Weikart-Ruse Debate in STANFORD REVIEW

I misposted above.... remove it if you can- it is supposed to go on thenew post by scordova... I want to change it a little so just erase this one if possible. Frost122585

Cordova, Good article. It's good to see that people are back on the march. You know, we do live in America where people have a right to be heard and express what they think within reason. A theory as sketchy as Darwin’s, which chalks up life to a random process of sorts that requires a schizophrenic foundational theory of "multi-universes" (which there is not a shred of evidence for) in order to account for the complexity, specification and diversity of life, is to say the least quite worthy of some heavy criticism. Not to mention the fact that Darwinists themselves are in constant disputes about the character of the evolutionary theory they think is right. Moreover, IDists have a completely separate view of the entire matrix of historical data. And they say there is no controversey?! And I remind us all that in this country the majority rules but the minority's rights are to be protected. Most people in this country for whatever reason DONT think DE is the full answer to life’s origins. So let them teach it! The problem is because of radical politics and a very agenda driven media, people have been purposely misinformed about ID. If people really understood what ID was in fact about, and the scientific methods used to come to some to its conclusions, people would realize that ID is far from creationism and a lot closer to pure empiricle science then they they are being told. What Judge Jones did was disgraceful but its good so see that people are not giving up on the good and most important fight. On another thread last night people posted a few good G.Orwell quotes. The first with thanks to JPCollado “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” And then these two from myself- “Whoever is winning at the moment will always [seem] to be invincible.” and “Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious.” I think, we need not bow down to a politic driven mainstream society with plans that are reminiscent of 1984. People have a right to know and hear the truth and in the case of DE the dissent comming from all angles ecxcpet the government controlled education establishment. Frost122585

Larry Fafarman, I like your antipathy to Darwin—but when you take America to task for its support of Israel—I and many millions of others won’t go there. Let’s tell the children the truth!! The hatred of Israel is completely irrational, based on hateful propaganda, and so what is needed is not passive acquiescence but fearless confrontation with truth—for which some might be interested in reading this amazing piece. Judaism never noisily announces a “turn the other cheek” philosophy, yet Israel is the only nation that in practice does just that. Here—maybe a couple of Golda Meir quotes are in order:

We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.

Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.

Why is it that Muslims can live in peace as full citizens in the Jewish state but the whole world insists that any Muslim state must be completely Judenrein? Yes, indeed, we’ve gotten off topic—but I just couldn’t let this ride. Rude

Two Orwell Quotes I think are applicable to ID. "Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible." and "Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." Frost122585

Ooooooooh... I love that quote! StephenA

God bless tribune. And before I go to bed, let me just part with another G.Orwell quote: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." JPCollado

Say goodnight JP. tribune7

Jerry: "Before people keep on condemning what the US has done" A little clarification, Jerry. Decent American people don't do the things that organizations like the CIA has done. This is not the fault of the USA but of macabre un-elected men (and some women) who are running the show with their dirty little dollars and shadowy influence. JPCollado

tribune: "JP — Exactly! No Iraqi can hold office without the approval of the U.S. which is working in cahoots with Iran. It’s as clear as day now." Yup, you got it. Iran too. CIA activities in Iran JPCollado

tribune: Do you believe Dick Cheney brought the Twin Towers down through timed explosives?" I don't know about that, but he is affiliated with a group that showers praises on a totalitarian government that is capable of doing just that to its own people. Certainly anything is possible in the backstabbing world of politics. And synthetic terror is not something new. Ever heard of false flagging? Wikipedia again: "False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities." I guess you can say that in a purely darwinian world, the big and strong does eat the small and weak. JPCollado

Move to close thread:) William Wallace

JP -- Exactly! No Iraqi can hold office without the approval of the U.S. which is working in cahoots with Iran. It's as clear as day now. tribune7

JPCollado: "Can anyone in Iraq vote for any nominee without the approval of the US?" tribune: 'Well, yes." According to the wiki website article you provided:

An American private intelligence agency has suggested that the process of "Iraqising" the party is supported by Iran to help the United States to stabilise Iraq, prior to an "honorable exit".

To help the US? Did this come before or after the assassination(!) of Baqir al-Hakim? Seeing that wikipedia has been used as a reference in this instance, let us proceed with the subject concerning the CIA's involvement in Asia, but for our present purposes, Iraq.

