andrew Ryan! 😅you really helped illuminate my sensibilities there! I take it that your ideal perfect day is a yacht 🛥️ ride to Capri whilst drinking some fancy Italian wine and reading Atlas Shrugged.
Evolution has made thousands of predictions about relationship between animals, for instance an elephant does not exist in Australia. The prediction is that at the time when Australia was connected to Asia (so that there was a land bridge for elephants (and thousands of other animals) to cross) elephants did not exist. The tree of life and geology gives us a rough idea of how long elephants have been around, and the speed of Australia's drifting how long it has been apart - hey presto.
@bereantrb The so called "secular" wars are not motivated by their "secularism".. They did not kill because they "do not believe". Just to clarify in case there is a misunderstanding. Classifying it under a common heading "secular" seems to denote that there is something in common between these people, which there isn't. War and genocides usually have a more complex political and historical context, even those wars that are seemingly religiously motivated.
We could attempt it, but it would take a massive concerted effort from everyone on the planet and huge amounts of time to make any significant changes, so it's highly improbable.
The past isn't separate from the present. Whoever made up the Nazi "rule" was probably a Nazi. A friend of mine's father was a Nazi officer. My mom's family was in the Netherlands resistance. She told me the U.S. reminded her of Germany before WWII. She was a news photographer in DC and a supporter of Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks. I'm attending Brad's hearings. Strange things are occurring. Others have seen it. We're his family and were here before. DOD war pigs classified reality.
Anyone who would argue this is not dealing with the reality of the historical record. I've heard this this argument of relativism before. China was and is an officially atheist country, as was the Soviets. The whole idea was to liberate the masses from things like religious dogma, and most would concede that more brutality and carnage occurred in Stalin's and Mao's reign than even Hitler. As far as hero worship. Ever hear of Darwin Day? celebrated by many secular humanist and atheist alike.
@benthemiester The Origin of Species begins by discussing artificial selection as proof that animals do change - that is all evolution entails, though modern definitions are about allele frequency in the population (Darwin wrote before Mendel became popular). Darwin provided a mechanism for nature to select - which has been improved upon in 150 years since as much as genetics has in the time since Mendel. Not sure how someone can accept artificial selection but not natural.
I understand your statement because I've seen people do horrible things in the name of a worldview or religion. I sympathize with that. I reserve resentment towards so-called Christians who call gay people as 'all hell-bent'. I am in anguish when I see Muslims killing even fellow Muslims who disapprove of violence. For this reason I always go back to the Bible and to what it teaches: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
I don't think the point of the lecture was to disprove the theory as much as to examine the moral implications. I'm curious-what is it in man (as apposed to animals) that would make the idea of killing the unfit, or race superiority, abhorant? What do you think makes man uniquely able to have a morality, or a sense of humor, or a sense of justice? Or to be able to discuss an abstraction-like we are here? I'm pressing symbols on a keyboard and you know what I'm saying. Pretty remarkable.
They didn't say that bacteria evolves into an entirely new cell. They alluded to that when they said, "cats and plants will only make more cats and plants". Do you just not understand what evolutionary theory is?
Fitz-Roy [and I] had several quarrels... For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of? his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. - Charles Darwin.
The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."59....
"If he was Orthodox by a bit he would not sent thousnads if not millions of priests and monks to Gulag." Yes he would, because the church itself had taken a political decision in the war and thus he did it for political reasons. Hitler being a catholic had no problems sending catholic people and priests to concentration camps for the same reason. A dictator will try to remove any and all organizations that can threaten his rule. Hitler went first for trade-unions, Stalin for nobility and church
@gamesbok I reject the ridiculous notion that we can improve the human race or select a master race by selective breeding. But there may be a place for genetic engineering to get rid of obvious diseases. But that's a far cry from racial theory.
If you look in my videos I have a debate between Richard Weikart and Hector Avalos debating the issue of whether the Nazis were evolutionists or creationists. Thanks.
You're still not getting it. Now that we have knowledge of evolution, adaptability, and natural selection, we have no choice but to respond to them, whether consciously or not. I don't mean in an absolute sense (applying it to our specific individual lives), but an objective sense (applying it to the great stretch of human time which lies before us).
"Behold, all souls are mine" Ezekiel 18:4. "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein" Psalm 24:1
0:45
1:30 "Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?"
3:50 The Impact of Darwinism on German Socialists
5:37 Francis Galton and Eugenics,
- Emerged after Galton's reading Charles Darwin's _Origin of Species_
7:43 Darwinism produced Moral Relativism
- Darwinism undermines the value of human life
10:47 *Evolution requires Deviation, and therefore Inequality of Man*
14:30 *Inequality within society and ACROSS Societies*
17:48 2. Moral Relativism undermining Human Life
+ Darwin was optimistic a Good Human Nature would come through in Victorian man
19:40 *The Blurred Distinction between Man and Animal*
21:10 *The Denial of Body-Soul Dualism*
23:45 5. *The Human Struggle For Existence* (preceded by Thomas Malthus)
26:35 US Eugenics Movement
28:23 BETWEEN Societies
30:44 6. Darwinism saw Death as an Engine driving Progress
32:40 Abortion, Infanticide, Euthanasia
34:32 Darwinism and Nazism
36:45 _Hitler's Ethic_
40:15 The Fall of The Nazis, but Darwinism remained
41:08 Peter Singer's Devaluing of Human Life
43:30 Daniel Dennett _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_
45:35 Richard Dawkins 2001 Genetic Engineering Australopithecus article
47:35 James Watson
51:25 Darwinism Has Devalued Human Life
Thanks. Helpful. 👍🏽
@@lunarmohammed4011 Darwin never advocated genocide/abortion/eugenics
@@Charlie94781 he did advocate for genocide. Watch the lecture (or just read Darwin's letters)
Great lecture which shows how social Darwinism has been used to eliminate the "weak" and "unfit" for the "betterment" of the human species.
