Darwin or Lincoln?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:14:03 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Off-topic Board (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, The Mikado, YE)
  Darwin or Lincoln?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Both men were born on this date in the same year (1809).  Which do you pick?
#1
Charles Darwin
 
#2
Abraham Lincoln
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 47

Author Topic: Darwin or Lincoln?  (Read 4748 times)
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,043
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2013, 06:51:29 PM »

Lincoln; while I believe in evolution, it cannot escape the binds of creation. I respect Darwin, but his theory is unfairly used by atheists. In fact, he was an agnostic.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,851
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2013, 02:19:54 AM »

As mentioned before, someone else would have discovered the theory of evolution, but no one else could have done what Abe did.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2013, 09:08:17 AM »
« Edited: February 14, 2013, 09:13:01 AM by DemPGH »

As mentioned before, someone else would have discovered the theory of evolution, but no one else could have done what Abe did.

Interesting. I see it exactly the other way around. Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell's The Principles of Geology, which was a discovery of geological evidence that suggested that the Earth was much older than previously thought and had gradually changed over extremely long periods of time. Lyell was right. Darwin wondered if that concept could not be extended to include biological life, and he went in search of possible evidence. Of course he found massive amounts of it. No one else was out there as thoroughly and meticulously working on that as he. Now at SOME point someone was likely to discover it, but Darwin saved us time with his invaluable contribution. 

The Civil War, on the other hand, was bound to happen - if it were not for a series of bad presidents who sought to appease the South, it would have happened sooner. By the 1860s the situation had more than reached a boiling point. Abe, let's not forget, was a sort of moderate hero - he went easier on the South than some others would have.

Lincoln; while I believe in evolution, it cannot escape the binds of creation. I respect Darwin, but his theory is unfairly used by atheists. In fact, he was an agnostic.

Evolution most certainly can "escape the binds of creation." Because it's a natural process or law, like Kepler's Law of Harmony, which means that we don't need a "God element" in the equation. It's actually an old argument that if there is a God, there's not much at all for Him / Her / It to do.

On a scaled of 1 to 10, 1 being a creationist and 10 being an atheist, agnostics are around 7.5 or 8 or so. The point being, science uses the material world to explain the material world, not the supernatural / shadow world to explain the material world. In that sense evolution is not misused by atheists.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2013, 03:41:32 PM »

Lincoln. Darwin's work was a lot more far-reaching, but it is also a lot more easily manipulated to support some truly evil causes. See Hitler's Germany.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,851
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2013, 03:47:49 PM »

As mentioned before, someone else would have discovered the theory of evolution, but no one else could have done what Abe did.

Interesting. I see it exactly the other way around. Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell's The Principles of Geology, which was a discovery of geological evidence that suggested that the Earth was much older than previously thought and had gradually changed over extremely long periods of time. Lyell was right. Darwin wondered if that concept could not be extended to include biological life, and he went in search of possible evidence. Of course he found massive amounts of it. No one else was out there as thoroughly and meticulously working on that as he. Now at SOME point someone was likely to discover it, but Darwin saved us time with his invaluable contribution. 

On a scaled of 1 to 10, 1 being a creationist and 10 being an atheist, agnostics are around 7.5 or 8 or so. The point being, science uses the material world to explain the material world, not the supernatural / shadow world to explain the material world. In that sense evolution is not misused by atheists.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Yes, the Civil War was bound to happen, but Abe's "Moderate Heroism" was the right thing to do, and being tougher on them wouldn't let the South re-join.

And I think you're only speaking for yorself, and not all Agnostics in that last part.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: February 14, 2013, 09:24:56 PM »
« Edited: February 14, 2013, 09:27:18 PM by SPC »

Lincoln. Darwin's work was a lot more far-reaching, but it is also a lot more easily manipulated to support some truly evil causes. See Hitler's Germany.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,658
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: February 14, 2013, 09:41:42 PM »

While others might have had similar ideas to Darwin (such as Alfred Russell Wallace) without the decades long research of Darwin the theory might not have been as accepted as it was. The theory of evolution was a hugely important landmark in scientific development.

