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
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.htmlDaveScot
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT
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, 1963DLH
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
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. ~UnknownDaveScot
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
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
April 26, 2008
April
04
Apr
26
26
2008
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply