25-02-2004, 16:34
|
|||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Wat alluman zegt begrijp ik wel, het doet mij idd ook denken aan het verhaal van de Ideeënwereld, waar ik ooit vluchtig iets over heb gelezen. Maar daarbij was idd juist het idee dat men nooit kon weten hoe die Ideeënwereld eruit zag, dacht ik. Maar volgens mij is wat jij zegt toch niet helemaal hetzelfde als die theorie.. Citaat:
Offtopic: Merenwijk? 
|
||
| Advertentie | |
|
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 16:41
|
||||
Verwijderd
|
*offtopic:
 niet lullig bedoeld, maar je schrijfvaardigheid maakt je zeer moeilijk te begrijpen. Probeer te schrijven in denkstappen en hak zinnen zo veel mogelijk in stukken.*Citaat:
 Citaat:
 Verder: wat jij zegt is dat jouw voorstelling van een ding (een Idee) gelijk is aan het zijn van dat ding, omdat jij het als werkelijk ervaart. Klopt dit? Maar dan ontstijg je de discussie over de betrouwbaarheid van de zintuigen niet. Jouw ervaring van een voorstelling, maakt die voorstelling nog niet een ding in de werkelijkheid. Dat wil zeggen: als jij je voorstelt dat je een tafel voelt en dat als werkelijk ervaart, dan staat daar in werkelijkheid niet ineens een tafel. Wat wel werkelijkheid te noemen is, is jouw voorstelling zelf. Citaat:
Laatst gewijzigd op 25-02-2004 om 17:03.
|
|||
|
25-02-2004, 16:53
|
||
|
Citaat:
Bij punt 1 had ik wel aangenomen dat ik alles kon weten, het maakte me niet uit of ik die lijst zelf gemaakt had of een hypothetische god. Je zei daar achteraan "daarom vind ik..", valt dan ook weg dat je zei "het is in mijn ogen niet (exact) hetzelfde"? of bedoelde je daar los van je argument mee dat het anders is? (wat voor mij ook het kritieke punt is, maar waar ik ook geen tegenargument voor weet). Bij punt twee bedoelde ik inderdaad wat je dacht, maar wanneer bestaat een idee dan volgens jou als het gebaseerd moet zijn op werkelijkheid? Alleen op het moment dat iemand hem formuleert, alleen als het ooit is geformuleerd of ooit zal gebeuren? In theorie zouden we met oneindig veel tijd en zin natuurlijk ieder willekeurig idee kunnen verzinnen, zou dat niet betekentn dat ieder idee op werkelijkheid gebaseerd is? Offtopic: Oegstgeest, Wilhelminapark, 1892 stappen verwijderd van het station. Joëlle heeft laatst met mij bij mij gekookt én gegeten; 't schijnt dat jullie hetzelfde zijn volgens SSR? Groetjes, Johan. [/B]
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 16:54
|
|||
|
Citaat:
Ik weet eigenlijk op geeneen van die vragen antwoord. Alleen mijn probleem met God is dat hij is verzonnen om dit soort dingen te verklaren. Maar hij verklaart ze niet, dus lijkt het me niet zo logisch om erin te geloven (behalve dan misschien omdat mensen er nou eenmaal mee zijn opgevoed). De reden dat ik het geloof in de evolutietheorie en andere wetenschappelijke theorieën verkies boven het geloof in een god, is dat het over het algemeen geen wild raadwerk is. Deze theorieën zijn bedacht aan de hand van waarnemingen en concrete dingen. Citaat:
En dat jij niet gelooft dat al dit bizars en moois 'zomaar' is ontstaan, dat is jouw keuze. Jij denkt dus dat er iemand (God) is die dit allemaal heeft bedacht. Maar dan vraag ik toch weer: wie heeft God dan bedacht en geschapen?
|
||
|
25-02-2004, 17:02
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
volgens mij is er ooit wel een oerknal geweest maar ik denk dat mss adam en eva hebben bestaan. het is gewoon een grote vraag waar leven vandaan gekomen is. het is namelijk bekent dat er geen leven gevormd kan worden uit levensloze materie. volgens mij moeten we maar gisen naar de waarheid en zullen we er nooit achter komen, als dat wel zo is denk ik alleen als we dood zijn.
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 17:08
|
|
|
je zou eens het boek van Harun Yahya moeten lezen over Darwin.
je moet weten dat Hitler rassen onderscheide doordat hij zich baseerde op zijn theorie. een mooi boek, helaas niet in het nederlands. ikzelf heb het alleen in frans
|
|
25-02-2004, 17:10
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 17:11
|
|||||
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
Citaat:
Dat bepaalde dingen algemeen geaccepteerd zijn heeft niet zozeer met de wetten van de logica te maken, maar met het feit dat die dingen samen een paradigma vormen, waarover binnen de groep aanhangers van dat paradigma algemene overeenstemming ontstaat.
__________________
"Mathematics is a gigantic intellectual construction, very difficult, if not impossible, to view in its entirety." Armand Borel
|
||||
|
25-02-2004, 17:14
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
"De schrijver wil aantonen dat Darwinisme slecht is, omdat het de basis zou zijn van zo'n beetje alles wat wij als moreel verwerpelijk zouden kunnen ervaren: fascisme en communisme. Buiten dat niet iedereen dit slechte dingen vindt (met name het communisme vindt nog steeds veel aanhang), is het niet een geldig argument om te beweren dat het darwinisme slecht zou zijn, omdat de 'moreel verwerpelijken' er gebruik van maken. " http://forum.scholieren.com/showthre...0&pagenumber=6
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 17:19
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
) en het programma zelf (de uitvoering ervan). (Ik heb daar dan weer geen verstand van, dus lach me niet uit ).Maar je kunt die programmacode wel opschrijven, maar om je echte programma te hebben heb je toch nog een aantal hulpmiddelen nodig. Zou jij zeggen dat de werking& uiteindelijke uitvoering van een programma hetzelfde is als de code? En je hebt net zoals verschillende programmeertalen vast ook verschillende manieren om de werkelijkheid in een lijst vast te leggen.. hoe verklaar je dat dan? Dan krijg je nl: lijst 1 = werkelijkheid = lijst 2 Terwijl lijst 1 denk ik niet hetzelfde als lijst 2 genoemd mag worden.
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 17:23
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Verder: er zijn vele oudere paradigma's nooit uitgedaagd of onvergeworpen, noch zullen dat waarschijnlijk in de toekomst (Denk aan Newton, logisch positivisme, etc.) Bovendien kan een wetenschapper tegelijkertijd in binnen meerdere paradigma's werken - iets wat een zwak punt is in Kuhn's theorie. Laatst gewijzigd op 25-02-2004 om 17:27.
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 17:33
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Er zit iets aan dat magisch is en daarom denk ik dat er meer is. God is geen verklaring voor alles, Hij is een verklaring voor dingen in het leven die met gevoel te maken hebben. De wetenschap heeft ook geen verklaring voor alles, in mijn ogen staat dat dus gelijk aan een religie, die natuurlijk ook niet antwoord op alles geeft, maar wel op een hoop dingen. Ook geeft God mensen een bepaalde kracht, of Hij nu bestaat of niet, Hij beïnvloedt (bepaalde) mensen dus wel.
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 17:40
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 17:47
|
|||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
Als je het aan een God toeschrijft is het toch niet ineens minder wonderlijk dan wanneer je het wetenschappelijk bekijkt?
|
||
|
25-02-2004, 17:55
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Laatst gewijzigd op 25-02-2004 om 17:58.
