Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 86029

Bryan Fischer: It seems to me that you can draw pretty much of a straight line from Darwinian Evolution to Social Darwinianism - I mean, if it's survival of the fittest and let's get rid of the weakest members of our society, it makes absolutely logical sense if you believe in Darwinianism, this is how all of life develops, this is how we get increasingly complex lifeforms. So it seems like you can draw almost a straight line between Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, Eugenics movement, and Adolph Hitler. In other words, you've got pretty much a broken (sic) line from the theory of evolution to Hitler's Germany. Is that an over-exaggeration?

Dr. Georgia Purdom: Not it's not, it's absolutely and that's one of the things I will show in the presentation that I'll be doing for the Life Series to sort of show that building, so to speak, from Charles Darwin to Francis Galton to Margaret Sanger to Nazi Germany and all those others in this one big continuum, so to speak. One thing leads to another. When we start compromising on the Bible in one part, like with the ideas of evolution, it's just another step to compromising on other parts, like the sanctity of life.

Bryan Fischer & Dr. Georgia Purdom, Right Wing Watch 63 Comments [2/13/2012 4:13:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 89
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Wehpudicabok

1) If the theory of evolution tells us to kill off the weak, the theory of gravity tells us to shoot down airplanes.

2) It's AdolF. Learn to frickin' spell. (This is directed at whoever transcribed this, since it presumably wasn't Fischer himself.)

2/13/2012 4:27:05 AM

Rat of Steel

Bryan Fischer = automatic WTF

2/13/2012 4:45:35 AM

anevilmeme

Idiots. You don't understand evolutionary biology OR the history and sociology of 1930's Germany.

2/13/2012 4:48:08 AM

Filin De Blanc

Pray tell, where in the Origin of Species does Darwin advocate murdering people who work on Sundays? He clearly had far more respect for life than the people who wrote the Bible.

2/13/2012 5:12:24 AM

Bollox

Hitler: the only bad guy anybody's ever heard of.

2/13/2012 5:26:33 AM

John

I mean, if it's survival of the fittest and let's get rid of the weakest members of our society, it makes absolutely logical sense if you believe in Darwinianism, this is how all of life develops, this is how we get increasingly complex lifeforms.

Nonsense. Evolution merely describes what actually happens in nature; not what people ought to do, especially to other humans. What you're describing isn't natural selection; it's animal breeding, which has been well-known since antiquity.

2/13/2012 5:28:10 AM

Titania

Margaret Sanger's views on eugenics are once again being misconstrued by yet another far right wing nut. Her view was more along the line of socio-economic repercussions of raising children one could not afford and the cost of being poorly educated. Though I don't entirely subscribe to her views, there is at least a small kernel of truth in her view--families who cannot afford more children should be encouraged to NOT have them and be givent he means to prevent having more children in order to provide greater benefit for the ones they already have. She never lobbied for the extermination of human beings for any reason.

2/13/2012 5:32:19 AM

Berny

It's called the theory of evolution, not Darwinism, you fuckwits.
Social Darwinism is a racist philosophy which has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (or Charles Darwin for that matter).
Eugenics has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with selective breeding, the antithesis to evolution.
Give your Bible another read-through, it has no respect for the sanctity of life either.

2/13/2012 6:08:03 AM

Mister Spak

"you can draw almost a straight line between Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, Eugenics movement, and Adolph Hitler. In other words, you've got pretty much a broken (sic) line from the theory of evolution to Hitler's Germany. Is that an over-exaggeration?"

No, its total fiction.


Hitler's Table Talk, July 25, l942:

'From where do we get the right to believe, that from the
very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at
Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals
changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a
kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump,
as Man must supposedly have made, if he has
developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.'


"When we start compromising on the Bible in one part, like with the ideas of evolution, it's just another step to compromising on other parts, like the sanctity of life."

Abortion was illegal in Nazi Germany

And social Darwinism is part of you guys free market worship.

2/13/2012 6:14:06 AM

Swede

The ToE describes the process of diversification in nature. It's not a set of rules to follow.

Adolf Hitler banned On the Origin of Species, and many copies were burned by Nazi hands. That's how popular evolution was with them.

Which parts are we compromising on? The commandment from God to kill off every man, woman, child and ox in conquered nations? God sending a bear to maul disobedient children to death? Killing people who pick wood for the fire on the Sabbath? It seems the sanctity of life is heavily compromise already...

2/13/2012 6:29:21 AM

= POPE =

Please explain the sanctity of life in context with the Great Flood, the Killing of the Firstborn, and Joshua's exploits. Continue with the Crusades, the Huguenauts, and every slaughter and genocide up to modern times.

Respect for the life of another is a social compact. Your application is conveniently lax.

The theory of Unnatural Selection (Eugenics) predates Darwin.

2/13/2012 6:37:50 AM

The_L

This is a joke, right?

2/13/2012 6:44:50 AM

Realityman

Few, if any, who subscibe to the Theory of Evolution have any truck with the tenets of social darwinism, Nowhere in the ToE is survival of the fittest a persciption for how things ought to be in human society. It is a desciption of how things are in nature in general. It is an acknowledgement of the cold amorality of natural processes.

