A Creationist Evolution Mix Up
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лис 2023
- Natural selection isn't the same as selective breeding, and I'm not entirely sure these creationists get that, as they talk about how 'darwinian' evolution leads to death because you're going to have your bad traits bred out, or something.
Here's the VERY long original video - • Eugenics, Evolution, a...
Creationists saying silly things - • Young Earth Creationis...
Another creationist video - • This Creationist Think...
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db1.creator-sprin... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/theskeptick
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
Title - A Creationist Evolution Mix Up
Tags - evolution,creationism,bible,atheist reacts,creationists,young earth creationists,Selective breeding vs natural selection,natural selection isn't selective breeding,creationists get evolution wrong,is evolution wrong,is evolution right,how to prove evolution,does evolution disprove god
How does one become a medical doctor and NOT hear about Eugenics until you're in your 50's? He's got to be the worlds worst and most ignorant doctor.
Oh it's really simple.
Lying.
@@setojuraiYup, or even more obtuse than I was growing up in the 1970s and '80s. And I had a severe brain injury from birth.
It's simple actually it's called a terminal lack of curiosity.
A big part of cult brainwashing is "secret knowledge". If you tell the victim that thanks to the cult they now know something that has been hidden from everyone else, they feel more _specialier_ and associate that good feeling with the cult.
Scientologists do this with their "wall of fire" "secret truth" that L. Ron made up on one of his drug and booze binges about Xenu being trapped under a mountain on Earth behind a forcefield powered by an "eternal battery", Randy here is saying "Did you know EVILutionism secretly promotes eugenics and nobody knows about it except you?!?!"
The less sense it makes and more obviously bullshit it is, the better it works.
Probably went to a Christian school
Blaming Darwin for the rise of eugenics is like blaming Gutenberg for a book written by a certain dictator of Germany.
It is also the wrong way round. Eugenics predates Darwin by a couple of millennia. The Spartans, for example, actively practiced eugenics.
@@michaelhaddock8636 You've also got basically every "royal bloodline" in history. The thinking that their blood gives them the right to rule, by being better than everyone else.
@@MrVelociraptor75 While true, I'm not sure that would qualify as eugenics. They were not looking to breed for any particular characteristics or traits. The inbreeding in royal families was about factors extrinsic to themselves - power and money.
@@michaelhaddock8636 And agriculture and animal husbandry is based on eugenics. Just not human genes, but still.
@@juanausensi499 Slave breeding has existed since the beginning of slavery though
Forced Abortion. Not just Abortion. It was forced. They conveintly left that out.
Cant let facts get in the way when it come to apologetics.
Q: How can you tell a christian apologist is lying?
A: They are speaking.
@@fomori2 A:Their lips are moving.
@@belgarath6388remember sign language!
A: They are trying to communicate
@@June_The_Goon remember they also usually lie to themselves
A: they are breathing
I grant that polymath, atheist, and cousin of Darwin Sir Francis Galton was a very outspoken proponent of eugenics. I grant that Hitler was an ardent reader of Galton's writings. What this bloke intentionally fails to mention is that Darwin and Galton had, via letters, many arguments with each other to the point that, as I recall, they quit communicating with one another and absolutely hated each other. Darwin was almost violently anti-eugenics. He thought that eugenicists were among the scum of the earth. Darwin, who was groomed to be an Anglican minister by his father, decided that parasitic wasps such as the ichineumids (spelling) and tarantula hawks could not have been created by an all-loving, merciful god. Hyenas which eat their prey stomach first such that the prey often live for 45 minutes + likewise. Darwin saw that evolution could create such beings; a merciful god could not. And the Bible -that vicious, cruel, hate-loaded book is NOT what I would wish for a moral code. Man was not created in God's image; the various gods were created in man's image. That is why African gods are black, Asian gods appear Asian, caucasian gods look white, etc.
Beautifully said!! ❤
Don't forget that Hitler said that God created man but that some people degenerated over the generations.
Oh ya!? Then explain why Hindu gods are blue! /s
@@justanotheropinion5832 Maybe they are blue-bloods?
There's a lot more they won't tell you. Like the number of genocides ordered in the Bible or that the Nazis had equipment that read "God with us." In fact, it's not hard, with a simple internet search, to turn up tons of links between Christianity & eugenics.
Saying evolution is to blame for the horrors of eugenics is like saying gravity is to blame for the bombings in Ukraine.
And eugenics was invented in ancient Greece by Plato.
