The Road to the Holocaust — Darwin or the Pope?

[...] Uncommon Descent | The Road to the Holocaust — Darwin or the …Apr 20, 2008 … it is noteworthy that even if Charles Darwin had killed all six million Jews in the Holocaust himself because of the conclusions he drew from his … [...] Darwin holocaust | Aiacompany

Spartans killed their own children that were considered weak either physically or mentally. I presume they guessed with their physic powers what the Darwinian theory will be. Referring to the nazis is just a cheap way for creationists to symbolize evil to the general public. Grow up. Compton

The Nazi holocaust was only a culmination of a far more pervasive growing trend that was embraced in the United States as well. The law in question in the famous Scopes monkey trial was not about forbidding instruction in evolution but rather exclusively about the treatment of man in evolutionary terms. Understood in context, we can see exactly why people were concerned and what they were trying to avoid. Here is an excerpt from the site www.TheMonkeyTrial.com -- an extremely eye opening site and highly recommended if you don't mind letting go of the "Inherit the Wind" mythology.

Bryan did not oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools. For a number of reasons noted below he did oppose teaching the evolution of mankind (one species) as scientific fact and especially in the manner in which evolutionary theory was practically being applied in his day. As Bryan wrote in the New York Times: The only part of evolution in which any considerable interest is felt is evolution applied to man. A hypothesis in regard to the rocks and plant life does not affect the philosophy upon which one's life is built. Evolution applied to fish, birds, and beasts would not materially affect man's view of his own responsibilities. . . . The evolution that is harmful . . . is the evolution that makes [man himself] a descendant of lower forms of life. (Feb. 26, 1922) Specifically—and this is very important to understanding both the Butler Act and the trial—Bryan opposed those applications of Darwinism to mankind that were rapidly gaining popularity and were contained in Prof. Hunter’s Civic Biology. These teachings included (1) that mankind can be described in terms of five “races” of differing evolutionary status with the Caucasian race being the most advanced, followed by the “yellow” race, etc.—p. 196, (2) that public houses for the poor and asylums for the sick or insane make no sense from an evolutionary perspective and should be at least reconsidered if not dramatically curtailed—p. 263, (3) that certain “parasitic” elements of the human population should not have children (“If such people were lower animals,” Hunter writes, “we would probably kill them off”) and, in some cases, such reproduction should be forcibly prevented (“Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe”)—p. 263, (4) that society’s business classes should be given generous economic latitude (known as “hands off” or “laissez faire” capitalism) to further advance the most successful members of the human species—p. 261ff, and (5) that the gap between the monkeys and the most evolved apes is akin to the gap between those apes and the lowest human “savages”—p. 195. The above teachings were favorably referred to as “eugenics”—a term invented by Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton—and generally pertain to the active management of the gene pool of the human species by the more evolved over the less evolved. This was scary stuff gaining momentum in the 1920s and, as noted below, no longer confined to discussions in Ivory Towers. Statutes permitting sterilizations by force, laws forbidding marriages between people of different races (miscegenation), immigration quotas favoring Northern Europeans (Caucasians), and economic policies benefiting the most successful capitalists, were all popular policies advanced by elitists (university professors, industrialists, Planned Parenthood, liberal ministers, etc.) who self-consciously and persuasively invoked the “scientific” principles of Darwinism. Despite vocal opposition primarily from people outside the academic and scientific communities such as Bryan and the popular evangelist Billy Sunday (both of whom regarded all men as created equal by God), eugenics enjoyed steadily increasing currency in the 1920s, especially among liberal academics. Nazi Germany eventually brought to horrific fruition many of Bryan’s worst fears and put a halt to public support for eugenics and its euphemistic “civic biology” (recall here the title of Hunter's biology textbook).

ericB

Stone (73, responding to DLH): "Empirical evidence for design would be to look for patterns by which a designer would be required. There are many monoliths that are simply the result of natural processes." If you mean simply "a single great stone ..." or "a massive structure", sure. Nature can produce many of those. But how many have perfectly flat sides with dimensions 1 by 4 by 9 (the squares of 1, 2, 3) and a host of other unusual properties. DLH didn't simply refer to just any old monolith but rather to that particular one with its obviously non-natural properties. That said, the general sense of your first statement seems right. We look for effects that are not plausibly within the reach of undirected processes. The design filter seeks to weed out cases that might plausibly be explained by undirected law+chance. If they are not within the reach of the limits of undirected processes, then the best causal inference is to directed processes, i.e. intelligent agency. Of course, all scientific inferences are tentative, being made with the best evidence available at a given time. ericB