Is that something wrong with that?
Social Darwinism does actually or did exist. Im glad other people agree to that!
DJT would figure out a way they could be productive which is the ultimate therapy.
@@keithhunt5328 weak or unfit according to whom? This is where the problem lies.
@@brianjacob8728The fish will be judged on its climbing skills by the monkey of course.
"If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil." - Charles Darwin
@@rudyalarcon4864 Why are you telling me?
@@rudyalarcon4864 he was interested in the occult, too.
Weikart's book is rather atrocious to those that are familiar with the primary sources... Weikart simply reads into them the prejudices he has been conditioned with. parade example for eisegesis and 'reading out of context'. And well. even if his premises were true... it would still be a moralistic fallacy (It's bad, that's because it can't be true), but that's exactly where Weikart has a problem: With the basics of logic... which raises the question, what his relationship with Logos is.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 you are basically saying that morality is relative and therefore it doesn't make sense to criticise it? Darwin to Hitler is history. Also, Darwin's theory was quite incorrect either way even epistemologically.
@@crabb9966 Well, Guess one got to deal with Morality/Ethics and Empirical/Logical issues separately. If you can't do that, you are not up to the task. And it's a common problem. Must time wasting debates run around that issue.
Well, Weikart's writings demonstrate how relative Morality towards POV is. He doesn't even get it separated himself that's how deep he is into it (Hence commits the moralistic fallacy, knowing fully well that this argumentation will be accepted by large sections of the audience).
That doesn't actually mean that there isn't an objective Ethics, which can have an issue with accessibility, though.
If Darwin was wrong (and I realize there are problems), why not address this way? Why try to come up with obscure insinuation of how 'dangerous' his idea is?
Francis Schaeffer wrote a book "How Should We Then Believe?" On page 200, Schaeffer quoted Edmund Leach, anthropologist at Cambridge University. Leach said that originally there were TWO theories of evolution. The one we are taught is that the human race began at one place at one time. The second theory has been suppressed by academia: the human race began in various places at different times. Since, according to Leach, this means that one branch of the human race is more advanced than another (because it started earlier), and because that branch that started first would be the most advanced, this would lead to racism. Because this other theory leads to bad political consequences, it was abandoned, and we are only taught the theory that the human race all began at one time in one place. Frankly, if vertical evolution really does happen, it would seem that it would occur at different times and at different places.
Even before Hitler, according to the New World Encyclopedia article on William Jennings Bryan who opposed teaching evolution in public schools in the famous "Scopes/Monkey Trial", Germans thought they were a master race. Some German officers in WW1 were interviewed, and this sentiment was expressed by many of the educated officer class. Someone said Hitler had no original thoughts but simply assembled what was already in circulation.
Great lecture! Thanks for uploading.
I actually learned this fact at a debate with Christoper Hitchens. The auditorium was filled with scholars, including historians, & when opposing side brought this up, Hitchens or no one else challenged him on the numbers. I thought that was very interesting, so I decided to research myself. This is also my conclusion as of recent. There is a lot of revisionist history out there. I used to also believe Columbus was the first Euro to discover America because that's what was regurgitated to me.
Columbus was an incompetent explorer. Americo Vespucci, however, noticed they had reached a new mass o land - something the other Nordic sailors may not have noticed.
Wow. Thank you so much for your well-informed, well-researched, well-presented, and compassionate efforts here.
Bad ideas have bad consequences
Sometimes truths that are bad certainly inform unnecessary bad ideas. But that isn't a refutation of the bad truths.
Evolution is the backbone of modern biology. Hitler, Stalin, etc are all irrelevant when we are literally analyzing how species adapt and change in a lab.
@@verzen Hitlerism is applied Darwinism.
@@keithhunt5328 And? Bombing children is applied nuclear fusion and applied gravity.
The application of a theory does not make that theory bad. It simply makes that application bad when used for evil.
@@keithhunt5328 Evolution is a fact. 100% fact. HOW that knowledge is used is a separate question entirely and whether or not its used for good *agriculture is applied darwinism as well!* or evil *Nazi's superhuman idea* doesn't change the fact that evolution is still a fact.
I hate it when people do this.
Yes, eugenics relies on belief in evolution. This doesn't make belief in evolution bad, or evolution itself false.
Let me put it more simply.
Yes, pushing elderly women off cliffs relies on belief in gravity. This doesn't make belief in gravity bad, or gravity itself false.