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 18:35
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Als A=B en B=C dan geldt wel altijd A=C, als A != C dan moet gelden dat A != B V B != C. (in wiskundige termen zeg je dat de operatie = transitief is: als A=B en B= C dan A=C. Groterdan is ook transitief: als A>B en B>C dan A>C. maar 'ongelijk aan' is niet transitief, want als A!=B en B!=C dan kan best gelden dat A=C) Wat ik daarmee wilde zeggen was: Als je vindt dat lijst1=werkelijkheid en lijst2=werkelijkheid, dan moet je ook vinden dat lijst1=lijst2; als je dat niet vindt, dan moet je eigenlijk ook maar niet vinden dat zowel lijst1=werkelijkheid als lijst2=werkelijkheid. Je kunt dingen wel op verschillende manieren opvatten, als dingen dan op één manier gelijk zijn dan zijn ze meteen ook op alle manieren gelijk. Als ik bijvoorbeeld twee verzamelingen van tetrisfiguurtjes heb en ik weet niet of ze hetzelfde zijn, maar ik weet dat ik ze allebei neer kan leggen tot een figuur (waarin de tetrisfiguurtjes randjes hebben, en de losse vierkantjes die de blokjes maken niet) dat er precie hetzelfde uitziet inclusief alle randjes, dan weet ik dat de sets tetrisblokjes hetzelfde zijn en dat ik dus alle figuren die ik met set1 kan maken ook met set2 kan maken. Wat zegt het gegeven dat je met twee sets tetrisblokjes een even groot vierkant kunt maken? niet dat de sets van blokjes hetzelfde zijn. Lastige nuanceverschillen.  Ik wil nog wel meer zeggen, maar het wordt allemaal wat vergezocht voor een topic over de evolutietheorie. ontopic: ik denk nog steeds dat de evolutietheorie klopt.
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 18:40
|
|||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
||
|
25-02-2004, 18:48
|
||
|
Die eerste zin negeren we niet, ik blijf mensen die niet in evolutie geloven achterlijk vinden. Als er een betere theorie zou zijn dan zou ik ze niet achterlijk vinden, maar die is er niet. En kom niet met godsdienst en all die onwetenschappelijke onzin want daar hebben we niks.
Citaat:
Ik ben het met je eens dat je in de evolutietheorie ook moet 'geloven' maar een deel van deze theorie is wel degelijk wetenschappelijk bewezen en nog niet weerlegd. Ik kan zo een experiment uitvoeren waarmee ik bewijs dat evolutie bestaat en plaatsvindt. Het geloven van allerlei phylogenetische bomen wordt vergemakkelijkt als je de achterliggende gedachte begrijpt, maar het blijft een omweg om iets te bepalen.
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 19:00
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 19:06
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Een voorbeeld: Als A = B en B = C, A = C toch? Ik pas in mijn jas mijn jas past in mijn tas. Dus ik pas in mijn tas. Deze redenatie is logisch geldig, maar niet waar!
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 19:16
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 19:21
|
|
Verwijderd
|
Hmm, verwarrend draadje dit
Ik moet toch even reageren @Just Johan: Stelling A: Er is geen wezenlijk verschil tussen de werkelijkheid en een exacte beschrijving daarvan. Dit hangt uiteraard van je abstractieniveau af. Wanneer je puur kijkt naar waarneming cq beleving is het idd nauwelijks mogelijk onderscheid te maken. Aangezien alles wat binnen het eigen referentiekader ligt te repliceren valt, kun je je zelf altijd voor de gek houden en denken dat er geen verschil is  Zelfs als dat er wel is Stelling B: Het geheel aan ideeën kan bestaan zonder dat er verder ook maar iets is. Als ik hierover nadenk, slaat mijn arme hoofdje een beetje op hol. Filosofisch kun je jezelf doodredeneren. Bijvoorbeeld: op het moment dat ik een idee heb of het bestaan daarvan bevestigen kan, is het in principe al 'werkelijkheid' geworden. Je kunt het namelijk beschrijven en waarnemen, net zoals al het andere wat deel uitmaakt van de realiteit (althans, voor zover je daar over kunt oordelen). Zou je dit niet kunnen bestaat het idee ook niet (voor jou). Het tastbare en niet-tastbare heeft binnen het eigen referentiekader een transitief bestaan. Oftewel: het bewijs van stelling B zou stelling A ontkrachten en het bewijs van stelling A zou het onmogelijk maken stelling B te bewijzen. Leuk he, dat 'gevoel' waar je mee zit @Alicia: Stelling A: Er moet iets extra's zijn dat alles zo bijzonder maakt. Dat alles zo mooi samenwerkt, kan ook het gevolg zijn van eeuwenlange aanpassing. Heel intrigerend is natuurlijk wel jouw vraag waarmee het allemaal begon. Dat is waar ik me het meest over verwonder; hoe is het in hemelsnaam allemaal begonnen? Filosofisch: De mens heeft over de tijdperken heen steeds weer verklaringen gezocht voor dingen die hij niet kon verklaren en keer op keer kwam hij - jawel - met een God cq iets oppermachtigs, iets dat ongrijpbaar is. Iets extra's? Wetenschappelijk: Het is inderdaad onvoorstelbaar De oneindige complexiteit van alles geeft mij ook het 'gevoel' dat er 'iets' moet zijn. Maarjah, ik ben ook maar een mens (denk ik ) Stelling B: Wetenschap staat gelijk aan religie. Filosofisch gezien ben ik het daar mee eens. Zowel wetenschap als religie werkt op basis van waarneming + verklaring. Waarneming, hoe exact deze dan ook moge zijn, geeft geen absolutie garantie voor de werkelijkheid (zie referentiekader eerder in mijn reply). En verklaringen op basis van waarnemingen zijn per definitie nog onnauwkeuriger. Ik denk dan ook nog steeds dat er iets niet klopt met ons wereldbeeld, dat het gewoon niet mogelijk is. Sommige dingen zijn niet te verklaren zonder af te wijken van regels. Bijvoorbeeld: hoe kan iets nou altijd al bestaan? Of: als alles steeds onderdeel van een groter geheel is, waar eindigt het dan? *is dan ook agnost*
|
|
25-02-2004, 19:26
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
mijn jas = passend in mijn tas ik = passend in mijn jas. Is = nu wel transitief? ---- Verzoek: kun je nog eesn duidelijk en in Jip-en-Janneke-taal uitleggen wat je precies beweert, welke aannames je maakt en alle attenderende begrippen definiëren? - Ik denk namenlijk dat we langs elkaar heen l*llen. Laatst gewijzigd op 25-02-2004 om 19:29.
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 19:28
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Dat jij dat niet gelooft kan ik heel goed begrijpen, maar als er een god zou bestaan, dan hou je dat probleem toch nogsteeds? Niet met de dingen op onze aarde, want God heeft dan dus tegen alle duffe deeltjes gezegd dat ze niet meer duf mogen zijn en toen hebben ze massaal naar hem geluisterd. Maar wel als je je dan gaat afvragen hoe God dan toch is ontstaan. Citaat:
En dat God mensen een bepaalde kracht geeft is natuurlijk geweldig. Alleen dat kunnen andere verhalen (vaak in mindere mate) ook. Als je iets niet durft en je hoort wat verhalen (voor mijn part sprookjes) over dat datgene wat jij niet durft juist heel erg goed gaat, dan is de kans groter dat je het daarna misschien beter durft. Dus dan heeft dat verhaal jouw kracht gegeven. Het verhaal van God (net als de meeste verhalen met een moraal) en zijn eventuele bestaan beïnvloedt dus inderdaad wel mensen. Ik vind ook dat zo'n godsdienst hele mooie (maar ook wel minder mooie) kanten heeft. Alleen dat wil nog niet zeggen dat God ook bestaat.
|
||
|
25-02-2004, 19:33
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 19:37
|
|
Verwijderd
|
VETTE ONTOPIC: Whatever happened to Appie2003 (en zijn onderwerp)?
|
|
25-02-2004, 19:39
|
|||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
Citaat:
|
||
|
25-02-2004, 19:43
|
|
|
Ik geloof in de evolutie theorie, maar ik heb ooit wat gelezen, het irreduceerbaar complex,wat niet verklaarbaar is met de evolutie theorie.
Ik geloof ook in een god, dat klinkt misschien raar. Maar ik geloof in evolutie onder een bepaald diersoort zoals bijvoobeeld ratten van hetzelfde gezin, die dan worden gescheiden, en zich dan aan hun omgeving aanpassen (evolueren), daar moet evolutie aan te pas zijn gekomen. Let pleese niet op de spellings en taalfouten 
__________________
grote broer toch
|
|
25-02-2004, 20:29
|
||||
|
|
Citaat:
 maar okay eerst definieren we 'transitiviteit':"Als 'A operatie B' en 'B operatie C' altijd impliceert dat 'A operatie C'" =, is, is gelijk heeft een duidelijke betekenis die iedereen kent, daarom kunnen we het symbool maar beter niet 'overloaden' om spraakverwarring te voorkomen. = is transitief. Dus bij goed gebruik geldt: als A=B en B=C dan A=C. Citaat:
geldig is volgens onze regels: ik ~ jas jas ~ tas duidelijk niet geldig is: ik ~ tas ~ is dus niet transitief! Toen schreef je: Citaat:
(wel interessant dat opsplitsen, ik ga er ooit over nadenken, maar het is hier niet relevant)Niet iedere operatie hoeft dus transitief te zijn, dat hebben we gezien aan jouw eerste ik-jas-tas-voorbeeld, maar het =symbool gebruiken we doorgaans alleen als dat wel zo is om verwarring te voorkomen.
|
|||
|
25-02-2004, 20:42
|
|||
|
|
Citaat:
Naar mijn idee niet, maar hier begeven we ons beiden op glad ijs denk ik. Citaat:
btw, stel dat je ieder tweetal decimalen van pi omzet in een letter of spatie of leesteken; dan staan alle verhalen die je zou kunnen verzinnen er waarschijnlijk ergens in. maar kijk maar wat je met die info doet Groetjes, Johan
|
||
|
25-02-2004, 21:19
|
|
|
|
The Bringers of Pain to the 20th Century
The 20th century, which we have just left behind us, was a century of war and conflict, leading to disasters, pain, massacres, poverty, and enormous destruction. Millions of people were killed, massacred, abandoned to hunger and death, and left without home or shelter, protection, or support. And all for nothing: in the name of serving deviant ideologies. Millions were left exposed to inhuman treatment that not even animals should be allowed to suffer. On nearly every occasion there were despots' and dictators' signatures beneath all the suffering and disasters: Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco… While some of these men shared the same ideology, others were enemies to the death. For the simple reason that their ideologies were opposed to each other, they dragged societies into conflict and turned brother against brother, having them start wars, throw bombs, burn and destroy cars, homes, and shops, and hold riotous demonstrations. Putting weapons in their hands, they had them pitilessly beat the young, the old, men, women, and children to death or stand them against a wall and shoot them… They were ruthless enough to hold a gun to a person's head and, looking into his eyes, kill him, and crush his head with their feet, just because he supported another idea. They ejected people from their homes, whether women, children, or the elderly… That is a short resume of the nightmares of the 20th century that we have just emerged Wrom: FJMVRESKPNKMBIPBARHDMNNSKVFVWRKJVZCMHVIBGDADRZFSQHYUCDDJBLVLMHAALPTCXL YRWTQTIPWIGYOKSTTZRCLBDXRQBGJSNBOHMKHJYFMYXOEAIJJPHSCR Fascism and Communism come at the head of the ideologies that caused mankind to suffer those dark days. These are seen as enemies, as ideas that tried to destroy each other. In actual fact, there is a most interesting truth here: for these ideologies were nourished by a single ideological source, drew strength and support from that source, and, thanks to that source, were able to draw societies to their side. At first sight, this source has never drawn any attention, has always remained behind the scenes up until now, and has always shown people its innocent-looking face. That source is the materialist philosophy, and DARWINISM, the state of that philosophy as adapted to nature. Darwinism emerged in the 19th century as the restating of a myth, dating back to the Sumerians and Ancient Greece, by the amateur biologist Charles Darwin, and has since then formed the fundamental idea behind all the ideologies that have been harmful to mankind. Wearing a so-called scientific mask, it allowed these ideologies and their supporters' practical measures to win a false legitimacy. By means of this false legitimacy the theory of evolution soon left the fields of knowledge of biology and palaeontology and began to comment on fields from human relations to history, and to influence fields from politics to social life. Because some particular claims of Darwinism supported several currents of thought which began to come into motion and take shape in the 19th century, it gained wide support from these circles. In particular, people began trying to apply the idea that there is a "fight for survival" among living creatures in nature, and as a result, the idea that "the strong survive, the others are defeated and disappear" began to be applied to human thought and behaviour. When Darwinism's claim that nature was a place of struggle and conflict began to be applied to human beings and societies, Hitler's deviation of building a master race, Marx's claim that "the history of mankind is the history of class struggle," capitalism's provision for the "strong growing even stronger at the expense of the weak," the colonisation of third world countries by such imperialist nations as Britain and their suffering inhuman treatment, together with the fact that coloured people still face racist attacks and discrimination, all found some kind of justification. Despite his being an evolutionist, Robert Wright, the author of the book The Moral Animal summarises the disasters that the theory of evolution has brought to the history of mankind in this way: Evolutionary theory, after all, has a long and largely sordid history of application to human affairs. After being mingled with political philosophy around the turn of the century to form the vague ideology known as "social Darwinism," it played into the hands of racists, fascists, and the most heartless sort of capitalists.1 As will be seen in this book and from the evidence it contains, Darwinism is not just a theory which attempts to explain the origin of life and which is restricted to the field of scientific knowledge. Darwinism is a dogma still stubbornly defended by the supporters of certain ideologies, despite the fact that it has been proven totally invalid from the scientific point of view. In our day many scientists, politicians and men of ideas, whether aware or not of Darwinism's dark face, lend their support to this dogma If everyone comes to know the scientific invalidity of this theory, which acts as an inspiration for cruel dictators, and ruthless, inhuman, and self-centred mentalities and currents of thought, that will spell the end of these harmful ideologies. Those who do and systematise evil will be unable to defend themselves by saying, "But this is a law of nature." They will have no more so-called scientific backing for their self-centred, selfish, and pitiless world view. Once the idea of Darwinism, the root of harmful ideologies, is finally overturned, only one truth will remain. That is the truth that all human beings and the universe itself were created by Allah (God). People who understand this will also realise that the only reality and the only truth are in the holy book He sent down to us. When a large majority of people come to realise this truth, the pains, troubles, massacres, disasters, injustices, and poverty in the world will be replaced by enlightenment, openness, wealth, plenty, health and abundance. For this, every false idea harmful to humanity must be conquered and left to rot by the holy idea which will bring beauty to mankind. To reply to stones by throwing others, to answer blows with blows, to answer the aggressor with more aggression is not a solution. The solution is to bring down the ideas of those who do these things and to explain, patiently and kindly, the one truth with which they must replace them. The aim in writing this book is to show those who defend Darwinism without seeing its dark face, knowingly or unknowingly, what it is they are actually supporting, and to explain what their responsibility will be as long as they pretend not to see the truth of it. Another aim is to warn those who do not believe in Darwinism, but who also do not see Darwinism as a threat to humanity. A Short History of Darwinism Before we turn to the pain and disasters that Darwinism has brought to the world, let us take a brief look at its history. Many people believe the theory of evolution, first put forward by Charles Darwin, to be a theory based on firm scientific evidence, observation and experiment. Whereas, as the originator of the theory of evolution is not Darwin, so the source of the theory is not scientific proof. At one period in Mesopotamia, when idol-worshipping religions had hegemony, superstitions and myths regarding the roots of life and the universe abounded: one of these was the belief "evolution." According to the Enuma-Elish epic, which dates back to the Sumerians, there was a raging flood, and from this the gods called Lahmu and Lahamu suddenly emerged. According to the superstition, these idols first created themselves and then, becoming universal, formed other matter and living creatures. In other words, according to Sumerian myth, life suddenly came into being from the non-living watery chaos, evolved and developed. We can see that this belief shows a close accordance with the theory of evolution's claim that "living things developed and evolved from non-living things." From this we can see that the idea of evolution does not belong to Darwin, but originally to Sumerian idol-worshippers. Later, the myth of evolution found more space to live in another idol-worshipping civilisation, Ancient Greece. Ancient Greek materialist philosophers counted matter as the only thing which existed. They turned to the myth of evolution, an inheritance from the Sumerians, to explain how living things came about. In this way, materialist philosophy and the myth of evolution came together in Ancient Greece. From there it was carried to the culture of Rome. A picture depicting the Sumerian water god. Just like the Sumerians, Darwinists believe that life emerged by coincidence from water. In other words, they see water as a god which created life. These two concepts, each a myth belonging to idol-worshipping cultures, appeared in the modern world in the 18th century. Some European thinkers who studied ancient Greek sources took a liking to materialism. The common feature of these thinkers was that they were opponents of religion. In this environment the first person to take the theory of evolution on in a detailed way was the French biologist Jean Baptiste Lamarck. In his theory, which would later be understood to be false, Lamarck proposed that all living creatures evolved from one another by small changes throughout their lives. One person who repeated Lamarck's claims, in a slightly different way, was Charles Darwin. Darwin put forward this theory in his book The Origin of Species, which he published in England in 1859. In this book, the myth of evolution, which had come down from ancient Sumer, was put forward in some detail. He claimed that all species of living creatures came from one ancestor, born by chance in the water, and that they had grown different from one another by small changes which came about by coincidence. Like idol-worshipping societies, Darwinists believe that life emerged by coincidence in water as a result of natural effects. According to this nonsensical claim, the unconscious atoms in the "primitive soup" in the picture joined together and decided to form living creatures. This claim of Darwin's did not win much general acceptance from the men of science of his time. Fossil experts in particular were aware that Darwin's claim was nothing but the product of a fantasy. But despite this Darwin's theory began to win more support from different circles as time passed. Because Darwin and his theory provided the missing foundation for the forces ruling in the 19th century. The Reason for the Acceptance of Darwinism is Ideological In the period when Darwin published his book The Origin of Species and put forward his theory of evolution, science was very backward. For example, the cell, which is today known to possess a most complicated system, was only visible as a blot through the simple microscopes in use at the time. For this reason Darwin saw no problem in claiming that life came about by chance from non-living material. In the same way, the insufficiency of the fossil record at that time made it possible for it to be claimed that living creatures had come about from each other by minute changes. Whereas today, it is certain that the fossil record, as we explained a short while above, offers not one piece of evidence to support Darwin's claim that living creatures had come about by developing from one another. Up until recently, evolutionists used to try to get over the dilemma facing them by saying, "It will be found one day in the future." But they are now in the position of being unable to hide behind this explanation. (For detailed information see Chapter "The Misconception of Evolution") Compared to today, the microscopes available in the 19th century were quite primitive and, as in the picture, could only view cells as blots. Whatever the case, there was no change in the Darwinists' attachment to the theory of evolution. Supporters of Darwin have come down to our day by handing their faithfulness to Darwin on to one another like an inheritance for the last 150 years. All right, what is the reason for Darwinism, despite the fact that its scientific invalidity is now openly apparent, appealing to certain circles, and for heavy propaganda being made regarding it? The most defining feature of Darwin's theory is its denial of the existence of a Creator. According to the theory of evolution, life formed itself, by coincidence, from innate matter. This claim of Darwin provided a false scientific support for all atheist philosophies, beginning with materialist philosophy. Because up until the 19th century the great majority of men of science looked at science as a method of learning and discovering what God had created. Because this belief was widespread, atheist and materialist philosophies were unable to find suitable ground in which to develop. But by denying the existence of a Creator and forming an illusory support for atheist and materialist belief, the theory of evolution was a wonderful opportunity for them. For this reason they both identified with Darwinism and adapted the theory to their own ideologies. Beside Darwinism's denial of the existence of God, another claim emerged to support 19th century materialistic ideologies: "The development of living creatures is linked to the struggle for life in nature. This struggle goes to the strongest. The weak are condemned to defeat and extinction." Darwinism's co-operation with ideologies which have brought pain and disaster to the world is clearly revealed in this point. Social Darwinism: The Adaptation of the Law of the Jungle to Human Behaviour One of the most important claims of the theory of evolution is its basing the development of living creatures on the "fight for survival" in nature. According to Darwin, in nature there is a pitiless fight for survival, an eternal conflict. The strong always overcome the weak, and this makes development possible. The subtitle of the book The Origin of Species summed up this point of view. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". The source of Darwin's inspiration on this matter was the English economist Thomas Malthus's book An Essay on the Principle of Population. This book indicated that a rather dark future awaited mankind. Malthus had calculated that left to itself, the human population would increase at enormous speed. The numbers would double every 25 years. However, food supplies would in no way increase at the same rate. In this event, mankind faced the permanent danger of starvation. The forces keeping population under control were disasters, such as war, famine, and disease. In short, in order for some people to live, it was necessary for others to die. Existence meant "permanent war." Darwin declares that it was Malthus's book which made him think about the struggle for existence: In October, 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long continuous observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work.2 In the 19th century Malthus's ideas had been adopted by quite a wide public. Upper-class European intellectuals in particular supported Malthus's ideas. The importance that 19th century Europe gave to Malthus's ideas on population is put across in the article The Scientific Background of the Nazi "Race Purification" Programme: In the opening half of the nineteenth century, throughout Europe, members of the ruling classes gathered to discuss the newly discovered "Population problem" and to devise ways of implementing the Malthusian mandate, to increase the mortality rate of the poor: "Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations," and so forth and so on.3 Thomas Malthus, who influenced Darwin and proposed that war and scarcity balanced the rapid rise in world population. As a result of this cruel policy, the strong would defeat the weak in the struggle for survival, and in this way the rapidly increasing population would be balanced. In 19th century England this "crush the poor" programme was actually implemented. An industrial system was founded where children of eight or nine were made to work 16 hours a day in the coal mines and where thousands died from the bad conditions. The theoretical "struggle for survival" which Malthus's theory found necessary, condemned millions of poor people in England to a life full of suffering. Darwin, influenced by Malthus, applied this view to the whole of nature, and proposed that this war, which actually existed, would be won by the strongest and the fittest. This claim of Darwin's included all plants, animals, and human beings. He also stressed that the struggle for survival in question was a permanent and unchanging law of nature. By denying creation he was inviting people to abandon their religious beliefs and in this way aiming at all ethical principles that might be an obstacle to the ruthlessness of this "struggle for survival." For this reason Darwin's theory found the support of the Establishment at its back, right from the moment it came to be heard, first in England and later in the entire West. The imperialists, capitalists and other materialists who greeted this theory, which provided a scientific justification for the political and social system they had founded, did not delay in taking it up. Within a short time the theory of evolution was brought to be the sole criterion in every sphere of interest to human societies, from sociology to history, from psychology to politics. In every sphere the basic idea was the slogan of the "fight for survival" and "the survival of the fittest," and political parties, nations, administrations, commercial firms, and individuals began to live in the warmth of these slogans. Because the ruling ideologies in society had identified with Darwinism, Darwinist propaganda began to be carried out in every field, from education to art, from politics to history. It was attempted to establish links between every subject and Darwinism and to shed light on them from a Darwinist viewpoint. As a result of this, even if people did not know Darwinism, models of society living the lives predicted by Darwinism began to be formed. Darwin himself recommended that his views based on evolution be applied to ethical understanding and social sciences. Darwin said the following to H. Thiel in a letter in 1869: You will readily believe how much interested I am in observing that you apply to moral and social questions analogous views to those which I have used in regard to the modification of species. It did not occur to me formerly that my views could be extended to such widely different, and most important, subjects.4 With the struggle in nature also being accepted as being in human nature, conflicts in the name of racism, Fascism, Communism, and