Keep the Reason at 94 Translation of DaveScott at 92 "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Perhaps you could demonstrate how the information in the genome arose by chance and necessity and obtain a patent on the process. (Guaranteed a Nobel prize if you can! - Hint: The Patent Office will not patent perpetual motion machines.) "How many times must I repeat it? Do the work. Go for it. Get the evidence." See The Biologic Institute See Evolutionary Informatics Lab In the interest of science and the public good, will you help raise the funds to do so? --------------- "What “scientific” explanation can you provide for the Origin Of Life? ======== Right now, none." Good - no one else does either. Which was why Stein asked. ------------------- "Please explain such guidelines to me, " See Comment Moderation Policy ------------------------ ". . .since you take me to task for accusing Stein of deceit (which can be backed up by numerous people), but you say nothing to Stone for saying “Dawkins should lean to hold his tongue”, . . ." That is a tu quoque logical fallacy. A subset of Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial) ----------------------------- I said "No ad hominem arguments. "Excuse me, are you taking me to task for calling Ben Stein deceitful in his methods — as an ad hominem in this debate??" Yes ---------------- "I make NO moral judgments on people who do or don’t believe in evolution, and have argued 180 degrees apart from that. Please show where I’ve made this argument you’ve accused me of." Then study your use of words like: "deceit", "deceitful", "perpetrator", "horribly", "wrong", e.g.,

If someone embraces this methodology, then they can only be purposely deceitful (since they know science doesn’t work that way), by pretending science does work that way.

That politely is begging the argument, since ID is showing examples where science DOES identify intelligent causes etc. Evolutionists are trying to define science to explicitly exclude all possibilities of intelligent causation. I encourage you to take a break and learn more about logical fallacies and how to avoid them, especially ad hominem arguments. Also study about moral judgments, speaking the truth, accusing people of wrongdoing etc. DLH

Keep the reason: One quick point and one extended one. 1) On ID: One thing you need to realize is that ID can detect design but it cannot establish the IDENTITY of the designer. Your references to the supernatural suggest that you are not making that distinction. Unless you learn what a design inference really is, you will criticize ID for what it is not and not for what it is, which is what you are doing. 2) On Darwinism: You cannot simply build a civil society on the hope that we will all agree to be nice to each other. In fact, there are plenty of people will not conform to altruistic principles. Indeed, those who lust after power, the very ones who will be able to use the power of the state against us, don’t want to get along, they want to dominate and enslave. That is why we have the rule of law, which in turn, is supposed to be based on the natural moral law. The natural moral law teaches us that the “inherent dignity of every human person is not something to be negotiated or arrived at by consensus. It is build into nature. That is what is meant by “natural rights.” The Darwinist principle denies that any right can be natural, because it insists that there can be any such principle in nature. Any rights that are not natural are not inalienable and can be withheld at any time. StephenB

Interesting thread here! I for one am very glad that Ben Stein included the Darwinism-Holocaust connection. Today's phlegmatic, politically correct culture needs the conversation! For sixty years we’ve discussed the Christian anti-Semitism connection—and it’s been for the good. That the Church tortured and burned to death its tens of thousands should never be forgotten. And by and large Christendom has not shied from considering a Nazi connection, and many have expressed sorrow and shame for the past. But what a difference now when just the whif of a mention of a Darwinian connection and the folks come out snorting like banshees. That for me is the best sign that the discussion is long overdue! Rude

Stone: There is plenty of evidence for design. The fact our species has nearly created the first synthetic microbe is the only evidence needed to demonstrate that intelligent agents can create life.

this shows that design is possible, not that it happened to cause life on earth. it is possible to do many things that have not happened in history before. Kep the Reason - good posts. alext

keep_the_reason And really, the first thing you need to do is stop pretending that every gap in evolution means ID must be the option B. That’s horribly UNscientific, and every last one of you knows it. I'll agree to that if you stop pretending that everything in evolution is chance & necessity. That's horribly UNscientific, and every last one of you knows it. DaveScot

Keep the Reason

And really, the first thing you need to do is stop pretending that every gap in evolution means ID must be the option B. That’s horribly UNscientific, and every last one of you knows it.

You are accusing everyone here of "pretending" and of being "horribly UNscientific". That is not civil debate.

Stein attempts to make Dawkins look like a fool for admitting that it’s possible that the ID might be “aliens” in “Expelled” — more deceit.)

