Who is more evil?

[Deja Q]

Please say why to either.

I think Darwin is more evil. In fact the only one evil. Creationism is one thing, but Jesus taught of love and helping. Darwin basically said "The stronger of the species shall survive", leading me to think that Darwin seems to be lacking in compassion.

[imenja]

1. What is this the Inquisition?

Would it be possible to move beyond a fifteenth-century view of the world that sees religion and science as essentially contradictory?

[mike_c]

2. I presume you're being sarcastic...?

BTW, as far as I know Darwin never said anything of the sort. That idea was attributed to him by the social Darwinists who equated adaptive fitness with "strength."

[imenja]

4. actually Darwin was sympathetic toward the Social Darwinists

or at least that's what I've read. Don't ask me to remember where. My mind is a sieve.

[Deja Q]

No. Just ignorant and willful enough to ask questions.

Or is asking a question too much for people to tolerate these days? :-( (I'm guilty of being intolerant as well)

[mike_c]

11. ok, did some memory refreshment....

The phrase "survival of the fittest" was used by Herbert Spencer who was one of Darwins rivals. Darwin and Spencer were often at odds over the mechanisms and meaning of evolution. Spencer is widely, but not entirely accurately, credited with originating social Darwinism-- his ideas were actually quite different from the more-or-less pitiless social movement that drew it's name from Darwin and it's most famous slogan from Spencer. There's more to the story, but the long and short of it is that Darwin never said "the strong survive" or anything of the sort.

[JohnKleeb]

3. Neither

Darwin I have read hated social darwinism which is that the rich believe they are where they are through survival of the fittest.

[Robeson]

5. Social Darwinism is not Darwinism.

[Arkana]

8. Correct

Even Darwin himself was not a "Social Darwinist."

[liberal-bias]

6. That's a low blow...

... when you could vote for real evil at Liberal-Bias.com.

Liberal-Bias assembled 32 of the biggest threats to liberalism today and let it's viewers decide in NCAA March Madness tournament bracket style, who was the biggest of them all. Now it's down to the final two: Karl Rove & Bill O'Reilly.

Log on to

http://www.liberal-bias.com

now to cast your vote and to determine who the king of neo-con BS is for 2005.

[onager]

7. Since I'm not even sure Jesus existed...

...that vote is for the con artists, theocrats and kooks who have claimed to work in his name for the last 2000 years.

BTW, you seem to be objecting to "Social Darwinism," which I believe was more a Herbert Spencer idea than one of Darwin's. At least in his writings I've read, Darwin didn't seem to lack compassion.

I also don't read Natural Selection as saying the "stronger" survives. It's the "best fitted." Suppose you have a tribe of well-armed, physically imposing yahoos who decide to wipe out their weaker neighbors. But unknown to the Yahoos, their neighbors have developed an immunity to a local parasite. The Yahoos invade and are decimated by a plague.

[Solly Mack]

9. Herbert Spencer is(was) not Charles Darwin

and yes, that is a very important distinction...

[FreepFryer]

10. Neither are evil. But Jesus fans have Darwin fans tied at this point...

Nazis (Darwin freaks) vs. Christians (Jesus Freaks).

Both have killed millions and millions, but the Nazis haven't been at it as long. So I say 'tie'.