do you really believe that there is no connection between an accepted scientific theory that says  Man ows his creation to no God  man is a biological being and the only law that governs biological beings is survival of the fittest and social darwinism?

Which “accepted scientific theory” says that? Your distorted interpretation of “Darwinism” isn’t the same thing as the theory of evolution.

Even if it was, the “social Darwinists” sought to legitimize their beliefs by adopting the language of evolution. That they did so was no reflection on the accuracy or inaccuracy of evolutionary theory.

Evolution describes how time and mutation generate species specialization and survival.

Anything that attempts to give an origin of life is purely hypothetical and can be discussed as such, but the only people who believe they have all the answers are Creationists and Intelligent Designists. That is an anti-science, anti-original thought mentality that the world would be better off without.

Evolution does NOT say “Man owes his creation to no God.” Please don’t use a straw man to argue your point.

And PLEASE…do not conflate Darwinian theory with social Darwinism. They are actually opposites in what they say. Otherwise, you’re making the same mistake as the eugenics people made in the first place.

Also…the history books in my basement shows that Hitler was drew a considerable amount from the ongoing anti-Semitism in Europe that far preceded social Darwinism (which, itself, preceded Darwin’s work in biology). As well, he speaks far more on Christianity as a justification for his programs than he does biology.

Before you all join a lock-step, knee-jerk condemnation of comparisons between evoluitionists and Hitler, you would do well to study the links between Darwinism, so-called  social Darwinism, encarceration/forced sterilization programs, and eugenics, all of which were extremely popular among  progressives in the early 20th century. And the Nazis.

And then cited a 90-year-old textbook as an example.

The point eludes me.

This thread was originally about a nutjob preacher who thinks “evolutionists” are on a par with Nazis. It’s his claim that teaching evolution is somehow “anti-God”.

To those who call bullshit on this bullshit, Mike shows that supporters of eugenics misappropriated the language of evolutionary theory.

That’s as relevant as claiming that my inability to perform arithmetic casts doubt on number theory. Admit it, Mike. You’re just trolling, aren’t ya?

Good post.

Dugger

A particularly loathsome example can be found in these excerpts from the infamous book, “A Civic Biology Presented In Problems,” which was the text that spawned the trial of John T. Scopes.

http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap08.html (scroll to bottom of page)

Jadegold is correct in pointing out that there is absolutely no scientific correlation between “Origin of the Species” and the distortion of natural selection that became known as “social darwinism.” Likewise, Darwin did not originate eugenics or phrenology. Yet the philosophical implications of natural selection (namely that “only the strong survive”), however rightly or wrongly derived from Darwin’s actual work, were instrumental in shaping Modernist thought and paving the way for the acceptance of eugenics among progressive intellectuals.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not the theory of humans being descendants of lower-order primates that made most Christians hostile toward evolution. Rather, it was the Modernist notion that God could be completely removed from the mechanism of nature. Christians were also horrified at social darwinism’s suggestion that the proper way for society to deal with poverty was institutionalization and sterilization, rather than charity, education, and social justice. Like it or not, a lot of people did put evolution, social darwinism, and eugenics on the same page 80 years ago.

you would do well to study the links between Darwinism, so-called  social Darwinism, encarceration/forced sterilization programs, and eugenics, all of which were extremely popular among  progressives in the early 20th century. And the Nazis.

OK, Mike. I’ll ask. Where can I find information about these “links” of which you speak?

Darwinism and Social-Darwinism have no links. So-called ‘Social Darwinism’ is an artificial construct (you’ll probably have to look this up based on your comment). Certainly eugenics have no basis in Darwinist/evolutionist teaching or science.

WRT ‘holy war’–I can only laugh at you.

With regard to “jihad,” are radical, secularist ultra-leftists engaged in a “holy war” to displace Christianity completely from American culture? Absolutely.

Fiery rhetoric aside, it sounds like Johnson is not too far off base.

Lumping? Well, yes I guess I am. Are they identical? No. Are they left wing? Yes. Do they poison babies with Kool Aid and promise a Soviet socialist utopia like the Rev Jones? No.
Are all right wing religious groups the same. No.

Dugger

You mean those radical Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, and yes, Quakers?

Are you really lumping these denominations into the same group with a minister who rants against secular jihadists who teach evolution?