In 1963, the United States backed a coup against the government of Iraq headed by General Qasim, who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. Roger Morris, a former National Security Council official who became a journalist, states "The C.I.A.'s 'Health Alteration Committee,' as it was tactfully called, sent Qassim [Kassim in the article] monogrammed, poisoned handkerchief, though the potentially lethal gift either failed to work or never reached its victim." {...} According to Roger Morris, CIA helped the new Baath Party government in ridding the country of suspected leftists and Communists. The Baathist government used lists of suspected Communists and other leftists provided by the CIA, to systematically murder opponents Iraq's educated elite--killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. The victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq

JPCollado

Before people keep on condemning what the US has done, one should reflect on what the opposition did. Communist governments managed to kill about 100 million in the 20th century and essentially eliminate religion as part of most of what they controlled. Maybe what was waiting for these countries if we hadn't intervened was something similar to Cuba. Or maybe it would have grown to the countries next to them. Or maybe it would have been worse. jerry

leo, My apology for misinterpreting your comments. jerry

Well, it may be the SpecOps training I received in Panama back in 1992, dealing, of all things, with helping to route “Colombian resistance”, whatever that means… Actually, I can't even guess what that sentence means. Are you saying we are/were actively seeking to undermine the democratic government of Columbia or are you saying we are/were seeking to support it against the narco-terrorist and leftist groups seeking to undermine it through kidnappings and random acts of terror. And if the latter are you objecting? But one more thing: do you believe Saddam was not a creation of the CIA? I believe that Saddam was not a creation of the CIA. Do you believe Dick Cheney brought the Twin Towers down through timed explosives? tribune7

tribune: "I am saying that the United States has a much smaller role with regard to the strife in these countries than you seem to think" Well, it may be the SpecOps training I received in Panama back in 1992, dealing, of all things, with helping to route "Colombian resistance", whatever that means...but who am I to complain. There are others more qualified to tell the story I guess. But one more thing: do you believe Saddam was not a creation of the CIA? JPCollado

So you believe, in true Christian spirit, that what was done through Pinochet was justified? In true Christian spirit why are you judging Pinochet? Or the CIA for that matter? Can anyone in Iraq vote for any nominee without the approval of the US? Well, yes. tribune7

I don’t know if you are implying that the CIA has or had no role in the creation of strife I am saying that the United States has a much smaller role with regard to the strife in these countries than you seem to think AND I am also saying that the United States has a much greater role in ending the strife in these countries than some seem able to conceive much less concede. The reason why the U.S. is "hated" -- envied is actually the more appropriate word -- is because we are big and we are free. It is really hard to believe that we are "hated" since half the world seems to want to move in with us. The people who truly hate us are the academics and foreign bureaucrats who think our existence sets a bad example for the sheep they want to keep pacified. tribune7

tribune&: "El Salvador is a democracy, now btw. As is Nicaragua and Chile." So you believe, in true Christian spirit, that what was done through Pinochet was justified? And talking about democracy, would you call it such when, let's take Iraq for example, candidates are "pre-selected" before the general voting process? Can anyone in Iraq vote for any nominee without the approval of the US? JPCollado

Hello tribune7, I don't know if you are implying that the CIA has or had no role in the creation of strife in these politically sensitive and fragile countries. JPCollado

...and just in case you missed the first part http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJkBTVyLAUU May God protect Alex Jones! In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act - George Orwell JPCollado

extensive ‘psych-ops’ to help bring down the government of Salvador Allende How? By encouraging Allende to put restrictions on speech and confiscate farms and ignore the courts? a drawn out civil war in El Salvador, where leftist rebels were in conflict with the US-backed right-wing gov’t. Why are you implying we were wrong to support the government? El Salvador is a democracy, now btw. As is Nicaragua and Chile. How's Cuba doing, btw? tribune7

Leo, I think you raise an insightful question. I hafta admit that I also doubted your sincerity until you acknowledged the influence of Darwin on Nazi ideology. That helped me place your question in the proper perspective. I'm not sure what the answer is, though. I'm guessing you'd get a different answer in this forum than you'd get in a pro-DE forum...if your question would be taken seriously at all in that venue. I'll take a preliminary stab at responding. The DE people I know who tend more toward "preserving life" than "destroying life" seem to find more meaning in common descent than in natural selection. The postings of the last few days have led me to conclude that Hitler, at least, tended to emphasize natural selection over common descent (if he believed in the latter at all). I have a great deal of admiration for those who respect life in all its forms due to their perception of our common ancestry. To me, common ancestry per se carries no moral imperative though...unlike the notion that all of life proceeds from the hand of a common creator who has charged us humans with responsibility to care for it. Nevertheless, if they can end up at the same place I do by following a different narrative, I am not going to criticize them. But I do recognize how tenuous their conclusions are, and the fact that others can use the very same narrative to arrive at very different conclusions. Lutepisc

