Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Weikart-Ruse Debate in STANFORD REVIEW

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This just published at the STANFORD REVIEW:

The Impact of Darwinism
By Tristan Abbey

With the premiere of Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled, many people are pondering the long-term impact of Darwinism on society. We touched base with two experts on the subject. Arguing that Darwinism has had a largely positive impact on society is Michael Ruse, the Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy at Florida State University. Arguing that Darwinism has had a largely negative impact on society is Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus. . . .

ACCORDING TO WEIKART: “[I]n the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries most leading Darwinists, including Darwin, tended to stress human inequality more than equality, in part because evolution requires biological variability. Darwin stated in The Descent of Man: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” By the mid-twentieth century and thereafter most Darwinists abandoned racial inequality, stressing the common ancestry of all humans. . . .”

CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE DEBATE

Comments
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
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
“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
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
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
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Lise Meitner is the Jew whose ideas led to the nuclear bomb. She is the one who understood the potential from nuclear fission.,jerry
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
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
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
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.htmlLarry Fafarman
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
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
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
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
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
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
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
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
April 28, 2008
April
04
Apr
28
28
2008
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
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
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
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
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
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
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
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
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
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
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Er, excuse me...that should be "eugenics." (The "euthanasia" program soon followed.)Lutepisc
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
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
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
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
April 27, 2008
April
04
Apr
27
27
2008
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
I grabbed the wrong link Thanks Denyse. I think that article was posted here previously.bevets
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
09:44 PM
9
09
44
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
beavets Here is Weikart's recent 2 page article: Darwin and the NazisDLH
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
DaveScot I'd better write up ID theory rather than delving into what I only lived through.DLH
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply