Why do so many Creationist hate Darwin,

[safeinOhio]

except they love Social Darwinism?
See Fascism and Nazism.
From Wikipedia
Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in the United Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s, which claim to apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.[1][2] Economically, social Darwinists argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Different social Darwinists have differing views about which groups of people are considered to be the strong and which groups of people are considered to be the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanism that should be used to reward strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others are claimed to have motivated ideas of eugenics, racism, imperialism,[3] fascism, Nazism, and struggle between national or racial groups.[4][5]

I think they are more influenced by Ayn Rand than their claim to religion.

[trotsky]

1. So, bad people must be atheists, huh?

That's nice.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Getting creative with the No True Scotsman fallacy aren't they?

That kind of mental gymnastics takes a lot of practice.

The op has a lot more in common with creationists than they realize.

[trotsky]

5. Starting from the assumption that religion is wonderful and good and perfect...

leads one to some very nasty, bigoted places.

Instead, accepting it's full of good and bad, that people can pretty much justify whatever they want - legitimately! - using religion, that allows us to have a serious discussion.

[safeinOhio]

7. I can more than agree with that.

As it can be applied to most any ideology.

[trotsky]

11. It sure can.

And then we can take a look at how "religion" is more than just an "ideology."

[beam me up scottie]

10. Some people don't want a serious discussion.

They want to peddle bigoted theories about atheists.

Same bias, different day.

[trotsky]

12. Atheists are bad, mmmkay?

[beam me up scottie]

14. It helps if you give them voices from SP when reading their posts.

I hear Cartman a lot in this forum.

[trotsky]

16. Hahaha! So true!

[safeinOhio]

3. Not at all, perhaps

hypocrites. At least hard core Objectivism comes right out and says it.

[trotsky]

4. "Hypocrites"

Because bad people can't be True Christians, right?

[safeinOhio]

6. or

Since the Scotsman fallacy relies on ambiguity in the definition of the word "Scotsman", it is a form of equivocation.

[trotsky]

8. There's no ambiguity in the definition of the word "Christian," eh?

Everyone agrees what it means?

Wow, that's cool. Didn't know that had been sorted out. So what's the official definition?

[safeinOhio]

13. Note, never mentioned Christians as

Creationism is in no way limited to any Christians. Try for the official definition of Creationism. Hint, they all reject science.

[trotsky]

15. Science tells us that evolution is unguided.

Steered along by random mutations, changing environments, catastrophic events, population bottlenecks, etc.

The RCC thinks that their god guided evolution to produce humans. Ergo, they reject science. Does that make Catholics creationists?

[safeinOhio]

18. Yes, for those that subscribe to that and

I'm not a member.

I'm a Humanist that leans toward Ethical Culture.

My post was in no way meant to ditch Atheism. Its purpose was to point out right wing thought and it's contradictions. Seems the problem with it, is not what I said, but what was assumed by others.

[trotsky]

20. "for those that subscribe to that"

It's the official RCC teaching. You're calling a billion Catholics creationists.

The only "contradictions" with right-wing thought are with the Christian religion as *you* see it. They interpret things differently, and they are just as right (or wrong) as you are. You don't get to declare they aren't believers, and therefore insult atheists.

[safeinOhio]

21. On the other hand

I do not see the RCC promoting "Social Darwinism". So I really don't get your point.

[trotsky]

23. This was in response to your claim about "creationists."

I merely pointed out that net will catch a LOT more than you think.

[rug]

19. A rather touchy non sequitur, trotsky.

Feeling particularly persecuted or are you just blowing a dog whistle?

[edhopper]

9. Social Darwinism

is just co-opting, and smearing Darwin's name for something that has nothing to with his scientific theories.

It is akin to the new age "Laws of attraction" which tries to sound scientific, but is just nonsensical woo. Or anything Deepak Chopra says.

[DetlefK]

17. Darwin does not attack God. It's way worse: Evolution makes God unnecessary.

It's one thing to care about God and debate his existence and weigh arguments, like theists and atheists love to do.
It's another thing to pay him no attention at all, to leave him out of the discussion entirely.

If Darwin had openly attacked God, his arguments would be dissected and discussed by the theists in a neverending fashion. But he did not even have the decency to attack him. He ignored the one entity that is supposed to be the root of everything. That is way worse. It's the religious equivalent of dehumanization.



They don't dislike evolution. They dislike that evolution doesn't even register them and their God.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. The eugenics movement rejected social darwinism.

They thought that they were applying science to improve the health of the population. That they fell down a hole of vile racism that aligned the movement with nazi germany was obvious in hind-sight, but at the time, the late 19th and early 20th centuries, eugenics was part of the progressive era program. Lumping eugenics in with social darwinists, who view, as noted above, economic success as somehow evolutionary success is incorrect.

Consider for example the evolutionary success of pigs and chickens. These animals are, from an evolutionary standpoint, highly successful. From a social darwinist viewpoint being raised for slaughter and consumption with a brief life of abject misery is complete failure.

Where both eugenics and social darwinists aligned was their overt racism, however overt racism was commonplace throughout society, some might say it still is.

Christians certainly don't get off the hook on either eugenics or social darwinism as some embraced the former and many embraced the latter. See for example "the protestant work ethic" and "the prosperity gospel".

Your conclusion citing the bad atheist ayn rand is ridiculous.