One of the most courageous Americans of the 21st century goes on to give some air to the subject of eugenics and the connection with Darwin in his most excellent documentary ENDGAME: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=174QiTrzFV8 JPCollado

...not that the CIA has not resorted to troop-training, arms smuggling, torture, drug trafficking, assassinations and terrorism. It's all Israel you see. She is the one with the reputation for covert interference in the affairs of nations around the globe, with a long tradition of meddling in the politics of Latin America, forcing regime change and disposing of disliked leaders. You know, like in 1954, with the destabilization of Guatemala and the whole deal with the US-multinational United Fruits…. or 1961, with the “removal” of Rafel Trujillo; or 1973, when the CIA carried out terrorist acts, trained and armed fascist paramilitary groups and carried out extensive ‘psych-ops’ to help bring down the government of Salvador Allende. General Pinochet became dictator, and the CIA helped him to liquidate thousands of perceived radicals; or during the ‘80s, when the US became embroiled in a drawn out civil war in El Salvador, where leftist rebels were in conflict with the US-backed right-wing gov’t. On and and on and on the list goes. It’s all Israel you see. JPCollado

Dave, It's all well and nice to quote Jesus on casting the first stone. But isn't this fundamentally based on the idea that we can cast stones as Hitler? If by saying Bavarian Knitting clubs influenced Hitler, we are "throwing stones" at the knitters, isn't our basis of condemnation itself a person? Now, we have come to a kind of agreement that "throwing stones at Hitler" is not only acceptable, but we jeopardize our standing as a good citizen for even framing it in that light. However, making Hitler a discontinuous and singular demonic figure is neither naturalistic nor, specifically, is it Christian. However, we've long known of "tyrants". And calling a suspected tyrant a "tyrant" is not beyond the bounds of good Christianity, especially if we are somewhat measured in our assessment. I think eugenics plays a role, but so does the nihilistic narrative that reads everything as strategies of survival: Existing to further exist. I think this is arguably as horrible as any other element, but much more subtle and insipid. Hitler's POV to me is that without external expectations on the creature Man, he is free to pursue his self-interest--or the interest of his "breed"--in whatever manner necessary. jjcassidy

JPCollado: "the CIA meddling into the affairs of other countries doesn’t help either. In fact, this MAY be the sole reason for much of the hatred the US has garnered throughout the world" Larry Farfarman: "Wrong — the US is hated for other reasons, and the extreme one-sidedness of US support for Israel is one of them." So that is why South America is turning heads over heels against the US....Israel, eh? JPCollado

In fact, this MAY be the sole reason for much of the hatred the US has garnered throughout the world.

Wrong -- the US is hated for other reasons, and the extreme one-sidedness of US support for Israel is one of them.

Yeah, if only all our presidents weren’t as even-handed as Jimmy Carter. Why those Iranians would never have even dreamed of taking those hostages at the embassy.

Jimmy Carter was not to blame for the Iran hostage crisis. In that crisis, the US even had the support of Iraq and Libya's Gadafi (sp?). Larry Fafarman

Just for the record Larry Fafarman, I don't have any of those things. Didn't even know when his birthday was until someone on this site wrote about it. The only Darwin memorabilia I own is a copy of On the Origin of Species and I suspect that is more than what most 'Darwinists' own. Perhaps I have to go shopping, maybe get myself one of those silly Darwin fish with the legs... leo

jerry, It wasn't really an argument, just a question. I did not say that those who support ID had any sort of problem with modern biology. Indeed, I did not mention ID at anytime in my post. Frankly, I'm really not sure where you're coming from here. Simply, I was wondering if anyone had thoughts on why Darwinism would influence some to destroy life (I freely admit that Darwin had an influence on Nazi ideology, along with a great many other things) while it influences others to a lifetime of preserving life? leo

“One of the main reasons for Moslems’ hatred or dislike of the USA has been the USA’s extremely one-sided support of Israel.” Yeah, if only all our presidents weren't as even-handed as Jimmy Carter. Why those Iranians would never have even dreamed of taking those hostages at the embassy. . . .Oh . . .Wait. tribune7

Larry Farfarman: "One of the main reasons for Moslems’ hatred or dislike of the USA has been the USA’s extremely one-sided support of Israel." Well, the CIA meddling into the affairs of other countries doesn't help either. In fact, this MAY be the sole reason for much of the hatred the US has garnered throughout the world. Osama was not a household name before the advent of Desert Storm. JPCollado

Lise Meitner is the Jew whose ideas led to the nuclear bomb. She is the one who understood the potential from nuclear fission., jerry

leo, What a silly argument. Is this the best a biologist can do? Those who support ID have no problem with any of modern biology. None of it is based on Darwin's ideas of macro evolution. I would have thought that a biologist would understand this. jerry

Rude said (#45),

Admitting the guilt of our ancestors is as American as apple pie—in fact “liberal guilt” now almost completely defines one of our political parties. Those who have never owned up to anything are the Darwinists. Let’s not enable their denial.