Again you accuse of "deceit". Stein gave Dawkins sufficient time to clearly express his beliefs on possible causes of biotic systems. Dawkins now appears to be expanding on his performance in Expelled with similar declarations. You appear to be basing your arguments on materialism or philosophical naturalism and claiming those who do not hold to your worldview are morally wrong. The critical issue is whether "Science" can empirically detect intelligent causation. It is being used in forensics, archeology, and reverse engineering etc. Evolutionists acknowlege that biotic systems have the appearance of being designed. Over 700 credentialed scientists are skeptical of the capabilities of neo-Darwinian theory to explain the origin of biotic systems. What "scientific" explanation can you provide for the Origin Of Life? Mathematical population models do not appear to support neo-Darwinian explanations of observed complex biotic systems. Natural law cannot explain the origin of coded information. Stochastic methods does not provide an explanation either. Thus, for those not committed to philosophical naturalism, it appears reasonable to see if theories of Intelligent Design can be developed to explain such systems. We respect freedom of conscience and of speech - but require civil discourse. You have one last chance to respond civilly, and address substantitive issues without accusing those here of egregious violations of their consciences. DLH

"That’s fine. When you have the evidence, we’ll look at it" There is plenty of evidence for design. The fact our species has nearly created the first synthetic microbe is the only evidence needed to demonstrate that intelligent agents can create life. " (let’s remind everyone that Stein attempts to make Dawkins look like a fool for admitting that it’s possible that the ID might be “aliens” in “Expelled” — more deceit.)" Um no, dawkins stuttering through his arguments was his own fault, not ben stein. Unless you have a demonstratable way of showing ben stein controlling mr. Dawkins speech, I'm afraid he's just a zealot, who's yet to learn how to hold his tongue... "what its goals are are well known too." I'm sorry, are you suggesting you speak for the ID movement? What gives you such authority? "Frankly, I think you folks are resting on the short attention span and scientific ignorance of most Americans–" LOL how adorable, as though you could speak for most Americans as well... I'm sorry but you sound like an ignorant elitist who's spent much too time talking to people who carry the same ideas as yourself. you aren't in a position to comment on most Americans. Nor is anyone else, as most Americans haven't been polled with such questions, I certainly haven't, nor has anyone I know. You aren't psychic or all knowing, just incredibly self important. " Most Americans ARE very poorly read when it comes to science" Funny, could you remind me then why it is most of the world uses our innovations? lol ", and they don’t know the difference between biological Darwinism and Social Darwinism," Right, one couldn't have any implications on the other... Science isn't a bureaucracy... just tell yourself that while a group of pot headed professors file papers for those much beloved grants of theirs... No science could never be corrupted *rolls eyes* No no the federal government and the courts aren't touching anything... please just stop... you're embarassing yourself. We know there are lobbyists/judges/professors supporting certain causes and that money all trickles down... Your generalizations are pathetic, and your attempts to take the nazi issue out of context and summarize it as somehow victimizing "Bona fide" lmao... biologists show you couldn't argue your way out of a parking ticket. Save the speaking for those who think before they talk. Stone

DLH, Change "assumption" to either "belief" or "conclusion." jerry

Keep the Reason

No one is replying to my challenges in my rebuttals. DHL so far is the most consistent perpetrator of this.

"Perpetrate: To be responsible for; commit: perpetrate a crime; perpetrate a practical joke." No ad hominem attacks allowed. Your are already getting more attention than you deserve, and much more than my limited time allows. DLH

jerry at 79

One fundamental assumption of ID is that Darwin’s work is not science and as such should not be part of the science curriculum in the schools.

Caution: Please be more accurate in your descriptions. This is NOT "fundamental assumption of ID". See ID Assumptions which say nothing about Darwin. The Discovery Institute advocates teaching MORE about the evidence both supporting (sic) evolution and that which does NOT fit. DLH

ID seeks to detect empirical evidence of Intelligent Design. It explicitly does NOT seek to identify or prove the intelligent cause. It is possible to detect design without proving the designer. See the Monolith in Space Odessy 2001. I don't agree with that analogy, it was not empirical that the monolith in space odessy 2001 was made by an intelligent creator, that's a rationalistic assumption made when you first see it. Empirical evidence for design would be to look for patterns by which a designer would be required. There are many monoliths that are simply the result of natural processes. Stone

Boy, did anyone see the Pope's goodbye speech last night? Because I heard it was just a bunch of creationism. Frost122585

Keep the Reason, One fundamental assumption of ID is that Darwin's work is not science and as such should not be part of the science curriculum in the schools. Darwin collected a lot of data on his trip on the Beagle and made a lot of speculatory claims based on the data. However, there has been no verification of most of his claims since that time both in the fossil record and in the area of micro biology. What has been shown by science is trivial and not disputed by ID. However, his grander claims lay falsified by work in the last 150 years and as such should be removed from textbooks and acknowledged in biology courses. jerry

My replies keep getting canned again..... Upright BiPed

Keep the Reason

Gonzalez’s publication output dropped steadily during his time at ISU.