Lincoln was only the (very eloquent) spokesperson for the already large and zealous abolitionist movement, and not even their first choice for that, being a compromise candidate for the 1860 election. The movement to abolish slavery would have gone on without Lincoln, but evolution would have been decades away from scientific prominence without Darwin.

Lincoln wasn't a spokesperson for the abolitionist movement. He didn't even run as an abolitionist. But that makes him more, rather than less relevant.  If the Republicans had nominated Seward or some other fire-breather, there's a good chance that they wouldn't have won the EV and Douglass would probably have been chosen by the House.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2013, 09:19:40 AM »

As mentioned before, someone else would have discovered the theory of evolution, but no one else could have done what Abe did.

Interesting. I see it exactly the other way around. Darwin was influenced by Charles Lyell's The Principles of Geology, which was a discovery of geological evidence that suggested that the Earth was much older than previously thought and had gradually changed over extremely long periods of time. Lyell was right. Darwin wondered if that concept could not be extended to include biological life, and he went in search of possible evidence. Of course he found massive amounts of it. No one else was out there as thoroughly and meticulously working on that as he. Now at SOME point someone was likely to discover it, but Darwin saved us time with his invaluable contribution. 

On a scaled of 1 to 10, 1 being a creationist and 10 being an atheist, agnostics are around 7.5 or 8 or so. The point being, science uses the material world to explain the material world, not the supernatural / shadow world to explain the material world. In that sense evolution is not misused by atheists.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Yes, the Civil War was bound to happen, but Abe's "Moderate Heroism" was the right thing to do, and being tougher on them wouldn't let the South re-join.

And I think you're only speaking for yorself, and not all Agnostics in that last part.

Hmm. Well, Agnosticism denies any knowledge of God or that a god exists, nullifying revelation and the content of the religions - it also does not discount such a possibility (that a god exists), so to me that's way closer to atheism than theism, since theism is based upon God contacting in secret certain individuals to whom God revealed, err, instructions, I guess.

I've always said I don't believe in God or gods as contained in the various holy books, but I am open to the possibility of a higher intelligence. 

Lincoln. Darwin's work was a lot more far-reaching, but it is also a lot more easily manipulated to support some truly evil causes. See Hitler's Germany.

Hopefully that's an attempt at, uh, humor. In seriousness, though, I think this view is based upon either a misconception or at very least a misconception on Hitler's part.

Darwin --> Species gradually evolved to present form over millennia
Hitler --> Genocidal maniac 
Logged
John Dibble
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,733
Japan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2013, 09:28:37 AM »

Lincoln. Darwin's work was a lot more far-reaching, but it is also a lot more easily manipulated to support some truly evil causes. See Hitler's Germany.

That's a gross oversimplification. Nazi Germany would likely have still come about in a similar form even without evolutionary theory being available. Hitler also used religion to manipulate people, and it's not like using Jews as a scapegoat for social ills was a new phenomenon in Europe.

Also, you can't blame the manipulation of legitimate science to fit into some twisted ideology on the scientists when they aren't the ones manipulating it.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,821


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2013, 10:20:18 AM »

Lincoln. Darwin's work was a lot more far-reaching, but it is also a lot more easily manipulated to support some truly evil causes. See Hitler's Germany.

That's a gross oversimplification. Nazi Germany would likely have still come about in a similar form even without evolutionary theory being available. Hitler also used religion to manipulate people, and it's not like using Jews as a scapegoat for social ills was a new phenomenon in Europe.

Also, you can't blame the manipulation of legitimate science to fit into some twisted ideology on the scientists when they aren't the ones manipulating it.