I certainly do believe Darwinism devalues human life, no doubt about it. After all, if you think you're just an animal, it wont be long before you start to ignore all the things decency and morality teach us. We see the negative effects of Darwinism growing all around on a daily basis.
That's an insult to animals.
Nonsense.
258 ultra-Darwinists have outraged against the truth about their cult.
They say "this is not true! You took the lines out of context!" And then they will say something like "well, it's true though, the strong surviving is just reality, who cares"
wow, i wish all history teachers were this good!
evolutionists get really emotional, so that they are no longer able to reason, as they have been indoctrinated, sadly. comments show that.
this guy is great, really like him :).
My history and science teacher both told me that Darwin theory of evolution has always been wrong racist.
Uh no. We are entirely logical. Emotional would be falling for the idea that evolution is some racist ideology that's lead to millions of deaths. THAT is appealing to emotions.
It is logical to analyze that irrelevant of how many deaths may or may not have occurred in the 20th century due to the concept of evolution, the concept of evolution in and of itself a scientific fact with oodles and oodles of evidence for it. This is why 99.96% of biologists accept evolution, including Christians like Dr. Francis Collins. It's not because we are all just racists. Is that what you're suggesting? That all biologists are racists?
@@michaelarkell5437 Your history and science teacher needs to have their license pulled. Its hilarious how about a teacher of history and science is incorrect on both history and science.
Evolution is a fact in biology. This is why 99.96% of biologists accept it as fact. There are more biologists who think HIV is a hoax than there are who think evolution is wrong.
Are you suggesting that biologists are all just racists?
@@michaelarkell5437 He was Eugenic, like Bill Gates is..
@@verzen it is not the acceptance or rejection of evolution per se, but whether ethics based on the survival of the fittest is accepted or rejected by a believer of the rational scientific worldview.
Guided evolution is probably the majority worldview among thinking people of faith. Of course evolution happens. But it may favor intelligent creatures. But novel sections of new code, such as the complex code which changes a caterpillar into a butterfly, or the unique original code necessary to permit evolution without a deep intelligence behind it as absurd statistically as finding one specific atom in the Milky Way galaxy.
No pre-existant ribosome+ chirality pure amino acids + ATP+ codons which match the correct amino acids+complex code which includes making more ribosomes+ 16 acylamino t-rna synthetases, also coded for=no life, and no evolution .
Hitler wasn't a Christian. He was raised a nominal Roman Catholic, but became more of a deist as he grew. During the period of his rule he was clearly a deist, believing some sort of god but rejecting traditional Christianity. To Hitler Jesus was some sort of Norse entity and he also respected Islam. For more read his Table-Top recordings that are freely available.
People often forget that science isn't bad or good, it's just descriptive. It shows how things work and how they're supposed to work. And it can be used for good and for bad.
Below is a two part quote from "Descent of Man"-do your own research, most of his books and notes are free on line. Above you mentioned that evolution didn't die with Darwin, it wasn't born with him either-regardless the ideology is ascribed to him. If it makes you feel any better-"the Darwinist ideology is a racist idea". BTW. What do you say "savage" meant (particularly when contrasted to "civilized")?
Thanks carriebrk, you've done a great job here of showing that:
A. You don't have a leg to stand on, these are specific lines fished out of Darwin's writings to support something the man clearly didn't.
B. Darwin was indeed a man way ahead of his time, morally and intellectually. What a great guy he is, and what a dishonest little weasel you are. :D
funnybot152, please read my response to understand that when Darwin referred to the extermination of 'savage' races, he was merely either A. referring to non-human species that were dying out or B. Referring to tribes of peoples that he believed would be killed off by colonialism.
'Savage' carries a negative connotation, though he never viewed them as subhuman.
The only Savage here are the European colonists who raped murdered, theft and enslaved. The destruction of indigenous civilizations , the burning of books and texts , theft of priceless artefacts clearly show you are indeed SAVAGE
@animeuserone I'm really glad to hear that. I see he is at least restrained from expressing religious ideas at least when serious work is concerned.
What about the Truth? Is that acceptable? The Word of God is profound Wisdom and a lie for the truth has been unveiled.
So long as the religion of big bangs and evolution and preservation of favored races not destroy minds and lives with unscientific speculation and conjecture...
The religion of our time.
"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people."
- Adolf Hitler
excellent talk thanks for the upload much appreciated !
Boston psychiatrist Leo Alexander was consultant to the Secretary of War in 1946 and 1947. He was on duty with the office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes in Nuremberg. Alexander outlined the problem in his paper Medical Science under Dictatorship. Alexander wrote about his vital concerns in 1949.
Why then did Hilter ban Darwin's book?
It's myth, just simple Google search and you see that nazi supported darwinit extensively
@@laosi4278 Well no, they specifically banned the teaching of Darwinism and his book was on the list of books to be burned.
@@laosi4278 Hitler likely accepted evolution because most rational minds did
saying just because Hilter believes in evolution, makes evolution bad, is just immature
@@parsivalshorse i couldn't confirm if this book was burned, however that wouldn't suprise me as the Nazis are well known to have made up their own evolutionary pseudoscience
probabally so they could make their own version
@@DarkShroom where in my comment i said evolution bad BECAUSE HITLER BELIEVE IN IT? why u put something i not says as if i`ve said it in first place?
