Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community


Unwelcome history: the roots and fruit of the Eugenics movement — “Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution”

(NOTICE: Dr Larry Moran, the response to your assertions is here.) I see where UD’s News has let us know that the Eugenics Society’s papers will shortly be digitised and made available to the public. It is therefore appropriate to highlight again the Logo for the 2nd International Congress on Eugenics, with Alexander Graham Bell as honorary president and Major Leonard Darwin (son of Sir Charles) as major speaker, so we can see how leading people all across the world from North Carolina, California and Canada to Britain,  India, Japan and — sadly tellingly — Germany, were thinking about “the self-direction of human evolution”: It is worth noting — from Wiki testifying against interest as usual — that Major Darwin’s Read More ›

FOR RECORD: What we are dealing with . . . an example of web stalking and vandalism

This morning, I had occasion to visit a blog based course site I have developed, for working with a church in the Caribbean. This is a sample of the stalking and vandalism I discovered there, from the hate site owner: xxx, the religious wacko who owns and runs this site, blames all the world’s ills, including Hitler and the nazis, on Darwin, atheists, and material evolutionists. To see the truth about Hitler and the nazis, see these XXXXXXX: XXXXXX is a LYING, arrogant, bloviating, sanctimonious, ignorant, uneducated, abusive, delusional god zombie. See this site for a lot more about XXXXX: November 18, 2011 3:17 AM Now, this vandalism of a site wholly unrelated to the matters debated at UD (and Read More ›

FOR RECORD: CSU Professor Richard Weikart’s Lecture: From Darwin to Hitler

Since the question of the history of ideas roots of a certain Herr Schicklegruber’s thoughts seems to repeatedly come up, it is worth the while to here post the Lecture “From Darwin to Hitler,” by Prof Richard Weikart so that we all may see what he has to say: [youtube w_5EwYpLD6A] For record, so no comments. Comments may continue in the current “Who said this?” thread, here. My own view is simple: no responsible discussion of this topic or related concerns can ignore the evidence brought forward by prof Weikart here. END _______________ U/D Jan 5: CSU not UC, Thanks to an eagle-eyed reader.

The mutilation of Bibi Aisha — a test case on the objectivity of moral judgements

Several days ago, UD news raised the above case, and the response of a class of students, as a test case on the objectivity of morality. Further details — and a shocking picture of a beautiful but mutilated girl that we all need to examine, painful or not — are here.  In deference to sensibilities, I will ensure that the shocking graphic is below the fold.) Read More ›

Richard Weikart: If Darwinists believed that conscience really exists, he would be their conscience

Here and here, historian of Nazi Germany Richard Weikart responds to yet another whitewash of Darwinism’s role in helping to create a particularly malignant type of racism, this time by Darwinist Michael Ruse:

Last November at a conference on Darwinism I conversed with a graduate student in philosophy who embraced Ruse’s position on the evolution of ethics, which is not all that unusual among evolutionists. He told me he believed that morality is a biologically innate response shaped by evolutionary processes. It has no independent, objective, or universal existence. I pressed this graduate student, asking him how far he was willing to take his ethical relativism. Upon his affirmation that he subscribed to it completely, I asked him if he thought Hitler was morally evil. After explaining that he personally found Hitler’s views repugnant, he admitted that he had no basis for condemning Hitler and finally he conceded, “Hitler was OK.”

I doubt Ruse would be comfortable saying that Hitler was OK, because Ruse’s (and Darwin’s) political views are miles apart from Hitler’s. However, Ruse’s worldview (and Darwin’s own) does not, as far as I can see, provide any objective basis for opposing or condemning Hitler (or Stalin or Mao).

Weikart is repeatedly accused of saying things he does not say, principally, one suspects because the things he does say and can demonstrate are so damning that the only alternatives are acknowledgement or obfuscation.

Here’s an interview I did with Weikart on how he got interested in Darwin and Hitler anyway (not how you might think).

Also just up at Access Research Network: Read More ›