It's worth noting that Nazi racial theory was technically Lamarckist if anything. In terms of Hitler’s racial theory Darwinism or any concepts associated with it are not found in Mein Kampf. The core of his views of the difference between the Aryan and the Jews is essentially biblical. He was attracted to the idea of progeny, not in Darwinian terms but through the concept of ‘blood lines’ and associated blood libel.

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"

Guidelines from ‘Die Bucherie’ in 1935 placed, ‘writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism’ in a list of banned books. As well as ‘all writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.’
Logged
Niemeyerite
JulioMadrid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,802
Spain


Political Matrix
E: -8.65, S: -9.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2013, 10:25:58 AM »

Both of them.

I like animals and natural life in general even more than I like politics... So I voted Darwin. But they + Mandela are my heroes Wink
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,658
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2013, 03:38:16 PM »

Lincoln. Darwin's work was a lot more far-reaching, but it is also a lot more easily manipulated to support some truly evil causes. See Hitler's Germany.

That's a gross oversimplification. Nazi Germany would likely have still come about in a similar form even without evolutionary theory being available. Hitler also used religion to manipulate people, and it's not like using Jews as a scapegoat for social ills was a new phenomenon in Europe.

Also, you can't blame the manipulation of legitimate science to fit into some twisted ideology on the scientists when they aren't the ones manipulating it.

It's worth noting that Nazi racial theory was technically Lamarckist if anything. In terms of Hitler’s racial theory Darwinism or any concepts associated with it are not found in Mein Kampf. The core of his views of the difference between the Aryan and the Jews is essentially biblical. He was attracted to the idea of progeny, not in Darwinian terms but through the concept of ‘blood lines’ and associated blood libel.

“I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"

Guidelines from ‘Die Bucherie’ in 1935 placed, ‘writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism’ in a list of banned books. As well as ‘all writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.’


There is no biblical concept of the Aryan.  Hitler's anti-Semitism was modern in its defining of Jewishness by race rather than by religious affiliation.  He tapped into the anti-Jew tradition that extended back through the medieval era, but without the nationalism and race science of the modern era you can't arrive at anything that looks like Nazism.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,590
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2013, 04:14:45 PM »

It's not particularly hard to find the 'roots' of Nazi antisemitism and you won't find it in either the Bible or On the Origin of Species. The ideology you're looking for is German nationalism and the term you're looking for specifically - though certainly not exclusively - is 'Völkisch'. Given how that term is pronounced I suppose that most native English speakers will probably find it difficult to take at all seriously as something extremely sinister and highly dangerous, but language can be deceptive and it certainly was. You should then be aware of the ubiquity of scientific racism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and of the popularity of related things, such as eugenics (c.f. the movement for 'National Efficiency' in Britain, which was pretty much the guiding political principle of one H.H. Asquith - a prick, but not even close to being a Nazi). You can then look at the (very, very successful) attempts of many 19th century arseholes to transform popular anti-Jewish sentiment (which was always previously based on good old fashioned religious bigotry... or, perhaps more accurately, was always expressed in its language) into the new fangled craze known as 'antisemitism', a new product that it made it possible to hate Jewish people while also being a thoroughly and respectably modern member of the new industrial society. You can easily see, I'm sure, how all of this combined at the wackier end of the German nationalist political spectrum (and that was always a pretty fycking crazy political spectrum as political spectrums go) to produce something as excessively and insanely vile as the Nazi variety of antisemitism. You think these people were at all interested in theology, even popular theology? Don't be daft. Actual scientific theory (at a theoretical level) as opposed to popular science? Utterly absurd.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,851
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2013, 04:32:39 PM »

Don't forget the Nihilism, Hitler and Co. were Nitchie Wannabees.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,890
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2013, 01:25:55 AM »

Don't forget the Nihilism, Hitler and Co. were Nitchie Wannabees.

I don't really want to get into the substance of your post, but, at the very least, you could have made the effort to spell Nietzsche correctly. And avoided using TV Tropes as a guide for intellectual history.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.236 seconds with 14 queries.