Hitler began by forced sterilizations of "undesirables". Mentally or physically impared etc. He was also the first Western power to practice abortion for the same purposes. In Darwins writings he questioned the wisdom of helping and caring for such people because they "weakened the species". Christianity ascribes equal worth to all humans because they are all made in the image of God. Christian ideology sees all of equal worth and importance.
The science of that time included phrenology, imagine that.....Racial differences, superiority, etc were common to that period. Darwnism was simply used to rationalize already existing attitudes.
I don't think phrenology was ever an accepted science.
@@michaels4255 getting an impression from wiki.... some people did, i mean remeber how it was back then a bit more polarised... people even had theories like matter is made of ice etc
it's like say in Nazi germany, you had "scientists" and they where proving racial theories..... imagine a world in these centuries where we don't know what we know today.... we'd all believe at least one or two things that where dumb
Once again some person stoops to the Hitler fallacy! If you have to compare or link some person or event to Hitler in order to prove your point you are tacitly admitting your argument has no merits!
Interesting comments, too. The facts presented by the author make some people squirm.
Would anyone happen to know the song played at the intro and outro? Please.
You could say that bacteria form "adaptations" to their evironment, much like the Galápagos finches. But you wouldn't say the bacteria "evolves" into a completely new cell (like a blood cell, or skin cell). At least I wouldn't say that.
Bacteria evolve. This is observed. So, you can say it or not, it makes no difference to reality.
@@ozowen5961 Bacteria are observed, bacterial adaptations are observed, but actual new complex organisms that evolved from bacteria is inferred not observed.
And how could it without the circulatory system or skin organ that supplies the "necessity" to evolve? There's no reason for a bacteria to evolve into anything but a different kind of bacteria, so, no evolution into a blood cell.
He was countering Prof Shcaa.. who was ascribing the differences in races to different origins-another words they descended from separate species. Darwin held to the belief that all humans descended from the same line, but at different rates. As I said before you can see it for yourself in his book "Descent of Man" it's a pdf on line
This is an amazing lecture and I’m grateful to hear it. Regardless of what we feel about the sanctity of human life as those who believe in God- we are continually assaulted by Darwin’s thoughts in schools where then kids are taught bullying laws and are written up for any assault on the grand idea of equity. It’s bizarre.
Evolution has never advocated the extermination of life
@@Charlie94781
Did you watch the talk?
@@stevenwiederholt7000 the creationists present their own opinions and attack scientists and atheists by maliciously linking them to genocide
@@Charlie94781
"the creationists present their own opinions"
The thing I've noticed is materialist do the same thing, they more often than not resort to Name Calling, and not addressing the ideas presented by Creationists. BTW when you say creationist, are you talking Young Earth, Old Earth, Theistic Evolution? Because there are differences you know.
"maliciously linking them to genocide"
Some do. The question is, is it in error?
no it's just if you can't accept evolution you can't really be taken seriously as a biologist, you'll just make these people's science a mockery
with that in mind.... why would you want to study science, you can study religious studies and you're just fine
instead you want to shove your opinions into a science, and sciences are not actually places you can just take a 2000 year old book as evidence.... as it's not reliable data
say i am trying to track some plants for example... i'm looking for closely related species so i'm searching the evolutionary tree.... what are you going to do, look in the bible for these plants?
@WanderingSeer I think your referring to the guy who was complaining about being spamed. The new you tube format can be a little confusing especially when burning the midnight oil with drowsy eyes. If I'm mistaken please clarify. I know the spam guy said the bible was edited. Is that what your referring too?
We've stumbled in the dark at everything when we look back with hindsight, we can't stop trying to understand ourselves and the world because of it. I think this video is a sad but necessary examination of ourselves, but would rather see the cause as innocent ignorance with some arrogance rather than premeditated evil. It might rid us of some arrogance about extrapolation of ideas beyond their immediate proof.
Michael Harris progress into genetics halted upon darwinism. Carl Linneaus and Gregor Mendal did more in 300 years because they were Christian and saught to understand the "kinds" God created using the bible as their guide. Evolution has proved nothing and provided nothing. Even now as science EVOLVES while, ironically, evolution still doesn't acknowledge it has been proven wrong through epigenetics. Epigenetics only reinforces Mendal's teachings of gene variety and gene activation. Variation is not evolution.
Denying and dismissing evidence that shows progress is anti-evolution. I'm not even a creationist, but I'm not an evolutionist anymore. Questioning everything I've every known and was taught shed light on everything. We're living in the darkest times since the dark ages, right now.
Advocatus Diaboli I think your phrase: I'm not an evolutionist anymore will be the expression of the future. It was a shock for me when I realised the evidence pointed away from Darwin's theory. Suddenly I had no theory for how species got here. I looked at all life differently, as a mystery not solved. And looked at the paradigms of science and that the public do not yet realise that Darwin's theory is dead. The internet speeded my awakening as I'm sure it'll do for many others.
Michael Harris unfortunately others like the commenters above use this in bad faith
@@MichaelHarrisIreland So you reject reality and bathe in lies. Good to know.