[Lordquinton]

24. Except pigs and chickens didn't evolve

they were artificially selected to be the way they are now. which is exactly what the eugenics folks wanted to do to humanity, except they didn't really understand evolution or science.

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. Evolution by artifical selection is still evolution.

Not trying to nitpick or anything, but I think Warren is technically correct.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. it doesn't matter how pigs got there, the fact is that from an evolutionary perspective

pigs are highly successful. There are somewhere around 1 billion pigs alive right now. Compare that population to, for example lions. The long term survival of lions is dubious, pigs will be here in huge numbers for as long as we continue to eat them. That we are in a symbiotic relationship with pigs is irrelevant.

[pokerfan]

31. The Nazis were applying

animal husbandry to humans. Breeding for desirable characteristics, culling the defects., etc. Selective breeding which had been known for millennia. Not Darwin's theory at all. Darwin simply postulated that there was also natural selection, that the natural environment was also at play. One didn't need to belive Darwin to do what the Nazis tried to do.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. I agree. Neither the eugenics movement nor its cousin the nazis required Darwin.

They were both simply applying "animal husbandry" to humans. The mashup of Social Darwinism with eugenics in wikipedia is unfortunate. The nazis did embrace social darwinist ideas, the eugenics movement did not.

[Lordquinton]

25. I don't think the Nazis were influenced by Rand at all

Rand has been an influence recently, but her religious views are generally ignored until someone is trying to bash atheists and they need someone other than Hitler because they learned he was Catholic. The Christians who embrace Rand's ideas have no trouble rationalizing away her atheism due to being so used to cognitive dissonance that comes part and parcel to bible worship.

Rand's ideas are bad, but it takes someone who thinks they have the support of the divine to make them truly terrible.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Fountainhead was published in '43 so quite unlikely that nazis, who started in the 20's

were influence by Rand, who was in her mid to late teens at the time. But those Bad Atheists have a time-warping influence on history. That's how bad they are.

[Lordquinton]

29. We need a subgenious in here stat!

They are the experts on time control.

Praise Bob.

[safeinOhio]

30. I never said the nazis were influenced by Rand.

Her ideas on Social Darwinism and the value of the common man, the poor and the workers are close to that. All of the characters in her novels were tall blond folks. The makers vs the takers was her idea only she called them the producers and the parasites. I don't really see her as an atheist, more an anti-theist, anti-Humanist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. And the Nazis rejected Darwin too

So I can't tell why 'Nazism' appears in your OP at all.

On the Nazi banned list: books about "the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism": http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines

[safeinOhio]

35. They were

into Social Darwinism like todays fundamentalist. Only difference is today they reject origin of species of Darwin.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. As you said, there are creationists outside Christianity. Is it for religious reasons

that they, and all creatonists, hate Darwin. Many creationists are not 'into social Darwinism'.

[safeinOhio]

37. Good point

I'm referring to those that get all of the media coverage as moral leaders of the right.

[trotsky]

38. Your OP said "so many."

You didn't restrict it to the very few who get media coverage. Has your position changed?

[safeinOhio]

40. No

they just lead the pack of followers.

What are your insights on religious folks ditching the poor. Wanting to cut food stamps,education and their hate for those from south of the boarder. Do you find that within their religious teachings or are their economics and support of unregulated capitalist markets more in line with greed?

[trotsky]

41. What are your insights on religious folks supporting abortion?

Lots of believers think that human life begins at conception, and that abortion is therefore murder. They think believers who support abortion are supporting murder. Is there justification within their religious teachings to support murder?

[safeinOhio]

42. I can't find any.

In fact Numbers, 5, 13-31 sanction it. I generally find non believers are so because they have read the scriptures. So, why has this become such an issue for them?

[trotsky]

43. Millions of Christians completely disagree with your personal interpretation.

Are you saying that you alone are the one human being who knows EXACTLY what the everything in the bible means? Do you think you could be wrong about anything?

[safeinOhio]

44. No, but like you I have an opinion.

To me the Bible is only a book, 2 thousand year old book that gives us a glimpse into those times and that is about all. How about you, are right about everything all of the time, or are you more like me, just some one with an opinion based on my experience?

[trotsky]

45. The problem with this entire thread is that you haven't presented things...

as if they were just your opinion. You're deciding who's religious and who isn't. Who is a Christian and who isn't. And so on. That's what many people have been trying to get you to understand. I don't think you get it.

[safeinOhio]

46. I might not

I just see a connection between Fundamentalist and unfettered capitalism that I don't understand. Not all Christians. Just the vocal, political and fundamentalist branch. I know many religious that actually care and work for justice for everyone including the poor, working class and minorities. I would never lump those with the ones that I have spoken of. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. What is your evidence for linking creationists and Rand? Why talk about a 'claim to' religion?

As you point out later, creationists are not limited to Christians - you have Muslim creationists too. Rand is almost unheard of by the public outside the USA, so it seems incredibly unlikely that any non-American creationists are influenced by Rand.

Why do you say "their claim to religion"? Are you saying that many creationists are lying about having a religion, and just claim it for some convenient purpose?

Why, when American creationists talk about creation and the origin of species and humans in particular, not about society, do you think they get that from the atheist Rand, who didn't talk about it at all?

I can't see any decent point in your OP at all, to be honest.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. 'I can't see any decent point in your OP at al"

Same here.

I would also take issue with labeling modern American conservatives as "social Darwinists". Generally speaking, they're not. They tend to tie success and failure to "personal responsibility", not genetics.