Horrors of eugenics? No one even really did anything with eugenics, not properly anyway. There were people who talked about it and want to try it, but it was never really done. Even with the N@zis, they didn't practice "true eugenics," their experiment was more so to increase the number of the Aryan race and that could be achieved just by sterilizing the undesirables and making sure the blonde hair blue eyed people mated with each other. That wasn't even eugenics and was more so just trying to increase the number of a specific phenotype and decrease the number of all others. Most people throughout history bred with people of their own phenotype anyway so to call this specific event a case of eugenics isn't really accurate.
TRUE eugenics would be if you want to create a human breed with the most muscle mass for instance and you just take the sperm and eggs from the strongest people in the world and continue such a tradition that will lead to a breed of physically powerful humans in due time that could be useful as super soldiers or manual labor. It would be exactly the same as how dogs have been selectively bred, where you would breed a human breed for a specific trait and ONLY focus on that. Blond hair and blue eyes isn't that specific of a trait and wouldn't lead to that different of a breed.
The reason eugenics is seen as "bad" is because the ones who they DIDN'T want to contribute to the Aryan genepool were sterilized. So essentially, people are mad at eugenics because it excluded everyone BUT a specific group, not because a specific group was being being bred for a intended purpose.
I believe forest fires happen in nature - that must mean I advocate for setting forests on fire, right?
That's how this works, apparently.
@@LadyDoomsingerMore accurate would be: "Some conservationists say that the occasional forest fire is good in the long run because it allows the forest to regenerate instead of being nothing but rotting old-growth, THEREFORE evolutionists want to burn down literally every single plant on Earth".
This is more accurate because people like Randy have wet dreams about the world ending, and because of their magic book they think after the "Flood" God promised it would all end in fire.
It'd be more accurate to say that evolution had a hand in scientific racism, which the eugenics of the 20s and 30s mostly stemmed from. It's absurd to use that as a _condemnation_ of the theory of evolution, that's completely absurd, but Darwin himself expressed some worry about it. He kinda saw it coming and tried to explain why it was a wrong-headed idea before it even got traction.
@colbyboucher6391 Also notice how Christian creationist liars are loathe to admit that the doctrine of white supremacy predates Darwin's work by more than a hundred years, and was fabricated by European Christians as a justification for chattel slavery.
I keep hearing from these folks that humans are made in the image of God and are soooooo valuable. They have this superior moral stance because they see humans as special and valuable. Then I remember Christians have this long history of killing and torturing other humans. Everything from religious crusades to torturing and killing people accused of witchcraft, to torturing and killing heretics, to torturing and killing heathen nonbelievers, to our modern issues with abuse. Even the incessant telling of lies to keep the money coming in shows a lack of value for others.
I'm just not feeling the sincerity here.
This entire video was a boring, monotonous interview that basically said: "People said and did some stuff a long time ago. That was bad. Therefore Darwin bad. Therefore evolution bad. Read your Bibles." Snore.
can all this killing and torturing not be seen as proof that we are made in his image,
following his steps of cursing humans forever after setting up a trap to make them eat an apple, killing and threatening lots of peoole who didn't want to kill others on his behalf, and killing everybody in a flood who has no superior properties (of following his orders).
wouldn't all of this be an example of eugenics BY HIM ?
They act as if acknowledging that survival of the fittest exists in nature that we then ADVOCATE survival of the fittest to the extreme extent of wanting to cull the weak. They just never stop lying.
Killing people, being an ignorant moron, and generally being a POS IS what their God does in the entire old testament. Of course those that act that way would see themselves as being in the image of god.
Well said Kev 👍the useless interview nearly put me to sleep, and would if it weren't for the annoying willfull ignorance and lies pissing me off.
The world is starting to see it and that's why belief is dropping. About damn time.
"No one can separate death from natural selection.". Umm, no one can separate death from life. Do these two grown men have the minds of children?
No, because children are willing to learn.
@@Thirdbase9Exactly.
If we came from God, then why is there still god?
I came from my parents, they still exist.
@@Thirdbase9please dont tempt people who already hear voices and think those voices are anything other then their own thoughts to hudt your parents just so that they can prove a point. They hear voices and act out on them. Dont endanger your parents like that.
@@youtubestudiosucks978 I am in your walls.
It's eternal.
Damn those scientists, learning from there mistakes and not wanting to repeat them.
Eugenics isn't a mistake though. Also you used the wrong "there," it's "their."