The Darwinists have morbid, sadistic and Strangelovian fascinations with the pernicious social effects of their theory. They don't just tolerate Darwin -- they worship him. There are huge Darwin's Birthday celebrations. "I love Darwin" knick-knacks. Darwin Sunday sermons. Darwin-Lincoln birthday essay contests. Darwinian birthday cakes. Darwin bobblehead dolls. "Friend of Darwin" certificates handed out at a reunion of the Dover plaintiffs. What other famous scientist -- e.g., Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, and Kelvin -- is worshipped to such an extent?

But isn’t averting the eyes from this link to the violence of history’s most violent century pretty a little like the present urge not to mention the Islamic connection of 98.9% of today’s terrorism?

One of the main reasons for Moslems' hatred or dislike of the USA has been the USA's extremely one-sided support of Israel. For example, none of the other 14 members of the UN Security Council ever voted "no" in support of any of about 40 US vetoes of proposed resolutions aimed at Israel in the period 1972-2006. There was an unbroken string of ten 14-1 (i.e., no abstentions) such US vetoes in the period 1988-1997. That is inexcusable. And we wonder why they call us "The Great Satan." See http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html Larry Fafarman

I wonder what people think of the fact that the (usually) most knowledgeable about, and (usually) most adamant defenders of Darwinism are biologists - and being a biologist means (generally) working you whole life in an attempt to prolong and improve the lives of the sick (the 'unfit' in many cases). Indeed, I think we can generally agree that the massive increase in health care over the past century which has prolonged billions of lives is a direct result of the work of Darwinists. Why the dichotomy? leo

A Jew’s idea led to the atom bomb... As I pointed out in another thread, Einstein didn't argue that a master race would emerge based on his science which would use atomic weapons to exterminate lower races. I suppose that if such a hypothetical Einstein was as passive aggressive as Darwin he would have promoted evil ideas in the name of "science" and Progress and then cried a few tears about the demise of vestigial religious instincts. What was the rationalization behind those laws which preceded Darwin’s birth by 200 years? Darwin himself was fond of pointing out that his reasoning proceeded him. He couldn't have come up with many of his ideas without the rationalizations behind the laws which you now point to as if they absolve him of responsibility for holding to the same ideas. So you think that the Darwinian rationalization for such laws is wrong but that Darwin is absolved of responsibility for promoting similar ideas because someone else thought them first? There is essentially nothing new under the sun. mynym

Regarding my post in #32, a quote that hints at the non-Christian and "survival of the fittest" characteristics of the NAZI movement:

Bourgeois social theory is primarily concerned with the individual. It is thus essentially determined by pity, or compassion, or the Christian love of one’s neighbor or similar conviction. Our Socialist ideas and actions have nothing whatsoever to do with such notions. Our starting-point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked — those are not our objectives. Our objectives are entirely different. They can be put most crisply in the sentence: we must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world.—Dr. Goebbels

Sounds like applied Darwinism to me. William Wallace

Dear Dave, The Darwin-Nazi connection seems to be a sore spot—I’m not sure why (tho admittedly I’m pretty dense at times). But isn’t averting the eyes from this link to the violence of history’s most violent century pretty a little like the present urge not to mention the Islamic connection of 98.9% of today’s terrorism? Pointing out the obvious does not mean we whitewash the Inquisition, or ignore any past or potential ideological hubris or excess. Aside from its unsavory perversion of science, the Darwin monopoly is dangerous and we should not blind our eyes as to why.

It almost seems like I’m the only person here willing to admit the sins of my ancestors.