imperialism, and the efforts of strong peoples to crush peoples they perceived as weaker were by now clothed in a scientific façade. It was now impossible to reproach or obstruct those who carried out barbarous massacres, treated human beings like animals, turned peoples against each other, who despised others on account of their race, who closed down small businesses in the name of competition, and who refused to extend the hand of help to the poor. Because they were doing this in accordance with a "scientific" natural law. This new scientific account came to be known as "Social Darwinism." One of the foremost evolutionist scientists of our own time, the American palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould accepts the truth by writing that following the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, "subsequent arguments for slavery, colonialism, racial differences, class struggles, and sex roles would go forth primarily under the banner of science."5 One point requires careful attention here. All periods of human history have seen wars, atrocities, ruthlessness, racism, and conflict. But there was at all times a divine religion teaching people that what they were doing was wrong and calling them to peace, justice, and calm. Because human beings knew this divine religion, they at least had a measure of understanding that what they were doing was wrong when they engaged in violence. But from the 19th century, Darwinism showed that the struggle for profit and injustice had an element of scientific justification to them, and said that all of these were part of human nature, that man carried savage and aggressive tendencies left over from his ancestors, and that in the same way that as the strongest and most aggressive animal survived, the same laws applied to human beings. Under the influence of this thinking, wars, suffering, and massacres began to affect a very large part of the world. Darwinism supported and encouraged all those movements which brought pain, blood, and oppression to the world, showed them to be reasonable and justified, and backed all their practical applications. As a result of this so-called scientific backing all these dangerous ideologies grew increasingly stronger, and stamped the name "the age of suffering" on the 20th century. In his book Darwin, Marx, Wagner professor of history Jacques Barzun evaluates the scientific, sociological, and cultural causes of the terrible moral breakdown of the modern world. These comments from Barzun's book are striking from the point of view of Darwinism's influence on the world: … in every European country between 1870 and 1914 there was a war party demanding armaments, an individualist party demanding ruthless competition, an imperialist party demanding a free hand over backward peoples, a socialist party demanding the conquest of power, and a racialist party demanding internal purges against aliens-all of them, when appeals to greed and glory failed, or even before, invoked Spencer and Darwin, which was to say, science incarnate… Race was biological, it was sociological, it was Darwinian.6 In the 19th century, when Darwin put forward his claim that living things had not been created, that they had emerged by coincidence, and that the human being had a common ancestor with animals and had emerged as the most highly developed organism as the result of coincidence, perhaps most people could not imagine what the results of this claim would be. But in the 20th century the end result of the claim was lived out in terrible experiences. Those who saw human beings as a developed animal, did not hesitate to rise by treading on the weak, to find a way of disposing of the sick and weak, and to carry out massacres to get rid of races which they saw as different and inferior. Because their theory with a mask of science told them that this was a "law of nature." The author of "Darwin, Marx, Wagner," professor of history Jacques Barzun. The disasters Darwinism brought to the world began in this way, and gathering speed, spread over the whole world. Whereas in the 19th century, until materialism and atheism grew stronger through the support they received from Darwinism, the great majority of people believed that God created all living things and that human beings, unlike other living creatures, possessed a soul created by God. From whatever race or people, human beings were each seen as a servant created by God. Lack of religion, however, brought about and strengthened by Darwinism, gave rise to social groups with a competitive and ruthless world view, attaching no importance to morals, seeing human beings as highly developed animals. People who denied that they had any responsibility to God brought about a culture where every type of selfishness was justified. From this culture were born many "isms," and each of these became a calamity, in the real sense of the world, for mankind. In the following pages we will examine the ideologies in question to which Darwinism lent justification, the close relationships between these ideologies and Darwinism, and what this co-operation has cost the world. Darwin's Racism and Colonialism Darwin's close friend Professor Adam Sedgwick was one of the people who saw what dangers the theory of evolution would give rise to in the future. He remarked, after reading and digesting The Origin of Species, that "if this book were to find general public acceptance, it would bring with it a brutalisation of the human race such as it had never seen before."7 And truly, time showed that Sedgwick was right to have doubts. The 20th century has gone down in history as a dark age when people underwent massacres simply because of their race or ethnic origins. Of course, there were discrimination and eradication based on it in human history long before Darwin. But Darwinism lent this discrimination a false scientific respectability and a false rightfulness. "The Preservation of Favoured Races..." Most Darwinists in our day claim that Darwin was never a racist but that racists comment on Darwin's ideas in a biased manner for the purpose of supporting their own views. They claim that the expression "By the Preservation of Favoured Races" in the subtitle to The Origin of Species is used only for animals. However, what those who make this claim ignore is what Darwin says about human races in his book. According to the views put forward by Darwin in this book, human races represent different stages of evolution, and some races have evolved and progressed more than others. Some of them, in fact, were pretty much at the same level as monkeys. Darwin claimed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. "Favoured races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favoured race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival. Darwin went even further: these races would soon completely lose the world-wide fight for survival and disappear, he claimed. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.8 Again in another part of The Origin of Species, Darwin claimed that it was necessary for the inferior races to disappear and that there was no need for developed peoples to try to protect them and keep them alive. He compared this situation to people who raised breeding animals: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man.9 As we have seen, in his book The Origin of Species Darwin saw the natives of Australia and Negroes as being at the same level as gorillas and claimed that these races would disappear. As for the other races which he saw as "inferior," he maintained that it was essential to prevent them multiplying and so for these races to be brought to extinction. So the traces of racism and discrimination which we still come across in our time were approved and lent justification by Darwin in this way. As for the task befalling the "civilised person," according to Darwin's racist idea, it was to speed this evolutionary period up a little, as we shall see in the details which follow. In this situation there was no objection, from the "scientific" point of view, to these races, which were going to disappear anyway, being done away with now. The journeys Darwin embarked on revealed his racist side. For example, Darwin considered the term "wild animals" suitable for tribes whose culture and abilities other researchers had discussed. Darwin's racist side showed its effect in much of his writing and observations. For example, he openly set out his racist prejudices while describing the natives of Tierra del Fuego whom he saw on a long voyage he set out on in 1871. He described the natives as living creatures "wholly nude, submerged in dyes, eating what they find just like wild animals, uncontrolled, cruel to everybody out of their tribe, taking pleasure in torturing their enemies, offering bloddy sacrifices, killing their children, ill-treating their wives, full of awkward superstitions". Whereas the researcher W. P. Snow, who had travelled the same region ten years before, presents a very different picture. According to Snow, the Tierra del Fuegians were "fine powerful looking fellows; they were very fond of their children; some of their artefacts were ingenious; they recognised some sort of rights over property; and they accepted the authority of several of the oldest women."10 As has been seen from these examples Darwin was a complete racist. As a matter of fact, in the words of the author of the book What Darwin Really Said, Benjamin Farrington, Darwin made many comments regarding "the greater differences between men of distinct races" in his book The Descent of Man.11 Furthermore, Darwin's theory's denying the existence of God had been the cause of peoples' not seeing that man was something created by God and that all men were created equal. And this was one of the factors behind the rise of racism and the acceleration of its acceptance in the world. The American scientist James Ferguson announces the strict link between the denial of creation and the rise of racism in this way: The new anthropology soon became a theoretical background between two opposed schools of thought on the origin of humans. The older and more