@@maozedong8370If you do not think eugenics was a mistake you are an ethical monster or just ignorant of the practices of it. Eugenics considered poverty reason for sterilization. Eugenics put poorly educated children in mental hospitals. thanks for correcting my grammar and not sterilizing me for it.
@@jrpanciotti8863 Ah, the "if you do this, you are a monster" argument. Typical language used by a weak minded prey animal. Like a gazelle on the savannah going "the lions and hyenas hunting us are monsters and must be stopped." There is NO such thing as right or wrong in reality, there is ONLY what is advantageous and disadvantageous to a living organism and what is disadvantageous to one organism can easily be advantageous to another as with this example.
If you own a slave, it is advantageous to you because they are doing whatever you tell them to and disadvantageous to them because they don't want to follow your orders. THAT is life, it is called the conflict of interest. If you don't understand nor accept that, that is NOT my problem. There is NO such thing as morals nor do they mean anything in reality. All they exist for is to attain a greater "status" within the human society who will commend you on doing actions advantageous to the group. But if you are powerful enough and have enough allies, the opinions of others mean nothing because you are stronger then them.
Come on man, are you telling me you don't understand that basic fact about reality? Do you know how many scientific discoveries have been discovered at the expense of others? MANY and that isn't even including the other animals and other living organisms that the pursuit of knowledge takes advantage of on a daily basis.
@jrpanciotti8863 Hey, this guy's a troll. Don't entertain him
@@jrpanciotti8863Thankfully you can just learn from the spelling mistake instead of getting euthanized for it hahaha
But this doctor is enlightened, he values the people who have the ability to afford his services in the US. That's just a different kind of eugenics, and I'd posit that it's even worse.
America never abandoned eugenics. They are actually trying to erradicate the 'poverty gene'. It doesn't seem to work, tho.
The only thing that amazes me about creationist is how long they can prattle on about subjects they know nothing about.
I saw a video of three discussing subjects they didn't know about. But one worked with thermodynamics. For some reason he didn't discuss that. But others that know nothing about it claim it proves Evolution to be impossible.
@@stephenolan5539amazing coincidence that no creationists ever engage with someone on a topic that either understands.
How had this guy in the 70s never heard of eugenics? There was a whole major plot thread about it in Star Trek. It wasn't exactly hidden information.
Lying for Jesus is not restricted to any topic.
Oh there's a simple explanation.
He's lying.
When you already lie for cash and power, what's one more lie to make yourself feel like a superior human being about eugenics.
Wait a minute..!
"How had this guy in the 70s never heard of eugenics? There was a whole major plot thread about it in Star Trek. It wasn't exactly hidden information."--
Because he is LYING!!! This is christian propaganda and is targeting other christians that are looking for confirmation bias. He knows they wont spend a single second fact checking or even consider thinking critical about what he says.
Randy's also just lying, surprising no-one at all. He's spending all this time saying that eugenics is bad and humanity is getting worse and worse and how its proponents thought medicine was bad because it was allowing some people to survive that naturally wouldn't....
...but he believes humanity should weed out "sinners" and other evildoers who are making humanity worse. Typical cult hypocrisy. "Those people are doing this thing and I hate it because it should be ME doing it!"
I wish creationists actually understood what it was they are terrified of.
But then it wouldn't be scary.
I find it extremely weird that a medical doctor can be a creationist. Just shows it’s possible to study anatomy without actually understanding it. It’s like a geologist believing in Noah’s flood.
That's why he's talking about history rather than medicine. Probably does believe in antibiotic resistance for example.
Studying it and under stand ding it is de same thing.
You Kent under stand de store rie of rain dears flying,but bee leaf is different.
That's like say yin. Aye Kent bee leave a rain dear breeder don't under stand how rain dear Ken fly.
Why do they keep harping on eugenics when even Darwin knew that natural and selection were two different things?
6:14 “it was borne from Darwinian thinking”
The Spartans beg to differ.
If we were all created in the image of one guy, why do we all look different?
We all came from a Picasso painting
Funny, but I'd wager christian would claim that scripture means that all people have some abstract/magical properties, like souls or capacity for rational thoughts, etc.
Because God is 2 faced 🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And given no-one see's this god, why aren't we invisible as well?
Because the genome is not perfectly copied from the parents and errors can occur, we call that mutation.
These mutations can accumulate and... wait...
Even Charles Darwin thought Thomas Malthus was an asshole. The God-botherers just don't like being disabused of their myths. Or their "Emperor Nero Is Still Feeding Christians To The Lions" persecution-complex.