Admitting the guilt of our ancestors is as American as apple pie—in fact “liberal guilt” now almost completely defines one of our political parties. Those who have never owned up to anything are the Darwinists. Let’s not enable their denial. Rude

The following important considerations are commonly ignored in debates over Darwinism's influence on Nazism: (1) Nazi anti-semitism targeted the fit as well as the unfit and so was not a true eugenics program. In fact, one of the first things the Nazis did after coming to power was fire Jewish managers and professionals in the civil service. Eugenics' contribution to Nazi persecution of Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc. might have been in establishing the idea that it was morally OK to get rid of undesirables in general, not just the unfit. (2) A "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. It is one thing to say that Darwinism's influence on the Nazis has nothing to do with Darwinism's scientific merits, and another thing entirely to say that that influence did not exist at all. Also, to those who deny that there was a connection between Darwinism and eugenics: The Station for Experimental Evolution merged with the Eugenics Record Office in 1920 to form the Carnegie Institution's Department of Genetics. DaveScot (Comment #11) said,

The decision to drop the bomb was to get Japan to surrender to the United States quickly, before the Russians could get there, and prevent the dividing of Japan in half as spoils of war like was done to Germany.

The situations of Germany and Japan were entirely different. Germany is on the mainland of Europe and could easily be attacked and invaded by Russia's land forces. Japan is an island nation and could not be attacked and invaded without a strong navy and/or air force, and I doubt Russia had either at the time. Also, there were no "spoils of war" -- it cost the US a lot of money to help rebuild Germany and the rest of Europe (Marshall Plan). One thing I find especially disturbing is that Nagasaki was bombed only three days after Hiroshima was bombed, not giving the Japanese enough time to respond to the Hiroshima bombing. Larry Fafarman

I have not read all the details of everyone's arguments nor have I read Weikart's book about the influence of Darwinian ideas on the holocaust and other parts of the Nazi eugenics movement. There were certainly large scale anti-Semitic activities before the Nazis which resulted in much death and disruption of the Jews. There were certainly many ideas of promoting better breeding before the eugenics movement. Dave points to anti-miscegenation laws in many places long times before Darwin. The idea of class was alive and well in Victorian England. There is no natural link between Darwin's idea of natural selection and eugenics. But what led to the eugenics movement just after Darwin's publications and what caused the leadership of the movement to be highly associated with Darwin's family and people promoting Darwinian evolution? Is there no connection? I could speculate and I am sure many others have but there must be a connection between the two especially in Germany. What effect does the concept of "Survival of the Fittest" have on this progression and this is definitely connected with Darwin even though he may not be the originator of the term. Survival of the fittest does not necessarily lead to the holocaust but in some distorted minds I can see where it could. What Darwin did was release a a bunch of Genies out of the bottle and most people of good conscious could ignore some of these genies, some couldn't. One of the genies was that some people are better than others and of course whoever your people are will be the ones that are better. Another genie released is that there is no reason for God in any part of biological life with the implication there is no need of God period. To me the latter is the worse genie especially since Darwin's ideas are bogus and have never been supported by science for the most important of his ideas. Namely, that natural processes can account for macro evolution. jerry

Clarification... I wrote: "So, though I’m opposed to Darwinian evolution, and discarding it forever." I shoud have wrote: "So, though I’m opposed to the idea Darwinian evolution, and support the idea of discarding it forever.[...]" JGuy

DaveScot: Also, keep in mind that this blog(UD) is all about promoting or defending ID as a scientific alternative to strict materialism. Collectively, it is probably far larger than all of Darwin's writings. I do sense your point on people trying to explain with much writings. Adn it can be an indicator of a struggling idea. BUT not always and not necessarily even most often. So, though I'm opposed to Darwinian evolution, and discarding it forever. I'm not for discarding it based on size of it's competing literature. JGuy

DaveScot:

"Yeah, we should. Taking 600 pages to define and defend something as simple as natural selection is a big red flag that the author doth protest too much."

But Darwin's writings are not just defending NS. If so, then you are saying that natural selection should be trashed. I don't know anyone that considers natural selection (properly understood) as something that should be trashed. But Darwin's writings were also about an idea for the origin of species, etc... Never-the-less, writing on ideas & concepts often does take much writing. Consider the expression "a picture is worth a thousand words". If that expression is true - and I think it is close enough to treu. Then how many more words would one have to write for subject matters that can't be easily (if at all) drawn regarding ideas and concepts? JGuy

Er, excuse me...that should be "eugenics." (The "euthanasia" program soon followed.) Lutepisc

Dave, it looks as if you are not persuaded by Weikart. What about the U.S. Holocaust Museum? Are they a credible source on the link between Darwin's ideas and euthanasia in Germany in the years leading up to WW II? Lutepisc