The national Academy of Science even has you tube video celebrating his birthday and singing happy birthday. Afterward they each gave a testimonial to how grateful they were to him, and what he meant to them personally, and said thank you, as if he was in the room with them, Really a little freaky if you ask me. That's kind of over doing it. If Newton wasn't already dead he would be die of jealousy.
"Just imagine that these events were to become known to the enemy! And were being exploited by them! In all probability, such propaganda would be ineffective simply because those hearing and reading it would not be prepared to believe it."
The Reichskommisar for the Ostland to the Reichminister for occupied Eastern territories June 18, 1943
@prschuster Correction. Evolution is fine. How can anyone refute the evidence? Still, don't confuse factual evolution with Darwinism. One is a viable theory; one is not.
Even if true, this has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution. I am not sure why this is so dang difficult for you guys to understand.
True
Thats fucking point he makes it clear that
These people r Nazis are
not real professionals but yet have agendas to depopulate human life for their own gain.
I don’t think you understand evolution theory was made by a man and it’s a theory and it happens to be the guy who made it is a fucking Nazi
So you guys are supporting around Nazi theories ha ha Ha
Seems to me the socials have infiltrated not only education but many of peoples minds I hate Nazis and they will fall all of them
@@BrittardWatts Darwin was a nazi now? A party that existed in Germany, not England, where Darwin was from? A party that didn't exist until the 1900s when Darwin was born in the 1800s?
@@ibra1616 What does the "ethics based on evolution" have to deal with the truth value of evolution? It doesn't. Smoke and mirrors.
He believed certain races were related to animals more than others. Specifically, Caucasians, were at least in Charles Darwin’s words superior to other races. He didn’t have the genetic knowledge that we know of today. Scientists today know now that all humans originated from the same place. Humans regardless of their skin color are of the same race. The human race.
@earlysda Hitler rejected Darwin in private conversations, in his public pronouncements, and ultimately banned Darwin by law in 1935. Hitler's references to a creator are common. He wasn't a Darwinist, he was a creationist, like Moses, who invented genocide, like Innocent lll, and his genocide in Languedoc, like Sigismund and his genocide in Bohemia. like Theodora.and her genocide in Armenia.
Evolution isn't a religion, and it certainly isn't a failure. Religion brings darkness and death
someone had to say that the emperor doesn't wear anything at all!
Your own personal beliefs have nothing to do with what you do as a scientist, as long as you can keep those biases at home. What Darwin reportedly observed would have come after he postulated his theory, and Darwin isn't the only one who supported evolution. Huge amounts of scientific research were done after he died, and are even being done today, which confirmed the theory of evolution. It didn't just die with Darwin.
The killings in the Soviet Union (in particular the 1920-1950) was partly done by the communists and also by the axis troops in WW2. That sum come up to about 50 million or so in total. About 20 million was killed under Stalin and 9 million in the Russian civil war. However, you expect the majority to be Orthodox as most Russians were, and are, Orthodox. This of-course includes the people that did the actual killings, most of those were Orthodox. Including Stalin -who even studied in seminary.
And apparently learned nothing
Stalin was not orthodox, do you know much about communism at all?
Thank you prof Joordens for this one.
"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out."
-Adolf Hitler
Darwinism doesn't devalue life people use it as a justification for behavior (good or bad) just like any other doctrine like in traditional religion
You’re a fucking bullshitter this man called out all of these guys work from the 1900s if these people are Nazis and this is their work this not acceptable for modern 21fst century
Evolution doesn't end at Darwin, doesn't matter what his personal philosophy seemed to be from all of the research that he conducted. The fact that evolution has withstood the scientific scrutiny over all of these years is only a testament to it's validity.
a quote from Mein Kampf: "The folkish minded man in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave man their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys his work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, his divine will"
That isnt mined that is the whole section.
Fascinating! Thank you for sharing!
"evolution predicts such things" what is that supposed to mean?
"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children."
-Adolf Hitler reflecting on World War I
sorry for spelling error was in a hurry.
@Ozzyman200 5) "DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards still were genetically identical to the source population. The phenotypical changes can easily be explained by adaptation to distinct environmental condition. " If those lizards were returned to their original environment they would revert to their original size and features. No new species, they can still interbreed, no new information.
Science is about evidence, not speculation, exaggeration, story telling, imagination!
Evolution is real. Facts don't care about your feelings. I believe that all races of humans should be treated as humans, and that there is a great deal of diversity in every race and a great deal of overlap among races in terms of abilities. I therefore disagree with a lot of what Charles Darwin said. However, evolution is a reality. Should we pretend that it is not?
There are no facts in evolution only nonesense
What has convinced you of evolution being the reality?
@@KARAIsaku, there is a tremendous amount of evidence, and the theory makes perfect sense. I will touch on some of the evidence. Humans bred wolves over thousands of years into chihuahuas, poodles, etc. That is verified by generations of human records. If that can happen by deliberate human selection, it can happen by natural selection. Viruses mutate on their own all the time. Human embryos look like fish embryos. There is a 99% genetic overlap between humans and chimpanzees. Etc. I don't think evolution disproves the existence of God or rules out the possibility that The Bible is an allegory, though.
@@at_1804, how did wolves become Chihuahuas?