It seems to escaped these rocket scientists that although there were people who advocated for these things, we don’t actually practise them. Lots of bad ideas have been proposed but we don’t have to adopt them. Moreover, there were many who had ideas about racial superiority long before Darwin.
It's a similar thing I've seen in conspiracy theorists. They think that because a concept or patent exists then it must be in use.
Which means clearly there's somewhere selling machines that kick your own butt for you :D
One of those who had ideas about racial superiority was the God of Israel.
ICR, where my "research" is "right" because I can twist the oppositions to make them look bad, not because of facts. 🤣
I would guarantee that his "research" consisted of doing nothing because he was going to lie and make up stuff his target audience wants to hear anyways, so why waste the time.
@@fomori2 Sadly true...
More like "where I accuse the other guy of being evil because I falsely pretend they're doing what I wish I could be doing instead"
His version of eugenics has been going on for thousands of years resulting in most of the animals and plants that we eat.
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
This is the full quote. And it's gorgeous and I hate people strawmaning Darwin
If it weren't for dishonesty, creationists wouldn't have anything to say.
@@solosynapse
Exactly 💯
Glad to hear this guy is no longer a practicing physician.
I guarantee that everyone in that room supports the ideas of eugenics more than any modern biologist with a relavent degree.
Right off the bat… We definitely learned about eugenics in middle school, grades 6-8 for the floating British circles in the room. It wasn’t some kind of “forbidden” subject. Also, I wouldn’t go around talking about whitewashing history if I were a Christian fella.
Also Eugenics biggest proponents back in that time period he was alluding to... were the Creationist Catholics.
Grades 6-8 is just as meaningless to any British people over 47. They don't line up.
I'm well under 47, and all I know is they are out by one, but I cant remember which way round. If you want people to understand, use the age, like year 7 is 11 to 12 year olds
Y’all are making this way more complicated in your head than it has to be. Most countries seem to favor a 12 year general education system where most people graduate around 17 or 18, and the United States and UK are no different. So if I say grade 6, it means pretty much the same thing to me as it does to you age-wise.
Fun fact.. Plato was the first person who proposed (or discussed about) eugenics as a one of the pillars of the "ideal state" in his work "The Republic".
...and various ancient cultures (Sparta, Rome, etc) practiced eugenics through the exposure of babies that were imperfect.
Darwin definitely didn't come up with the idea of selective breeding. People have been selectively breeding with each other for as long as we have records of breeding. When we were trying to create Future Leaders, we only chose from a certain stock which was considered Superior to other stock, and those who were most attractive, tallest, strongest, or smartest we're the ones that were chosen, while the ones that were small weak or sickly were not chosen. Darwin simply explained the physical mechanism in nature that performs a similar function.
Right, it's not unlike Newton's Laws of Motion. It's trendy right now to make fun of the idea that Newton "discovered that stuff falls down" when that isn't what he was doing at all.
I'm about his age and grew up in Bumfuck Egypt and I learned about eugenics so I think he's lying.
Yup
Good heavens! A creationist lying? Surely not!
VERY lying.
@@lidbass I hope creationists lying doesn't catch on... Wait, that's their job.
Yes, it's similar to them claiming that "we are not allowed to say that anymore" while saying exactly what "they are not allowed to say". 😏
Listening to him whittle on is like watching a fly try to escape through an open window.
Why would ethunizing the elderly, who most likely would be beyond the age of reproduction, be used to strengthen the gene pool?
It doesn't serve any eugenetic purpose. But, in the end, eugenetics was always an excuse: the real issue was saving money, as always. Eugenetics was how they convinced the population.
That sounds more like a financial benefit over a gene related benefit.. in which case it’s not eugenics, it’s a specific genocide of a protected class lol
I am 57. I learned in school about eugenics, as a part of science classes and in relation to famous eugenicists. I also came across the topic in science fiction novels and in reading biographies of a couple of important Americans, though Charles Lindbergh is the only one I remember specifically (read up on him because I went through a "oo, planes are super neat!" phase and had little models of landmark planes and stuff.)
Me: Planes are awesome! Let's learn about Charles Lindbergh!
... maybe cars are better?
...
Whenever I hear someone, especially when they're old, claim that they didn't learn something in school I know they're lying. 100% guaranteed lie. It could've been true that they didn't teach that, but no one remembers things that they *weren't* taught, and people forget most of the things they actually were.