On the other hand it is very easy to see the influences of social darwinism in the economic theories adored by the current radical (and even moderate) right in the US. They apply that to individuals in the economic sphere. They take the the Darwinian desciption of what happens in nature with the strong destroying the weak and embrace that condition as the ideal.
In short the only place in our modern society that we see any significant influence of social darwinism is the trumpet blares of the far right when they tout the triumph of the wealthy over the poor. And then those among the underclass who have the nerve to fight back are accused od starting "class warfare".

The right in America is simply marally bankrupt!

2/13/2012 6:45:01 AM

Darwin

The vast majority of people who accept evolution, and especially those who truly understand it, think that social Darwinists are assholes, worthy only of contempt and derision, and possibly a boot to the head. So fuck both of you.

2/13/2012 6:54:08 AM

Doubting Thomas

Evolution = bad
Nazis = bad
Therefore, evolution = nazis.

Fortunately the real world doesn't work this way.

2/13/2012 7:03:10 AM

Raised by Horses

No.

2/13/2012 7:19:04 AM

dionysus

It seems to me that you can draw pretty much of a straight line from Darwinian Evolution to Social Darwinianism - I mean, if it's survival of the fittest and let's get rid of the weakest members of our society, it makes absolutely logical sense if you believe in Darwinianism

I can see how it might seem that way when you have as bad of an understanding of evolution as fundies do. But nowhere in the Theory of Evolution does it say anything about the need to remove the weakest. In fact, they tend to die off on their own or get hunted down BY OTHER SPECIES. Killing members of your own species (unless they themselves are killing members of your species) is DETRIMENTAL to evolution. Eugenics doesn't work and, in fact, evolution works better with MORE diversity, not less. It's not even really survival of the fittest, more like survival of the good enough and because of our modern technology (some of it coming from by the very science you condemn), even dumbass fundies are good enough to survive.

2/13/2012 7:30:26 AM

Horsefeathers

"It seems to me that you can draw pretty much of a straight line from Darwinian Evolution to Social Darwinianism"

It's not a straight line when you have to twist it like that.

"I mean, if it's survival of the fittest and let's get rid of the weakest members of our society, it makes absolutely logical sense if you believe in Darwinianism, this is how all of life develops, this is how we get increasingly complex lifeforms."

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean "let's get rid of the weakest members of our society," moron.

It also has very little to do with the complexity of an organism, and organisms do not necessarily get more complex the longer they evolve.

"So it seems like you can draw almost a straight line between Charles Darwin, Margaret Sanger, Eugenics movement, and Adolph Hitler."

If you try hard enough you can draw a straight line from anyone to Hitler.

"In other words, you've got pretty much a broken (sic) line from the theory of evolution to Hitler's Germany. Is that an over-exaggeration?"

An extreme one.

"Not it's not, it's absolutely and that's one of the things I will show in the presentation that I'll be doing for the Life Series to sort of show that building, so to speak, from Charles Darwin to Francis Galton to Margaret Sanger to Nazi Germany and all those others in this one big continuum, so to speak."

It's already been done. It didn't work for anyone else who tried it, so I don't see why you think you can do it successfully.

"One thing leads to another. When we start compromising on the Bible in one part, like with the ideas of evolution, it's just another step to compromising on other parts, like the sanctity of life."

Do you follow all of the rules in Leviticus, or are you "compromising" part of your Wholly Babble?

2/13/2012 7:33:11 AM

Brendan Rizzo

Of course, Social "Darwinism" has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, but let's just ignore that! Seriously, it's like these people are unaware that Herbert Spencer came up with the idea, which Darwin steadfastly opposed. This is one big pile of fail. The only connection here is a familial one between Darwin and Galton; they were cousins. Hitler would have despised Sanger and Darwin, and vice-versa. I wonder how many times we'll have to tell creationists that Hitler banned the teaching of the theory of evolution in Nazi Germany before they stop using that argument.

2/13/2012 7:35:10 AM

JSS

But the Bible was never big on the sanctity of life. Remember? All those verses like 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' and instances where God slaughters entire villages in the most gruesome ways possible?

2/13/2012 7:36:11 AM

rebel

Where the hell did Georgia earn her doctorate? More importantly how are people allowed to be so willfully ignorant?

I'm fairly certain Darwin himself was/would be against social Darwinism. How's that for appealing to authority?

Also, nature might be amoral and cold but it's not as cold as eugenics. At least it has a "reason" to be that way. Humans on the other hand are supposedly the "better" or the "enlightened" species.

2/13/2012 7:46:38 AM

Reynardine

All the Social Darwinist stuff seems to be coming from these guys, but they used to call it the Doctrine of Pre-Election. This flak jacket I have to wear because of all the projection is getting heavy.

2/13/2012 7:55:10 AM

J. James

And yet here we are, with bible-thumping conservatives being the heartless eat-the-poor social darwinists and the people that believe in evolution being compassionate liberals.

2/13/2012 8:17:02 AM

Rageaholic

1. Evolution is not a philosophy, it's a scientific phenomena. Just because you creationists use your theory to

2. It's the conservatards who are more social darwinian. You're the ones who want to cut benefits for the working class and unemployed.

3. Goodwin, seriously?

2/13/2012 8:29:02 AM



When I hear these particular arguments which fly in the face of evidence, I automatically mentally superimpose this over the dialogue.

2/13/2012 8:29:31 AM
1 2 3