Full title of Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Race meaning "species". Why do you lack the honesty to point that out?
mcmanustony because it’s not true. Only Darwinian make that asinine assertion. Race has never meant species
Reign Supreme you are wrong. That is precisely what Darwin was referring to and it had been dishonesty presented by creationist liars ever since.
@@reignsupreme7701 why do you tell lies?
@@reignsupreme7701 Creationists have sought to smear Darwin as a racist by dishonestly conflating the two terms. You are yet another of these creationist liars. Get out of your gutter and do better...be more honest.
You made a false claim, and now you call me dishonest. I looked at your cite and it did not say that Hitler banned the book.
"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will."
-Adolf Hitler
Hitler was a pantheist and would have killed Jesus for being jewish. What is your point?
Darwinists? Are those the scientists or the "Social Darwinists" completely different group.?
It occurred to me once when I was watching some speculative science show on Discovery (or TLC, w/e). It showed earth millions of years in the future, how certain strange animals would be likely to evolve, etc.
One thing always missing from these speculations: PEOPLE. It's always assumed that we will be extinct by then. They don't account for the fact that we can and will survive, especially because we are now armed with knowledge about evolution, selection, etc.
"Listen, people in West tend to ignore killing from 1918 to 1934. Which were carried by Lenin"
No, no, Lenin died in 1924! It is correct that a lot of the Orthodox churches were attacked. The reason for that was that the Church openly supported the Tzar, and later the White army during the Russian civil war. If you are on the loosing side in a civil war you will be treated harshly. The same thing happened to the nobility of Russia after the war.
I honestly cannot hear past the constant throat clearing. A throat clearing twitch really?!? Wtf
Jmndmb32 lmao I made this exact comment. Dude I’ve seen so many professors with absurd ticks like this guy has... one who said “um” twice as much as this guy grunts. It’s very very annoying.
@unassumption
It was the creationist Edward Blythe that proposed natural selection, Darwin just took credit for it. Darwin proposed Pangenesis and the Christian monk Mendel destroyed that hypothesis. If you define evolution as limited change through time, then everyone can agree, but If your referring to the modern Darwinian synthesis then we run into problem. We have been breeding dogs for thousands of years and their still dogs. The fossil record does not show a Darwinian transition.
B) this argument could be used to against religion as well (the crusades, extremists and fundamentalists)
C) eugenics was supported by many evangelical christians
D) as for the holocaust, christianity has had a pretty big role to play in anti-semitism, and again I'm not sure how killing an entire section of able-bodied/ able-minded people leads to something positive for a species
Christianity built the west pal
@@joeschmotz3000 religion is something always controlled by the state in the past actually.... so you could say no the state built the west, and the churches
@@DarkShroom so the same state that viewed women as nothing and still does have them dignity?
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger."
- Adolf Hitler, Creationist
That's your interpretation, sure. Now, prove it.
Ozzyman200 Lol. I should be asking you to prove it. My explanation is consistent with the way Hitler carried himself. Furthermore, the three animals he used are famously used to speak of certain types of people. The real question is: how are you so ignorant and naïve to have never picked up on this? Why don't you locate that quotation, come back and place that same quotation in this thread for all to see *with the contextual surrounding text.* I wonder how this isolated quotation will appear in *that light.*
You made a claim, so you need to prove it. You explanation conflicts with his actions, mine does not. Prove that he was definitely not talking of species. How are you ignorant and naive that you haven't bothered to do any research and look for the contextual surrounding text?
The quote, from Mein Kampf, is taken out of context. The last sentences of the immediately preceding paragraph says: "The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all." In other words, as can be seen in this quote and many others, clearly Hitler believed in Darwinian evolution and thus was not a creationist. Essentially what Hitler was saying in his statement about the fox, goose, and tiger, is that a "fox" that loses the characteristics of foxes is no longer a fox, etc., and thus he was preaching against allowing his "superior" arian race to breed with those of "lesser" races, as can be seen from the following quote, also from the immediately preceding paragraph of the fox/goose/tiger quote in question: "Every crossing between two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in the biologically lower order of being, but not so high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general." Anyone who would consider Hitler a creationist, or a Christian for that matter is, to borrow a phrase from Dawkins, "ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
@@kevinmark6180 well but I don’t see why this should be darwinistic (Though I know what you mean) but he couldn’t really thought high about Darwinism because evolution is a phenomenon and not a logic. So, if he hadn’t traveled around the world just to observe if somehow and somewhere a human being actually ,evolved‘ in something ,better’ (and this is not even a scientific term) and anyone could have seen it, I don’t from know where his idea of a superior race should actually stem from (it was not Darwin by the way). This is neither creationism nor Darwinism what Hitler is speaking about no matter how much he believed in evolution or in Darwin’s works in its entirety: The Nazi ideology cannot be based on the same kind of ,evolution‘ what Darwin meant by this term as he never wanted to point out what could finally be found to be considered as the universal ,best‘ of animals or of humans or of something in nature in the first place. Moreover this could even be seen to be entirely contradictory to what he really found out: that an animal evolves in order to fit in its surroundings and to survive but that doesn’t mean (and that’s the point) that this one winning animal can be sure to be ,the best‘ in this area as of any other part of this world or of its kind, everywhere could await him a fight for survival (or not) but nothing more; to be alive is always the best outcome. The notion of human or even ,aryan’ superiority as a ,reality’ is therefore not just highly questionable it was invented fiction right from the start and Darwinism challenged this thought way more than it could have entirely proven it. So I don‘t know what the Nazis made out of it.