I don't remember being taught anything about history, at all. Not the world wars, not when my country was founded, nothing. I had lots of history classes, so obviously I was taught something. I have a fair bit of history knowledge, I just can't link any of it back to my school years. What I won't do is claim that as proof that my school didn't teach any history at all.
Yes, his mom's doctors where right, he has issues.
He's gullible and proud of it. But I'm glad his mom decided to bring him into the world, just for our amusement.
His mother was presented with a CHOICE and she CHOSE not to abort him. So his mother was an evil pro-choice harlot?
"they are, in the really big picture, control the evolution of Humanity"
"rather than let it happen naturally"
So, they both agree that evolution is a natural process.
OK, moving on ...
That little slip just announced they're lying grifters instead of true believers.
Notice how they didn't try to say that eugenics can't work because evolution is false.
4:18 He only found out about eugenics a decade ago?! For real? That is insane!
If it were true, yes. But this clown is lying.
8:07 Death Driven was the name of my thrash metal band in college.
Is he seriously suggesing that doctors who believe in evolution are purposely not giving some patients the best care they can? 🤯
In a way it's true. They no longer give antibiotics without strong evidence of need and that is favoring humanity over the individual patient.
They make me sick. Just so gross and intentionally wrong.
I came across it because at one point I was a World War II buff, and eugenics certainly was there in the European theater, thanks to Mr H, as well in the Pacific Theater thanks to a different Mr H.
Ahhhh... humanity.
Nardole has really been more sympathetic when he still travelled with the Doctor.
I was out of high school by 1995. There was at least one Social Studies class that mentioned eugenics, and I think some classic literature. Also, I read Dune.
Apparently, that makes me a special genius.
Eugenics is the exact same thing as livestock breeding. So is he suggesting that livestock breeding came from people who learned about evolution through Darwin?
Dammit but then who taught Darwin ?
@@celiand2618 God fearing farmers...i suppose
and dog breeds and all the weird snake morphs we have.
another example of christians being physically unable to be honest about anything in order to be apologetic to their shitty religion
I'm under the impression that indeed, god fearing farmers were quite familiar with the concept.
Eugenics was more than simple livestock breeding. In Livestock breeding you are looking to enhance physical traits like size or shape. Eugenics tried to control behaviors and intelligence. They thought you could control poverty through breeding. Smart people would have smart children. Crimminals will have criminal children. It does not work that way.
Long story short, this is what people who are semi-aware of what people they vote for favor, so they have to obfuscate the facts.
18:44 No, he said that this guy basically said that in order to be a doctor you must practice "natural selection". Which is bonkers.
Doctors have to make a judgement call on whether further treatment is going to be beneficial to the patient, or just prolong their suffering. Ending the suffering of a patient who is never going to get better isn't eugenics.
Neither is abortion.
I feel bad for Randy's patients if this is how he practised medicine.
Created in the image of a disembodied ape 🦍 in the sky? 😂
We learned about eugenics in high school in the early '90s. Dunno why he's pretending that it has been covered up.
Because lying is how he makes a living.
Class of '99, we also learned about it & discussed the moral problems it caused. This was in the deep South, no less, where they currently are trying to ban those discussions as "CRT."
He probably confused it with Star Trek since TOS had the Eugenics Wars being an openly-known conflict but as time marched on, later series made it more of a secret war...
I lost my overtime but I want to give Lisa the rainbow giraffe major props. Just to remind you Will Joker. I am deeply sorry that I can not give more than I have just keep doing your great amazing content it is worth it!
'To be accurate...'? Yes. Let's do that bro.
I love that they try to make themselves look all legit and proper by using a dna logo as if their "research" is real research and not just pandering to an echo chamber of anti-science creationists.
Your videos make my weekend. Hope you, the Misses, and baby Tik are doing well 😊
"The science that confirms creation." , Starting off strong with the delusions.
Gawd was created in the image of man, not the other way around. Why do theists always get that wrong?
ICR is thrift value AiG
There's one important thing that these people and those who did eugenics have in common: a fundamental, and potentially purposeful, misunderstanding of evolution.
I would like to see some citations for their fantastic lies and conspiracy delusions. Actually they are animals, primates. If they are not primates I have no idea what they are.
I love that the old one thinks the young one is "blessed" to know anything about eugenics. Maybe God told him?