That's something which irritated me at Expelled: Thinking of the holocaust as irreducibly complex, with Darwin's ideas as necessary conditions. Different nazis had different motives and motivations, and Adolf Hitler played to all their intentions, whether they were (pseudo-)religious or (pseudo-)scientific. OTOH, resisting Hitler didn't imply to be against Darwin's theory... And no, I'm not a contemporary, neither of Hitler nor of Darwin... DiEb

jonathan By this “reasoning”, we should junk evolution too automatically Yeah, we should. Taking 600 pages to define and defend something as simple as natural selection is a big red flag that the author doth protest too much. DaveScot

MR: " Of course you cannot be a biblical literalist and a Darwinian, but I have often pointed out that biblical literalism is not traditional Christianity but an idiosyncratic form of American Protestant evangelical Christianity, from the first half of the nineteenth century - we now know owing much to the theology of the Seventh-day Adventists." It's high time that this falsehood by Ron Numbers was dropped. It's easy to show that young-earth global Flood creation was the view of all the Church Fathers (e.g. Basil the Great) and Reformers (e.g. Calvin), and was defended by the Scriptural Geologists long before anyone had heard of seventh day adventism. Jonathan Sarfati

DaveScot "Weikart wrote 700 pages attempting to link Darwin to Hitler. If Weikart thought he needed 700 pages to make his case you can rest assured he has no case to make." What sort of crass argument is that? By this "reasoning", we should junk evolution too automatically, since Darwin's Origin was over 600 pages, and was originally intended as an abstract for a much longer work. Jonathan Sarfati

jaz The hardback edition is 354 pages. Of course I have the large print edition which is twice as many pages. DLH Well the buck in this case stops at a man (Truman) who burned alive hundreds of thousands of women and children in two brief instants. The notion that it was to save lives in a U.S. land invasion was a lie to hide a less noble reason - keeping Russian influence in the post-war world to a minimum. DaveScot

Many persons, ideologies and countries share blame in the holocaust, including Darwinism, Malthusian Population theories, the United States, etc. The final solution was to the Jewish Question popularized by a U.S. industrialist Henry Ford, in his collections of of inflammatory essays, The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem. Ford's influence was admitted during the Nuremberg trials. Furthermore, other countries, including the U.S., were reluctant to accept the "average" Jew who was trying to flee from Germany. For example, see The Voyage of the Damned, in which the U.S. turned away over 900 Jews who were trying to flee Germany, back to Germany, in 1939. My 100 year old great aunt tells of "gentile only" signs in Wisconsin parks during this time. The point is, nobody is claiming that Darwinism alone is to blame for the holocaust. (Ben Stein even mentioned Thomas Malthus in the film Expelled, but the tour guide seemed clueless about Malthus's role.) But it is certainly a form of holocaust denial to assert Darwinian ideology is blameless. On the other hand, very little mention of Ford's role in the holocaust at Henry Ford (Time 100), either; an assembly line and the T.o.E. are more important legacies than 6 million dead, to a liberal. William Wallace

I grabbed the wrong link Thanks Denyse. I think that article was posted here previously. bevets

DaveScot on Truman Maybe looking to show more sides of the issue? Truman was from the "Show Me State" and accepted responsibility saying "The buck stops here". DLH

beavets Here is Weikart's recent 2 page article: Darwin and the Nazis DLH

DaveScot If Weikart thought he needed 700 pages to make his case you can rest assured he has no case to make. Here it is in one page. Is that too short? bevets

I have Weikart's _From Darwin to Hitler_ (paperback), and it checks in at a compact 233 pages of text, plus 60 pages of notes and bibliography. Jaz

DLH I lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis. I don't figure that really makes me any more expert than anyone else on it. I'm not sure why you're defending Truman. Lutepisc Somehow, in 700 pages linking Darwin to Holocaust, Weikart forgets to mention the American Eugenics movement that preceded and inspired the German Eugenics program. America had racial purity laws on the books (anti-miscegenation) from colonial days through 1967. What was the rationalization behind those laws which preceded Darwin's birth by 200 years? DaveScot

DaveScot I'd better write up ID theory rather than delving into what I only lived through. DLH

DLH I'll see your 500 pages on the Cold War and raise you 350 pages in the referenced book on the political decision to drop the bomb on Japan. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html DaveScot

Darwin’s being made into a scapegoat in a lame attempt to smear anyone associated with the name.