The first inquisition was against the Albegencies, it lasted 10 years - an entire people were obliterated and their writings burned. Even the reformers were rough on the biblical Christians, they called them anibaptists because they "baptized again" not believing in infant baptism. It's a fascinating study. We are fortunate to live in a free country where religion is not dictated by the state. Point being-evangelicals and Romanists are not the same.
those grunts though... lol
it hasn't withstood scrutiny. For example-there is no explination for how or why assexual reproduction "evolved" into sexual reproduction, there should be intermediate fossils, irreducible complexity etc. That is why it is still debated and the law of gravity, or laws of genetics are not.
And yet, evolution remains a fact.
Get over it.
Fact hhh
Prouve that à protéines juste one can mutate by him self 😂😂 there is billon in your body
@@salimattal2864 .
Wrong question
@Luca Baki
So sorry to hear of your acquired ignorance. You will be happy to hear that is easily cured.
Try education.
Evolution is NOT a fact!!!
@@ToOpen6seven
The Theory describes how the fact works.
Good and evil is completely relative. Like his example of the worst case, if Hitler agreed w u and he helped u liked him. If u suffered under Hitler to u he's evil.
Oh a Creationist trying to make a "moral" argument against Evolution.
At least he has 'morals' not so sure about atheist though if they did they would admit to themselves that the Nazis used Darwinism to their twisted advantage.
can you refute any of the info in this lecture?
may hudson The most secular countries are some of the happiest though.
@@jacktheboss1896 so Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and China are happy places?
@@jacktheboss1896 They may be secular now, but they have a long christian tradition. They still have christian values (separation of church & state, love your neighbor, care for the poor, etc)
Naturalism on the other hand gives us no ground for morality. Most atheists these are humanists with christian values. They are not really living according to their belief ("there is no god, do whatever you want"), because it is just a lie and destroys morality and civilisation.
J the Magic Robot Countries such as North Korea may appear secular until you realize that the people are basically worship the dictator. The dictator is their god.
@benthemiester
You've heard it before but - the evil deeds done in the name of Mao or Stalin, were done in their name, not the name of 'not believing in god,' whereas evil deeds committed by religious people were the result (perhaps of manipulative people abusing) the religious beliefs and convictions of the people. Unless you show a causal link, that if the Soviet union was the same country except christianity was mandated (christian communists in S America propose) atrocity wouldn't happen
Darwin caused many to discard belief in GOD.
Because he doesn’t exist
Interesting discussion. Too bad the constant throat clearing made this so difficult to listen to
From the bottom of my heart....JESUS IS LORD!!!!!!!!
@T.Great Island Of The World Forever please my friend leave Islam.
You have been deceived into stone worship. . Lev 26 "'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.
Please run away from Islam
T.Great Island Of The World Forever God is the father, Jesus is the son and the holy spirit is the spirit in you basically
@T.Great Island Of The World ForeverMy friend Worshiping a stone that pagans worshiped, for the purpose of unification? Unifications to whom? To the pagans ? And you talk about making sense? My friend it seems to me that you try hard to make sense of a religion that doesn't makes sense at all just for the purpose of traditions. Run away from it please.
@T.Great Island Of The World Forever To follow a man that did horrible things to Aisha and killed so many people and taught you to worship a stone it is perfectly sensible ? It is perfectly sensible to run away from a man like that isn't it!
Mohammed said....Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
Paul said..For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms
@T.Great Island Of The World Forever Sorry I missed your text.
Some Christians make a distinction between worship and veneration I personally do not feel comfortable to do that myself, but God is all knowing He knows who belongs to him.
Paul said ...... Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. Rom 14-4
About the curse
Paul said...Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.
Gal 3-13
But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Rom5-8
Jesus become a curse on my and on yours behalf.
I am sorry but Abraham never built the kaaba it was an abomination to him.
In the Bible it says...."'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God.
Lev26-1
As far as editing of scripture, the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated how accurate the people of that day were, not just of the scribes, but also of the oral traditions. No one is forced into believing anything they don't want to believe in. However if you don't believe there is enough empirical evidence to support Darwinian macro evolution, then you can be penalized with your grades as a student or loss of job by a teacher, to even question it will put you in legal trouble.
Nonsense.
No. Evolutionary theory is just a description regarding the diversity of life, and how it got to be so varied after life began. Notice that I said, "after life began." Evolution only deals with life after it began - which means that your god could start life magically, and evolution would just explain how it got from the start to where it is now.
You are way off. If you are actually interested, you can learn this with google. I think you're a troll though.
So this guy is against abortion? .....
And doesn't like Darwin because he thinks it devalues human life?
Hmmm....
Weird ending.
Nonsense, dolphy says in mein kampf he was creationist and different races were created that way
@benthemiester
Is it speciation that troubles you, I didn't understand it myself until I looked at ring species; this 11 minute video summarizes the various means of speciation and numerous case studies for each - How Evolution Works 7: Speciation by Donexodus2 a theistic evolutionist on youtube.