established of these was 'monogenism,' the belief that all humankind, irrespective of colour and other characteristics, was directly descended from Adam and from the single and original act of God's creation. Monogenism was promulgated by the Church and universally accepted until the 18th century, when opposition to theological authority began to fuel the rival theory of 'polygenism,' (theory of evolution) which held that different racial communities had different origins.12 The Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi explains how Darwin's theory of evolution led racism to be accepted by social sciences: His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.13 As for the Darwinists who came after Darwin, they put up a great struggle to prove his racist views. In the name of doing so they had no scruples about making many scientific inconsistencies and falsehoods. They thought that when they had proved these, they would have scientifically proven their own superiority and "rights" to oppress, colonise, and if needs be exterminate other races. In the third chapter of his book The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould pointed out that some anthropologists were not above falsifying their data to prove the "superiority" of the white race. According to Gould, the method they used most was falsifying the brain size of the fossilised skulls they found. Gould mentions in his book that, assuming brain size had something to do with intelligence, many anthropologists intentionally exaggerated the size of Caucasian skulls and underestimated the size of skulls from Blacks and Indians.14 Stephen Jay Gould and his book which revealed Darwin's racist side. In his book Ever Since Darwin, Gould explains the unbelievable claims the Darwinists undertook to demonstrate that some races were inferior. Haeckel and his colleagues also invoked recapitulation to affirm the racial superiority of northern European whites. They scoured the evidence of human anatomy and behaviour, using everything they could find from brains to belly buttons. Herbert Spencer wrote that "the intellectual traits of the uncivilized.. are traits recurring in the children of the civilized." Carl Vogt said it more strongly in 1864: "The grown up Negro partakes, as regards his intellectual faculties, of the nature of the child… Some tribes have founded states, possessing a peculiar organization, but, as to the rest, we may boldly assert that the whole race has, neither in the past nor in the present, performed anything tending to the progress of humanity or worthy of preservation."15 And the French medical anatomist Etienne Serres really did argue that black males are primitive because their belly buttons were in a lower level. Darwin's contemporary, the evolutionist Havelock Ellis, supported the distinction between superior and inferior races with an alleged "scientific" explanation, saying: The child of many African races is scarcely if at all less intelligent than the European child, but while the African as he grows up becomes stupid and obtuse, and his whole social life falls into a state of hidebound routine, the European retains much of his childlike vivacity.16 The French Darwinist anthropologist Vacher de Lapouge suggested, in his work titled Race et Milin Social Essais d'Anthroposociologie (Paris 1909) that non-white classes were the descendants of savages who had not learnt to be civilised, or else the degenerate representatives of mixed-blood classes. He produced results by measuring the skulls from Paris' upper and lower classes in graveyards. According to his results, depending on their skulls some people were inclined to be rich, self-confident, and free, and others conservative, content with little, and possessing all the qualities of a good servant, classes were the products of social selection, society's upper classes went together with superior races, the degree of wealth was in proportion to the skull index. Lapouge later made a prophesy, "It is my view that in years to come people will kill each other because their heads are round or pointed," he said 17, and this prophesy came true, as we shall see in detail in later pages of this book, and the 20th century saw massacres carried out for reasons of racism…! And it was not only anthropologists: entomologists (those who study insects) also jumped on the racist bandwagon that Darwinism had set in motion with unbelievable claims. For example, in the year 1861, one English entomologist arrived at the conclusion, after collecting lice that lived on peoples' bodies in different parts of the world, that the lice of one race could not live on the bodies of another, which when looked at from the scientific level of today, is just plain ridiculous.18 When even people with the status of scientists made such announcements, it was not surprising that some dogmatic racists should use such illogical, unintelligent, and completely meaningless slogans as "even Negroes' lice are Negro." In short, the racist side to Darwin's theory found very fertile ground in the second half of the 19th century. Because at that time the European "white man" was still waiting for such a theory to justify his own crimes. British Colonialism and Darwinism The country which profited most from Darwin's racist views was Darwin's own land, Britain. In the years when Darwin put forward his theory, Great Britain was in the position of having founded the world's number one colonialist empire. All the natural resources of an area stretching from India to Latin America were exploited by the British Empire. The "white man" was plundering the world for his own interests. But, of course, starting with Great Britain, no colonialist country wanted to be seen as a "plunderer" and to go down in history as such. For this reason, they were looking for an explanation to show that they were right in what they were doing. Such an explanation might be to portray the colonised peoples as "primitive people" or "animal-like living creatures." In this way, for those who were massacred and subjected to inhuman treatment to be able to be seen not as human beings, but as half-human half-animal creatures, and their mistreatment would not be regarded as a crime. Actually, this search was not new: the first spread of colonialism in the world went back to the 15th and 16th centuries. Claims to the effect that some races had semi-animal characteristics were first put forward by Christopher Columbus on his American journey. According to these claims, Native Americans were not human beings, but a species of developed animal. For this reason they could be put to the service of the Spanish colonialists. No matter how much Columbus is portrayed in films about the discovery of America as having a warm and humane attitude to the natives, the fact is that Columbus did not regard the native people as human.19 Christopher Columbus was the person who first set in motion a great massacre. Columbus established Spanish colonies in the places he discovered, made slaves of the natives and was responsible for the starting of the slave trade. The Spanish "conquistadors" saw the policy of oppression and exploitation that Columbus implemented, and continued it: the massacres carried out reached unbelievable dimensions. For example, the population of one island, 200,000 when Columbus first came to it, was only 50,000 20 years later, and by 1540 only a thousand people remained. When the most famous of the Spanish conquistadors, Cortes, first set foot in Mexico in February 1519, the total native population was 25 million, but in 1605 this had fallen to 1 million. On the island of Hispaniola, the population, which was 7-8 million in 1492, fell to 4 million in 1496, and to just 125 people in 1570. According to historians' figures, in less than a century after Columbus first set foot on the continent 95 million were massacred by the colonialists. When Columbus discovered America 30 million natives were living on the continent. As a result of the massacres between then and now they have come to the position of being a lost race of less than 2 million. The reason for these massacres reaching such pitiless proportions was the indigenous peoples' not being seen as human beings, as being looked on as animals. But these claims of the colonialists did not win many supporters. In Europe at that time, the truth that all people were created equal by God and that they all descended from one ancestor-Adam-was so widely accepted that the Catholic Church in particular took a clear position against such plundering invasions. One of the best known examples of this is the reply by the bishop of Chiapas, Bartolome de las Casas, who set foot in the New World together with Columbus, who said that the natives were "each a real human being," in reply to the colonists' claim that the natives were "a species of animal." Pope Paul III cursed the savage treatment of the natives in a papal bull in 1537, and declared that the natives were real human beings with the capacity for faith.20 But in the 19th century the situation changed. Together with the spread of materialist philosophy and societies' growing distant from religion, the truth that human beings were created by God began to be denied. This, as was touched on in the preceding pages, was at the same time the rise of racism. With the rise of Darwinist-materialist philosophy in the 19th century, racism grew stronger, and this created a great support for Europe's imperialist system. James Joll, who spent long years as professor of history at such universities as Oxford, Stanford and Harvard, in his source book Europe Since 1870, which is still used as a text book in universities, describes the ideological relationship between Darwinism, imperialism, and racism. The most profound groups of ideas inspiring the concept of imperialism were those which can be roughly classified as 'social Darwinism', and which saw the relations between states as a perpetual struggle for survival in which some races were regarded as 'superior' to others in an evolutionary process in which the strongest had constantly to assert themselves. Charles Darwin, the English naturalist whose