I'll try it yet one more time and then just do my best to forget about it.
I did NOT say anything to imply that I don't agree that Hitler built his racist doctrines on Darwinism, I have repeatedly said that I know he did. And all the references Chris makes on this program sound very valuable, but none of them deals with the specific remark I made.
If Hitler built his doctrines on Darwin's idea of "race" it was on a MISREADING of that idea, apparently in the same way Chris Pinto is misreading it.
Again, as I said in the previous post, the reduction of humanity to animals is sufficient excuse for it, but ALL I've focussed on is Chris Pinto's specifically misunderstanding the title to Darwin's book, nothing else. The "preservation of favored races" did NOT mean the same thing to Darwin that it means to Chris Pinto, or to Hitler either.
This does NOT mean that Nazism did not make use of Darwinism, and I never said otherwise. I certainly did NOT say THAT is an embarrassment to the Church that such views are held.
ALL I SAID WAS THAT Darwin himself did not use "race" the way Pinto and Hitler and Sanger read it, Darwin himself did not understand "favored race" the way Hitler and the others did, and did not understand "fittest" the way the others are reading him. Darwin's frame of reference was NATURALISM, or biology, he was using those terms strictly in the scientific sense of his day.
I explained all this on the previous post more thoroughly, I'm merely outlining it here.
AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN: to say this does not mean that Darwinism did NOT form the foundation of Nazism. OF COURSE IT DID. But it wasn't DARWIN's idea of "race" that did so.
Now if I'm still being misunderstood so be it, I'll just bow out of all discussion on the subject and leave the whole thing to the Lord.
Here's what I wrote on his comments page, edited to clean up my mistyping:
I have NOT denied the connection between Darwinism and Hitler, EVER. You are NOT disagreeing with what I said because you have not yet grasped what I said.
I said ONE thing and ONE THING ONLY: I said that you MISREAD that one line about the preservation of favored races as Darwin was using those words.
That's ALL I said. And that sort of misreading DOES make you look foolish.That remark about the Catholic who I studiously avoided responding to is really low of you, Chris. But you're wrong about that too.
If you still misunderstand that's too bad, I'll have a bout of high blood pressure and get over it.
Also, the Catholic has not agreed with me, he simply appreciated my fairmindedness in pointing out a misreading of Darwin's title.
This is really upsetting but I'll try not to be upset.
No you aren't being unkind you're just wrong, about me and about the Catholic and about the whole mess.
Too bad, I was trying to be helpful, and I've SO appreciated Chris Pinto's stuff. Now it's going to have a poisoned atmosphere about it, can't be helped although I'll try not to let it get to me. I've heard he's also now siding with the critics of The Harbinger too.
Oh well, I guess the Lord doesn't want me to be understood for some reason.