Dave, to the best of my knowledge no one here is trying to "smear anyone associated with the name" of Darwin...any more than the "other side" is attempting to smear anyone associated with the name of Luther. At least I hope not. The fact is, though, that Luther's anti-Judaism contributed to the Holocaust, just as the biological theories of Darwin (which were obviously unknown to Luther) did. At least that's how the U.S. Holocaust Museum sees it. They explain the link between Darwin and eugenics in Germany leading up to WW II this way:

By keeping the "unfit" alive to reproduce and multiply, eugenics proponents argued, modern medicine and costly welfare programs interfered with natural selection–the concept Charles Darwin applied to the “survival of the fittest” in the animal and plant world."

See http://tinyurl.com/4hpff4 Weikart's 700-page tome makes this a slam dunk, just as the Holocaust's museum's narrative does. I don't see any defense left, except denial. But acknowledgement would be much more productive. I really don't understand all the defensiveness. Lutepisc

DaveScott

It almost seems like I’m the only person here willing to admit the sins of my ancestors.

So, as a half German Lutheran, can I speak out against the sins of my ancestors? Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children."

"If you board the wrong train, it's no use running along the corridor in the other direction."

Martin Luther

" . . .to go against conscience is neither right nor safe"

George Santayana

"Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

DLH

toc The Comparison That Ends the Conversation Senator Is Latest to Regret Nazi Analogy By Mark Leibovich Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 22, 2005; Page C01 I suppose I should just drop it. DaveScot

DaveScot Glad to hear my understanding of history is only "appalling" and not "terrible". e.g., A summary discussion of the traditionalist vs revisionist historian perspecties is given by Michael Kort in The Use of the Atomic Bomb against Japan in The Columbia Guide to the Cold War (1998) ISBN:0231107730, pp 19-21. On the creator's writing, would ID consider creation of an intelligent design by an intelligent designer to be a way to communicate that design to another intelligent designer, which by implication would politely communicate the capabilities of that intelligent designer? DLH

DaveScot says, "I don’t understand why an omnipotent creator of universes had to recruit men to write down his thoughts for him. Darwin is easy to understand." But what does that have to do with the materialist's inability to objectively define "good" or "noble" or any other virtue? Gerry Rzeppa

DaveScot There is something many people don't know. The three original nuclear bombs -- Trinity, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki -- consumed all the bomb-fissionable U-235 and plutonium available at the time. My father helped to develop the Trinity and Nagasaki bombs. As a child I had many discussions with my father about the ethical uses of the A-bomb. One thing should be considered: The fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo killed far more people than did the A-bombs. One should ask the question, Of whom were these people the victims, the allies, or the monstrous dictators who led their people into destruction? GilDodgen

DaveScot "Weikart wrote 700 pages attempting to link Darwin to Hitler." Admittedly, I haven't read Weikart's book, but excessive verbosity doesn't necessarily falsify his conclusions. If Darwin is to be understood as normative the consequences of his ideas have philosophical implications. You may be right that there is no direct link to Darwin by Adolph Hitler, but Darwin certainly seems to have laid the groundwork for an intellectual justification for such atrocities. Clearly, Darwin foresaw this problem as did Nietzsche. Dostoevski was right, without God, all things are permissible. I don't quite understand your stridence on this issue. All Darwinists are not haters of humankind anymore than all Christians are supporters of the Crusades. toc

DLH Then a South African spelled out on how to keep different species of elephants apart. Been there, done that. Anti-miscegenation laws are as American as apple pie dating back at least to the colonies in the 1600's. It almost seems like I'm the only person here willing to admit the sins of my ancestors. DaveScot

DLH Your ignorance of history is appalling. Rather than continue to correct you I'm going to ignore you. Gerry Well, let me join you in not understanding things. I don't understand why an omnipotent creator of universes had to recruit men to write down his thoughts for him. Darwin is easy to understand. He was British. Born to rule and sacrifice. The Brits thought (still think) they're superior to everyone else. DaveScot

DaveScot asks, "Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man that human sympathy was the noblest part of his nature. What part of that don’t you understand?" The part about "noble". I don't know how one objectively defines that term without reference the Noble One who is nobility itself: God. All other definitions are arbitrary. I made this point in another thread. I'm sure that many a German prison guard thought himself significantly more "noble" than the Jews he was persecuting: stronger, healthier, more likely to survive, better dressed, a member of the master race, genetically pure, etc. Gerry Rzeppa

DaveScot at 11 Suggest you take into account the GI's experience of ultra stubborn Japanese kamakazi attacks and defense to the death mentality, while retaking one island after another across the "Pacific." DLH

DaveScot at 8

If Weikart thought he needed 700 pages to make his case you can rest assured he has no case to make.