books On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, and The Descent of Man, which followed in 1871, launched controversies which affected many branches of European thought… The ideas of Darwin, and of some of his contemporaries such as the English philosopher Herbert Spencer, …were rapidly applied to questions far removed from the immediate scientific ones… The element of Darwinism which appeared most applicable to the development of society was the belief that the excess of population over the means of support necessitated a constant struggle for survival in which it was the strongest or the 'fittest' who won. From this it was easy for some social thinkers to give a moral content to the notion of the fittest, so that the species or races which did survive were those morally entitled to do so. The doctrine of natural selection could, therefore, very easily become associated with another train of thought developed by the French writer, Count Joseph-Arthur Gobineau, who published an Essay on the Inequality of Human Races in 1853. Gobineau insisted that the most important factor in development was race; and that those races which remained superior were those which kept their racial purity intact. Of these, according to Gobineau, it was the Aryan race which had survived best… It was.. Houston Stewart Chamberlain who contributed to carrying some of these ideas a stage further… Hitler himself admired the author (Chamberlain) sufficiently to visit him on his deathbed in 1927.21 As has been shown, there is an ideological chain linking Darwin to racist thinkers and imperialists, and stretching from there as far as Hitler. Darwinism is the ideological basis of both imperialism, which drowned the world in blood in the 19th century, and Nazism, which did the same thing in the 20th. Victorian Great Britain also found its so-called "scientific basis" in Darwinism. Great Britain made great profits out of colonialism, and saw no reason not to visit disasters upon the heads of those living under that colonialism for its own advantage. One example of British imperialism's dirty politics was the "Opium Wars" against China. Great Britain began to smuggle the opium it grew in India into China from the first quarter of the 19th century. This opium smuggling was speeded up as time passed to make good the deficit in its foreign trade. The flow of the drug into the country also had the effect of weakening the Chinese state's authority over its own territory. The collapse in society soon reached serious dimensions. The prohibition of opium, which the Chinese government had to implement after a long period of doubt, led to the first Opium War (1838-1842). There is no doubt that this war dragged the country to bankruptcy. China was forced to bow its head because of the inadequacy of its army in every confrontation with the foreign forces and to accept their ever-growing demands. The Westerners slowly formed settlement centres inside Chinese territory from the year 1842. They took large port quarters (concessions) from out of the hands of the Chinese, rented their fields, and obliged the country to open up to the outside world in a way that would bring the most benefit to themselves. As a result of all of this, the poverty in the country, the weakness of the government, and the slow loss of Chinese territory led to many rebellions. PILTDOWN MAN FORGERY One of the most interesting indications of the inspiration the theory of evolution offered to Britishimperialism, was the Piltdown man scandal. In 1912, a strange skull was found in Piltdown, England. Charles Dawson, the scientist who found the skull together with his team, declared that it belonged to a creature which was half ape-half human. Arthur Keith, the renowned evolutionist anatomist examined the fossil and confirmed the results. However, Dawson and Keith emphasised an important point. The brain of the fossil was as big as that of modern man. The jawbone, however, had ape-like features. Suddenly the brain of Piltdown man became a matter of pride for the British. Since this skull was found in England, it had to be the ancestor of the British. According to the British people, the greater volume of the brain indicated that British had evolved before other races, and were thus superior to other races. That is why the discovery of Piltdown man aroused great excitement in England. Newspapers ran headlines and crowds joyously celebrated the discovery. The British government, on the other hand, granted a knighthood to Arthur Keith for his famous discovery. The famous evolutionist palaeontologist, Don Johanson, describes the relationship between the Piltdown fossil and English imperialism: The Piltdown discovery was very eurocentric. Not only did the brain have pre-eminence, but the English had pre-eminence, too.* The inspiration the English derived from Piltdown man lasted only until 1953, when Kenneth Oakley, a scientist who re-examined the fossil in detail, revealed it to be the greatest forgery of the 20th century. The fossil had been produced by affixing an orang-utan jaw to a human skull. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Don Johanson, In Search of Human Origins, 1994 WGBH Educational Foundation The experiences in China were only one of the results of British policy. Throughout the 19th century the oppression and painful dimensions of British imperialism were experienced in such regions as South Africa, India, and Australia. The job of justifying this oppressive system of Britain's and attempting to show it was in the right, fell to various British sociologists and scientists. And Charles Darwin was the most important and effective of these. It was Darwin who claimed that throughout evolution there had been "superior races," that these were the "white race," and showed that the whites' oppression of the others was a "natural law." Because of the justification which Darwin provided for colonialist racism, the famous scientist, Kenneth J. Hsü, the head of the Geography department of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and himself of Chinese descent, describes Darwin as "a gentleman scientist of the Victorian Era, and an establishment member of a society that sent gunboats to forcibly import opium into China, all in the name of competition (in free trade) and survival of the fittest."22 Darwin's Enmity Towards the Turks The most important target British colonialism set itself towards the end of the 19th century was the Ottoman Empire. At that period the Ottoman state ruled a huge area from Yemen to Bosnia-Herzegovina. But by now it was finding it hard to control this area which it had managed in peace, calm, and stability. Christian minorities were beginning to rise up in the name of independence, and such great military powers as Russia were beginning to threaten the Ottomans. In the last quarter of the century Britain and France joined the powers which were threatening the Ottomans. Britain particularly set its eyes on the Ottomans' southern provinces. The Berlin Agreement, signed in 1878, is an expression of the European colonialists' decision to divide up the Ottoman territories. Five years later, in 1882, Britain occupied Egypt, which was an Ottoman territory. British colonialism set about its plans to later take over the Ottoman territories in the Middle East. As always, Britain based these colonialist policies on racism. The British government deliberately tried to portray the Turkish nation, the basic element of the Ottomans, and particularly the Ottoman state, as a so-called "backward" people. de rest kan je vinden op www.harunyahya.com ---langue---anglais---books
|
|
25-02-2004, 23:29
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
echt NIEMAND gaat dit stuk lezen. (8049 woorden!) Laatst gewijzigd op 26-02-2004 om 00:13.
|
|
|
25-02-2004, 23:47
|
|
|
|
Nou ik heb wat random stukjes gelezen, maar telkens kwam Allah weer tevoorschijn
 Het is wel cool trouwens. Ze hebben het erover dat de evolutietheorie chaos en dergelijke in de wereld veroorzaakt. Ja, gek he? Als je gewend bent aan makke schaapjes en er gaan er opeens een paar nadenken? Het is wel een beetje debiel om Darwin als de bron van racisme te gaan lopen bekijken. Alsof Slavernij en het uitmoorden van de indianen (om maar eens wat te noemen) voor de geboorte van Darwin nog niet bestonden. Oogklepjes.
|
|
26-02-2004, 00:39
|
|
|
|
actionhank, slavernij heeft op zich geen aars met racisme te maken, dus dat argument slaat in ieder geval nergens op. just saying.
|
|
26-02-2004, 14:58
|
|
|
Ik zit niet echt in deze discussie maar ik zeg het toch maar:
kaas en de evolutietheorie (boek)
__________________
*aangenaam......*
|
|
26-02-2004, 16:38
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
De schrijver van dat boek, Bas Haring, kom ik weleens op school tegen. Hij schrijft ook columns in het universiteitsblad, die zitten doorgaans heel goed in elkaar.http://www.liacs.nl/~haring/basharing/col.htm http://www.liacs.nl/~haring/kaasendeevolutietheorie/
|
|
|
26-02-2004, 17:50
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Als je vindt dat een bepaald type mens hoger is dan anderen en het recht heeft om anderen te gebruiken, is dat racisme.
|
|
|
26-02-2004, 18:43
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
26-02-2004, 18:59
|
|
|
|
Ja, dat weet ik. Alleen heeft het in veel gevallen wel met racisme te maken gehad. Oftewel: Voor Darwin was er wel sprake van racisme, onder andere in een aantal gevallen van slavernij.
|
|
26-02-2004, 20:30
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
en dit was nog maar het begin  ik mocht niet meer dan deze tekst...maar als je graag leest kun je ook op de site zelf gaan een echte aanrader
|
|
|
26-02-2004, 21:25
|
||
|
Citaat:
en dan allemaal blaten van: het is maar een theorie, jullie kunnen niks bewijzen. dat is toevallig wat darwin ook zei, maar goed maar ja, die angst voor een theorie die onwaar en onebduidend zou zijn spreekt al boekdelen he
__________________
"In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson
|
|
|
27-02-2004, 10:32
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
04-03-2004, 17:34
|
|
|
|
Zou God ook evolueren?