I think for a lot of creationists, a divine hand in things is really just... determinism, practically? Not "God decided to make sure this kid learned about Eugenics today" so much as "that's just an inevitable part of the obviously perfect world-machine that God set up". God's plan. At least among more philosophical theists. There's echoes of it in a lot of more "mystical" concepts like Qabalah that try to explain why God made a physical universe in the first place. I'm probably giving them too much credit but I like to play Devil's Advocate because I think our active disdain for them isn't very constructive, and taking a more "yo the universe is still pretty cool, dude" approach can be more helpful.
15:15 abortion existed before the 20th century - it predates writing, even. it wasn't done safely before recently, but it was done
Does ICR make their followers sign a religion pledge like AIG?
That would be expected. And, our dear Dr. Randy Guliuzza is probably the one handling you the form and pen...
Yes
Their website contains a statement of faith, which states that Adam & Eve, the Flood and the Tower of Babel are historical facts.
@@ianchisholm5756 Yuck !
Ironically, the more I listen to people like this the more I find I am becoming a supporter of the Rapture. I think we could all use a break from the scientifically challenged.
That first farmer that chose to keep these seeds to plant next year because there were more or they were bigger, practiced eugenics.
For a second when I saw Trey's face I thought we were watching an episode of Little Britain. Didn't need long to see this wasn't the case. What Trey said was too absurd for Little Britain.
One thing people always get wrong about “survival of the fittest” is that it’s not necessarily the biggest, most aggressive, muscular organisms that survive. It’s about what is able to survive in the environment they live in. Cockroaches are not big, strong or aggressive. But they continue to survive because they are able to adapt, live and reproduce in almost all of the environments they find themselves in.
"Survival of the fittest" originated with a journalist who was criticising Darwin, iirc. The word "fit" has certainly changed its meaning and acquired new uses in the 150+ years since Darwin and his critics were writing.
I feel it's valuable to point out that eugenics is still used at this moment all over the world, it's called breeding, you wouldn't have a beef and pork market without it. Many human programs still practice eugenic ideologies within the structure of the hyper rich and fascist ideologies, wars, hypercapitalist oligarchies, and arms dealers have used eugenics to support their agendas.
"Social Darwinism" included eugenics but they are not the same thing. Social Darwinism was actually a CREATIONIST ideal, William Jennings Bryan one of the father's of modern creationism argued that it was the 'logical consequence of Darwinism'.
In fact Social Darwinism was actually penned by Thomas Huxly, he was a very wealthy anthropologist that felt that only certain people deserved to be able to reproduce. Social Darwinism is well known and many aspect of it are still used today in every aspect of our economic, and finance directed industry spectrums. laissez-faire capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism were advocated for by social darwinists. Darwin himself was a significant opponent of the social ideology that stole his name.
It's like they aren't expecting that their audience even knows how to read much less do any research.
And honestly an argument for giving life a chance is always a valid argument. However it just sounds like a bad argument when its "because my holy book says". Part of it is because people don't like being told what to do with authority like that, but also because it just poops on the very notion that someone might have different beliefs. Often times even in the same religion.
Institute for Creation Research? How much research can one do into something for which there is zero credible evidence?
Hey, the bible is a long book. It takes time to read through it, make notes on what parts you want to keep to support your ideas, to arrange them in some kind of order, share them in your echo chamber, and finally pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
That's like hours, maybe even a few days worth of work! These guys are basically heroes who deserve all the monies. Obviously.
Newton ushered in the worldview of Gravitism.
Since Dr. Randy Guliuzza butchered that quote by Karl Pearson, I looked it up on AZQuotes: "The right to live does not connote the right of each man to reproduce his kind ... As we lessen the stringency of natural selection, and more and more of the weaklings and the unfit survive, we must increase the standard, mental and physical, of parentage." Their source was apparently Karl Pearson (1912). “Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics: The Cavendish Lecture, 1912, an Address to the Medical Profession”
Don't know what was in the ellipses, but it suggests eugenics as what he's getting at, in a fairly harsh tone. At least it's not as ridiculously circular as Randy made it sound. Also doesn't seem to say anything about choosing who lives or dies (quote may have been elsewhere; I didn't look very hard), but does he know that ED doctors and paramedics do that basically every day? Finite resources means you have to make decisions about how to prioritise care. It's not equivalent to refusing to provide an appendectomy to a mentally handicapped child jusy so they don't reproduce.
Also, you can oppose eugenics without just saying it feels "scummy" by appealling to the restriction of autonomy and by using the "veil of ignorance." The analysis was so surface level that they may as well have just said people did it because they just wanted to sin.