A South African told me the following story as I recollect:

A French scholar waxed eloquent on the love life of the elephant. An American quickly wrote on how to breed bigger and better elephants. A German carefully wrote a tome on the trunk of the elephant. Then a South African spelled out on how to keep different species of elephants apart.

PS the Germanic race is reputed to be thorough. Weikart's 700 pages sounds like a preliminary Germanic "tract" to provide sufficient documentation to counter objections from even the most obdurate scholar. DLH

DLH Japan by that time was rendered incapable of offensive action. The decision to drop the bomb was to get Japan to surrender to the United States quickly, before the Russians could get there, and prevent the dividing of Japan in half as spoils of war like was done to Germany. Truman's excuse that he burned-alive a million women and children in order to save a half million young men is a bald faced lie. It was to keep the Russians out of the picture, nothing more and nothing less. DaveScot

Gerry Darwin wrote in the Descent of Man that human sympathy was the noblest part of his nature. What part of that don't you understand? DaveScot

DaveScot How can you stop tyrants bent on totalitarianism? On your comment:

...killing and maiming non-combatant women and children in ways too horrible to think about.

President Trumen describes his reasons:

I have been rather careful not to comment on the articles that have been written on the dropping of the bomb for the simple reason that the dropping of the bomb was completely and thoroughly explained in my Memoirs, and it was done to save 125,000 youngsters on the American side and 125,000 on the Japanese side from getting killed and that is what it did. It probably also saved a half million youngsters on both sides from being maimed for life.

Chicago Sun Times August 5, 1963 DLH

DLH Weikart wrote 700 pages attempting to link Darwin to Hitler. If Weikart thought he needed 700 pages to make his case you can rest assured he has no case to make. You might write 700 pages on Nazi rocket science and really need that many pages but "survival of the fittest" is hardly rocket science. DaveScot

DaveScot says, sarcastically, "So Darwin’s ideas led to the holocaust." I didn't say that. But different philosophies encourage men to be better or worse than they would otherwise be. I think you've said as much yourself in other threads. I also believe it's hard to get anything good out of a philosophy that makes it impossible to objectively define the term! Gerry Rzeppa

MR: "Well, of course this assumes that free market economics yields Western prosperity. I would have thought that FDR’s new deal had something to do with America’s success and this has little to do with free market economics." So Ruse is an lefty economic ignoramus as well. He should read FDR's Folly by Jim Powell and The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes. They argue that FDR prolonged the Depression by his constant meddling. Businessmen and investors held back from investing because of the uncertainty of how the Government would shift the goalposts again. FDR's goons also legally destroyed food to keep prices high, while people starved. Previous and future recessions were over in a year or two when governments resisted the urge to "do something". Herbert Hoover was no laissez faire capitalist either. He was a control freak, according to Shlaes, who supported intervention and signed the disastrous Smoot–Hawley tariff bill. Jonathan Sarfati

In Expell-ing the Outrage: Hitler and Darwinism", Denyse O'Leary cites Richard Weikart showing Hitler using Darwin's concepts, especially in Hitler's "Zweites Buch" ("Second Book").

Hitler stated: "In the limitation of this living space lies the compulsion for the struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival, in turn, contains the precondition for evolution."

Even "Mein Kampf" means "My Struggle", etc. DLH

Gerry So Darwin's ideas led to the holocaust. Even if that were true, in the same conflict, the following is most certainly true: A Jew's idea led to the atom bomb and a Christian ordered two of them to be dropped on major cities killing and maiming non-combatant women and children in ways too horrible to think about. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. ~Jesus Christ People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. ~Unknown DaveScot

DaveScot says, sarcastically, "Anyone with half a brain ought to make the connection between wars and Darwin. The human race was so peaceful and nice before Darwin came along. Now look at it. Disgusting. All the fault of Charles Darwin." The difference, Dave, is that Darwinian philosophy considers the depravity of man just one more facet of survival of the fittest in an amoral universe. Christian theology, on the other hand, rightly recognizes men as both fallen and sinful. Admitting there's a problem is prerequisite to solving it. Gerry Rzeppa

Stash Anyone with half a brain ought to make the connection between wars and Darwin. The human race was so peaceful and nice before Darwin came along. Now look at it. Disgusting. All the fault of Charles Darwin. His real name was Lucifer. Can I get an amen on that my brother? DaveScot

How many times does the phrase "battle for life" come up in the Origin of Species? It's there over and over again. Battles have winners and losers -- they are about inequalities and invidious distinctions. To say that Darwin was not an intellectual forebear of Hitler is simply ludicrous. Stash