Maar ja ik vraag me eigenlijk af hoe creationisten tegenover de geologie staan. Ik studeer aardwetenschappen en alle aardwetenschappelijke studies samen leveren een aardig groot deel van wat ik zie als bewijs voor de evolutietheorie. De aarde is 4.6 miljard jaar oud. Althans, daar gaat de geologie van uit. Dit is gebaseerd op heel veel verschillende zaken. Onder andere radiometrische datering(met halfwaardetijden van radioactieve elementen) levert dit bewijs. Volgens de officiele opvatting van de kerk(James Ussher) is de aarde precies 5668 jaar oud. Ik weet niet hoe ze dat hebben willen maar veel belangrijke processen in de aardwetenschappen, zoals plaattektoniek en uniformitarisme(afzetten, verstenen van sediment), kunnen in die tijd amper merkbaar plaatsvinden. Op dat punt zit de kerk aantoonbaar fout... En deze grotere leeftijd creeert gelijk ook meer tijd voor evolutie om plaats te vinden. De oorsprong van het leven ligt waarschijnlijk zo rond de 3.8 miljard jaar geleden. De eerste fossielen zijn van rond 3.4 miljard jaar geleden. Sindsdien is er een toenemende mate van complexiteit waar te nemen in de fossielen, maar het leven heeft 2 miljard jaar nodig om complex te worden, dwz meercellige organismen met skeletten e.d. We weten dat het ene fossiel ouder is dan het andere doordat het ene fossiel in diepere lagen in de aarde ligt dan het andere en tegenwoordig kunnen we van fossielen ook radiometrisch de ouderdom bepalen. Maar goed, ik heb ook nog wel een aantal vragen aan creationisten: Creationisten gebruiken vaak het argument van het oog, dat is zo complex dat het gewoon wel ontworpen moet zijn. Maar waarom zijn er dan ook overgangsvormen te vinden tussen een klompje cellen(bijv bij eugloniden, zoek maar eens op google) naar ingesloten klompjes cellen(bijv bij octopussen) naar het oog van gewervelden? Er zijn tot op heden geen organen gevonden die te complex zijn om door evolutie te ontstaan. Er zijn fossielen gevonden van veel organismen die uitgestorven zijn(van enkelcelligen tot reusachtige dino's) Waar komen die fossielen vandaan? Wanneer hebben ze geleefd? Waarom zijn ze uitgestorven? Mislukte experimenten van God(die verondersteld wordt perfect te zijn)? Boobytraps van God om ons te misleiden? Onzin? En God moet wel heel erg zijn best hebben gedaan op DNA, lijkt me best veel werk om miljarden soorten organismen(van eencelligen tot mensen) allemaal verschillende genen in het DNA te geven. Knap... of is DNA ook onzin? Waarom hebben alle organismen in de basis dezelfde biochemie? Waarom hebben we zelfs voor een groot deel dezelfde genen, enzymen, eiwitten e.d.? Het delen van genen, maar ook botten en andere organen is een sterk argument voor de evolutietheorie: homologie. Deze homologie vind je terug op moleculaire schaal, in onze enzymen, DNA, eiwitten, enz. Verder heb je structurele homologie: het delen van 'dezelfde' botten. Ze zien er niet altijd meer hetzelfde uit maar zitten wel opvallend vaak op dezelfde plaats. En waarom heeft God de moeite gedaan om embryo's van alle gewervelden in beginstadia op mekaar te laten lijken? Lijkt me nogal nutteloos als je almachtig bent en alles kan maken... Soms word ook gezegd dat evolutie de tweede wet van thermodynamica overschreidt maar dat is niet zo want die wet is: "Natuurlijke processen in een gesloten systeem hebben de neiging om naar een steeds grotere staat van chaos te bewegen". Maar aangezien organismen leven in een open systeem en dus zijn organismen niet gebonden aan deze wet. Verder is soortvorming waargenomen, wat absoluut niet mogelijk is volgens de degeneratietheorie. Of is God dan even aan het werk wanneer wetenschappers die met fruitvliegen o.i.d. werken daar zin in hebben? Verder vind ik het zwak van creationisten om Darwin persoonlijk aan te vallen. Darwin leefde in de 19e eeuw, wij in de 21e... Daar zit nogal een verschil in denk- en leefwereld in. Evolutionisten vallen de Bijbel toch ook niet aan op kleine klotefeitjes zoals Jezus die op een wolk naar de hemel gaat? En er is ook zoiets als de Neodarwinistische evolutietheorie. Daarin zijn de ideeen van Darwin verder uitgewerkt, uitgebreid en zonodig gecorrigeerd. Dus puur en alleen kijken naar 'The Origin of Species' en dat boek gaan aanvallen is de feiten zoals ze er nu staan ontlopen. Kom eens met feiten voor creationisme. Let wel: FEITEN, wetenschappelijke feiten, aantoonbare, bewezen, reproduceerbare zaken. Redeneringen lopen zowel de evolutietheorie als het creationisme van over. Feiten heb ik tot nu toe alleen voor de evolutietheorie gezien. Trouwens nog een leuk feitje: Paus Johannes Paulus heeft in 1996 toegegeven dat de evolutietheorie een wetenschappelijk zeer goed onderbouwde en stevige theorie is.
|
|
04-03-2004, 23:50
|
|
|
Het blijft grappig om te zien hoe zoiets als de evolutietheorie gelovige mensen of iig mensen die in de schepping (willen) geloven tegen de borst stoot.
Wat ook opvallend is, is dat de evolutietheorie altijd wordt afgedaan met 'het is nooit bewezen!!!' Is de schepping dat dan wel?
__________________
yupyup.
|
|
05-03-2004, 00:09
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
"je bent misleid door de duivel" of iets in die geest.
|
|
|
05-03-2004, 11:31
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
Maar goed ik dwaal nogal af en dit voegt ook nites toe aan de hele discussie. Oh ja ik heb hier even een quote uit een studieboek van mij: "Scientific controversy over the fact of evolution ended in the late 1800's, when the evidence for evolution simply overwhelmed even the most stubborn critics." - Evolutionary Analysis, Scott and Freeman, 3rd edition, 2004 Dus de wetenschappelijke wereld heeft de theorie aanvaard, en ik vind de wetenschappelijke wereld heel wat geloofwaardiger dan de kerk. Maar ik vind het een heel goed plan dat creationisten eens met goede bewijzen komen(zoals Bootsman123 ook al zegt). En ik wil wel eens antwoord op die vragen die ik stel in mijn vorige post.
|
|
|
05-03-2004, 12:20
|
||
Verwijderd
|
Citaat:
|
|
|
05-03-2004, 19:01
|
|
|
|
Die is, zoals ze dat zo mooi kunnen zeggen, geownd.
|
|
06-03-2004, 11:16
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
__________________
"In this house, we OBEY the laws of thermodynamics!" - Homer Simpson
|
|
|
06-03-2004, 11:39
|
||
|
|
Citaat:
|
|
| Advertentie |
|
|
 |
«
Vorige topic
|
Volgende topic
»
|
|
Soortgelijke topics
|
||||
| Forum | Topic | Reacties | Laatste bericht | |
| Nieuws, Achtergronden & Wetenschap |
De koran, de bijbel, Wilders en tolerantie voor de geschriften Daevrem | 196 | 10-10-2007 23:18 | |
| Flora & Fauna |
STOP de bio-industrie Lottiej | 499 | 22-06-2005 18:43 | |
| Levensbeschouwing & Filosofie |
Geloof jij in de evolutietheorie? Sanctus | 343 | 10-06-2005 12:41 | |
Alle tijden zijn GMT +1. Het is nu 20:33.
Adverteren