Do you accept that animals in a population vary in their traits, like height or fur color, and some of these are more likely to survive than others in that habitat?
The reason for disparity is that some people are incredibly productive and that others are not though. This is particularly true with regards to farmers in the west, where agriculture is developed to the point where a single farmer can do the work of many thousands, if not millions, of people in earlier times. Nobody has to defend their right to their own production as it would not exist at all without them. The only question is why poor countries fail to organize themselves and improve.
Thanks Andrew Ryan! 😅you really helped illuminate my sensibilities there! I take it that your ideal perfect day is a yacht 🛥️ ride to Capri whilst drinking some fancy Italian wine and reading Atlas Shrugged.
@prschuster How is your comment already flagged as spam after 2 hours. Seriously, wtf.
@unassumption Ill try to give my opinion on your questions later when I have more time.
you obviously weren't paying attention during the first 5mins of the video.
Evolution has made thousands of predictions about relationship between animals, for instance an elephant does not exist in Australia. The prediction is that at the time when Australia was connected to Asia (so that there was a land bridge for elephants (and thousands of other animals) to cross) elephants did not exist.
The tree of life and geology gives us a rough idea of how long elephants have been around, and the speed of Australia's drifting how long it has been apart - hey presto.
@bereantrb
The so called "secular" wars are not motivated by their "secularism".. They did not kill because they "do not believe". Just to clarify in case there is a misunderstanding. Classifying it under a common heading "secular" seems to denote that there is something in common between these people, which there isn't.
War and genocides usually have a more complex political and historical context, even those wars that are seemingly religiously motivated.
We could attempt it, but it would take a massive concerted effort from everyone on the planet and huge amounts of time to make any significant changes, so it's highly improbable.
The past isn't separate from the present. Whoever made up the Nazi "rule" was probably a Nazi. A friend of mine's father was a Nazi officer. My mom's family was in the Netherlands resistance. She told me the U.S. reminded her of Germany before WWII. She was a news photographer in DC and a supporter of Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks. I'm attending Brad's hearings. Strange things are occurring. Others have seen it. We're his family and were here before. DOD war pigs classified reality.
Anyone who would argue this is not dealing with the reality of the historical record. I've heard this this argument of relativism before. China was and is an officially atheist country, as was the Soviets. The whole idea was to liberate the masses from things like religious dogma, and most would concede that more brutality and carnage occurred in Stalin's and Mao's reign than even Hitler. As far as hero worship. Ever hear of Darwin Day? celebrated by many secular humanist and atheist alike.
Tell me carriebrk, do you know what endogenous retroviruses are?
@benthemiester
The Origin of Species begins by discussing artificial selection as proof that animals do change - that is all evolution entails, though modern definitions are about allele frequency in the population (Darwin wrote before Mendel became popular). Darwin provided a mechanism for nature to select - which has been improved upon in 150 years since as much as genetics has in the time since Mendel. Not sure how someone can accept artificial selection but not natural.
thanks, yoda. very insightful
I understand your statement because I've seen people do horrible things in the name of a worldview or religion. I sympathize with that. I reserve resentment towards so-called Christians who call gay people as 'all hell-bent'. I am in anguish when I see Muslims killing even fellow Muslims who disapprove of violence. For this reason I always go back to the Bible and to what it teaches: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.
I don't think the point of the lecture was to disprove the theory as much as to examine the moral implications. I'm curious-what is it in man (as apposed to animals) that would make the idea of killing the unfit, or race superiority, abhorant? What do you think makes man uniquely able to have a morality, or a sense of humor, or a sense of justice? Or to be able to discuss an abstraction-like we are here? I'm pressing symbols on a keyboard and you know what I'm saying. Pretty remarkable.
They didn't say that bacteria evolves into an entirely new cell. They alluded to that when they said, "cats and plants will only make more cats and plants". Do you just not understand what evolutionary theory is?
Fitz-Roy [and I] had several quarrels... For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of? his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. - Charles Darwin.
It doesn't matter if Hitler was Catholic or whatever. He still was heavily influenced by the eugenics movement.
The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."59....
"If he was Orthodox by a bit he would not sent thousnads if not millions of priests and monks to Gulag."
Yes he would, because the church itself had taken a political decision in the war and thus he did it for political reasons. Hitler being a catholic had no problems sending catholic people and priests to concentration camps for the same reason. A dictator will try to remove any and all organizations that can threaten his rule. Hitler went first for trade-unions, Stalin for nobility and church
While YOU might believe in that, not everyone does.
@gamesbok I reject the ridiculous notion that we can improve the human race or select a master race by selective breeding. But there may be a place for genetic engineering to get rid of obvious diseases. But that's a far cry from racial theory.
If you look in my videos I have a debate between Richard Weikart and Hector Avalos debating the issue of whether the Nazis were evolutionists or creationists. Thanks.
You're still not getting it. Now that we have knowledge of evolution, adaptability, and natural selection, we have no choice but to respond to them, whether consciously or not.
I don't mean in an absolute sense (applying it to our specific individual lives), but an objective sense (applying it to the great stretch of human time which lies before us).