Also, strange how such a Christian nation, infamous for its low acceptance of evolution (and late abolishment of slavery), was such a huge proponent of eugenics!
Bloody hell, these guys are dry. It amazes me how an actual (former) MD can be so far out of touch with reality.
His twisted interpretation of religion demands it.
I'm pretty sure that Randy Guliuzza is the guy who prompted Dapper Dinosaur to coin the term "Trojan source" for when a creationist cites a source and investigation shows that not only does the source not support the creationist's claim but actually contradicts it.
Hmm, what did Darwin have to say about eugenics:
"but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"
So yeah, completely against it.
Wonder then why this guy kept focusing on Darwin and barely mentioned Thomas Malthus, whose essay "An Essay on the Principle of Population" was the inspiration for modern eugenics? Oh right, because Malthus was a priest who thought that out of control population growth was a punishment from God for immoral behavior.
Imagine looking like that and saying you were made in the image of god 😂
Kind of reminds me of Benny Hill, though without any of the humor
I mean, "Darwinism" can honestly be used to distinguish older, more simplistic models of evolution from newer, more complex ones - just as more or less primitive models of creationism could be designated "Hovindism", "Hamism", etc. (Ken Ham argues that many of Kent Hovind's arguments are outdated).
That guy still sounds delicious.
@@facundovera3227 He has a really bad aftertaste.
@@gavinmatthewlyall
But at least he's not in a tube?
Or is that a different Ken/Kent?
Strange, I learned about the eugenics in this country in Jr high in the 70s. Maybe it was a woke school in Tennessee.
Those apologists seem not to be aware of eugenes (greek word for good-stock).. or the name Eugene.
The idea of eugenics predates galton by a few thousand years, sadly. I don't think that Darwin/Galton invented "the chosen people" or "the mark of cain" and racist genocides (see amalekites, midianites and so on).
Were they trying to imply that evolution pretty much created eugenics? Did they mention the eugenics of nobility before Darwin? The rich and powerful have been doing it for a while, and some of the rich today speak in closer terms to eugenics about "birth rates".
"Eugenics is not a happy subject ?" BS, they love it !
man, these guys are the worst. they are literally fully lying. they know. but they also know that most of their audience doesnt know crap about how natural selection really works, and so they wont be able to tell these guys are lying. it really disgusts me
Eugenics didn't need evolution theory to rise. We've been selectively breeding livestock en crops for thousands of years. The idea to apply these principles to a human population was bound to pop up. But there were always those pesky ethical and moral objections. It took a dictator to show the true horrors of actually implementing such principles to the human stock.
You have to remember that we here in the U.S. are too fragile to learn about anything negative in our own history. I didn't learn about it until college.
Be that as it may, this guy is lying his ass off about never hearing about eugenics during his education.
Thank Lisa we've got all those theists around fighting to have all bad parts of our history taught. Can you imagine how much worse education would be if theists would be running around screaming about "woke indoctrination" and trying to get books pulled from libraries and outlaw the teaching of certain subjects?
The only thing they seem to teach in US schools is that US is the bestest nation in the multiverse. I bet they teach that same thing in North Korea.
@@mjjoe76 I'm not so sure. I was talking to my father and realized he didn't know what the word Eugenics means. He's totally aware of the Nazi myth of a perfected "Aryan" race but that's mostly because he's a WWII nerd, a lot of people are mostly unaware of that side of things because it's so overshadowed by "Jews bad".
Clearly this doctor never set foot in a public school in his life.
Generally schools in most states in the USA. Give an intriduction to Eugenics while studying The Holocaust.
I was lucky, as I took AP European History and learned about Eugenics, Ethnic Cleasening, and Social Darwinism before undergraduate. Also learned about the golden triangle during that class.
As I grew up in NJ, I thought the same. There is a vast discrepancy in US schools
I'm so sorry you and your wife had to go through that. 😞
Thank you. We have a bundle of energy now and they’re awesome!
Great content! This is not my first skeptic video and it will not be the last.
❤( Jesus power proof ) black and white sheep are allowed.( Warning it is intense.)
The bibble isn't that the book where god flood the world when he did a big stupid, that sounds like the biggest eugenicsing ever
"Nuclear bombs are bad therefore relativity isnt true"
same energy
Is eugenics still around in modern society, you ask?
Does genocide count? With the (proposed) laws about denying health care to trans people, removing kids from families who are positive to trans people and incarcerating people who wear the "wrong" clothes in public, I think attempting to remove specific groups from the gene pool is very much alive in the States.
If you look up who is supporting those bills and laws, you won't find many atheists though...
Darwin didn't use the term "inferior". Adaptation is what matters. There is no direction to evolution. Diversity is what happens not a killing off of "inferior" species. Eugenecists talked about people the same way the talked about live stock.
I just love the peachy, breathy, pacing drone used by that preach... I mean, doctor.
Always that hint of indignantly contained righteousness, the passive-aggressive allusions, the half-spoken threat of bad science.
You gotta be so deep down into this dogmatic view to be able to take this seriously.
17:01 - 17:38 so he understands that when equations/hypothesis match observations , it is ok to use .. regardless of who made that thing up
at least on some level he must understand that,given what he said there.
so . I am comfortable calling him a liar,after gibberish he presented as an argument.
I'm honestly surprised that this video is still monetized with how many times the "E" word was said normally that is a youtube nono.
I have a hunch that Dr. Randy Guliuzza might not have been at the top of his class when earning his MD, I'm thinking that he might have been in the bottom third.
It appears he chose medicine after trying both engineering and theology. Maybe his family has enough money that he's been able to change careers whenever he felt like it.
After speaking with this medical doctor about evolutionary theory, this guy went to his English professor to discuss his upcoming invasive surgery.
Oh, wow. With that intro, I thought you were going to be talking about the newly resurfaced clip of the new Speaker of the House that Pod Save America played and mocked (hillariously) in the recent Cleveland episode. It's the "OK, Stop" segment for anyone that cares to both be disgusted and need a good laugh.
Did he say that eugenics is based on "genes", that's a plain lie. The prefix "eu-" is as he say same as good or well, but genḗs comes from the Greek word means "into being, growing" and the idea reaches back into farming and selective breeding. Darwin on the other hand talked about natural processes and that small and weak like a mouse could be a way to survive and to be "fit". The race theory came from christian theory of pure blood that then resulted in that christian noble families in Europe were like Alabama on steroids.
Their argument is:
1) The theory of evolution indicates that eugenics might be an effective way to "improve" the human species.
2) Eugenics is unethical for various reasons.
Therefore 3) The theory of evolution is incorrect or shouldn't be believed.
It's a classic appeal to consequences fallacy and a non sequitur. Not liking the implications or possible applications of a scientific theory does not make the theory untrue. If they argued that eugenics is wrong, and evolution supports eugenics, therefore evolution is wrong, it would be an equivocation fallacy on the word "wrong".
This is such an important topic. Eugenics has a complicated and very troubling history, even ignoring world war 2.
But when they discuss it, it feels like they dodge a lot of the complexity there and assume that is we replace evolution with creationism, it will be all better, which is troubling and untrue.
I'm not an expert at all, but I think that listening to minorities, especially those with disabilities (and also racial minorities), and learning to their lives and humanity will go further in resolving this issue.
IMO the key is to recognize the "missing link" (hah) between the _early_ theory of evolution and the eugenics of the 20s and 30s, that being "scientific racism". Dudes measuring skulls trying to figure out why all the brown people are so stupid (which they obviously are because we says so). Something Darwin himself seemed to see coming.
Love how the calmly discuss NAZISM with a tone that acreams BORING!
Somebody get them some coffee. They clearly haven't woken up yet.
So to sum up: "People trying to imitate evolution by assaulting or killing others who they feel shouldn't reproduce is bad, so the natural occurrence is bad and in fact didn't actually happen."
"Also abortion or euthanasia are basically the same as eugenics."
With the ability to reach like that they should start playing basketball.
With his argument about evolution supposedly leading to doctors not treating their patients properly: Mormonism. Just ONE example. (Abortion ban, another one.)
Jehovah's Witnesses
The fact that they don't understand the difference between positive/additive and positive/"good" tells me all I need to know about their opinions.
Creationists so Sovcits have someone to laugh at!
Leviticus 21:18 has a list of physical flaws which bar a man from approaching the altar. Their God has opinions about people not being 'good enough' because of their physiology.
The physiology that their god apparently created…
“You’re not good enough because of your looks and body.”
“You made me tho?..”
“SILENCE, TO HELL WITH YOU”
Did the thumbnail always say "evolutoin" and I failed to notice? I'm afraid to look it up now.
Eugenics was more scary when I didn't know what it was.