Consider publishing a textbook in his field, followed by the book, The Privileged Planet during that time! KTR: “They (ID’ers) know they CANNOT do the work, because “the work” involves proving god.” You broadcast your ignorance of ID. See ID assumptions. ID seeks to detect empirical evidence of Intelligent Design. It explicitly does NOT seek to identify or prove the intelligent cause. It is possible to detect design without proving the designer. See the Monolith in Space Odessy 2001. DLH

Sure KTR, let's try it again, perhaps you missed it in the first post. KTR: “They (ID’ers) know they CANNOT do the work, because “the work” involves proving god.” Justify this. Upright BiPed

KTR: "They (ID'ers) know they CANNOT do the work, because “the work” involves proving god." A strawman - completely divorced from reality. I am sure you felt like you had laid the final blow, but instead you seem incapable of fighting the battles at hand, so you resort to fighting the battles you wish. Keep The Reason, you have come here and made several comments that don't make the first rung on the logic ladder (and I am being kind without wanting to be crude). Please enjoy reading David Berlinski's "The Devils Delusion". Upright BiPed

Keep the Reason at 69

horrified by the slaughter of people in Rwanda some years back

Why? Is this not the practical outworking of Darwin's theories and prediction? From your basis, are you not but the chance, historical combination of atoms? Why should we consider your statements to have any meaning beyond random association of memes? Per Francis Schaefer, can you not as easily help a grandmother cross the street as push her in front of a truck? What do you value? And on what basis? I do not see how you provide any basis for value other than "might makes right." Anything beyond that appears probably assimilated from the Judeo-Christian world view of those around you. If you seriously wish to consider moral worth, examine the lives of the greatest individuals of the 20th century. e.g. See David Aikman's Great Souls. 2003 ISBN-10: 0739104381 DLH

Keep the Reason at 66 We have honored your humanity, granting you the privilege of speaking here (supporting your public rights to speech and religion in this moderated forum) to state such opinions. Yes it is good to systematically develop theories. That is why the Discovery Institute advocates AGAINST ID being taught right now in schools. However, what are you doing to support that right of speech, right to religion, and academic inquiry? Gonzalez did the work and published it. Yet atheist religion professor Hector Avalos took it on himself to vilify Gonzalez, leading to Gonzalez's tenure being denied. What will you do to lift this a priori totalitarian discrimination in Scienceand uphold our unalienable rights? DLH

alext at 65

Darwin simply noted a scientific explanation for natural phenomena

Yes, that is the politically correct edition. For a reality check, read Weikart Darwin and the Nazis etc. linked at my post above DLH 59.

Stalin was a Lysenkoist. He thought Darwinian evolution was a scientific manifestation of Capitalism.

You forget that Stalin described Darwin's Origin of Species as the reason he left Christianity and became an atheist -- and urged others to do so. Darwin's explicitly excluding God (or any ID) triggered the world's second most dangerous tyrant. Look at the fruit/consequences of choices based on Darwin's evolutionary theories. DLH

DLH: Stalin

was a Lysenkoist. he thought Darwinian evolution was a scientific manifestation of Capitalism. he had "Darwinist" scientists put to death. Mao closesly followed suit. i don't know enough about Pol Pot to make a case. in any case, leave them out of it. if "Darwinism" is the social ill you make it out to be, it was very much nothing to do with the radical left. but why do you place the blame solely on Darwin - surely Edison must be blamed for his advances in electronics that made Nazism possible? surely the early chemists must be blamed for discovering Chlorine and other poisons? surely we must blame Hitler's mother for ever having conceived the horrible man? Darwin simply noted a scientific explanation for natural phenomena (whether you personally reckon it is true or not is irrelevant to my point here). Expelled seems to be intent on dragging his name through the mud for some later hateful dictator who may or may not have misappropriated his views. it is noteworthy that even if Charles Darwin had killed all six million Jews in the Holocaust himself because of the conclusions he drew from his theory, that would not affect one jot whether or not the theory is true or false. you need actual science to find out the veracity of a science, not whinging and hair-pulling. alext

Keep the Reason, "If anyone disagrees with me, let them ask themselves this: If tomorrow there was solid evidence that proved there was no god, would you personally suddenly become an evil doer?" You justify your own acts by alluding vaguely to reason and sense informing you that they are 'good'. Forget for a moment that many people who believe in God make the exact same arguments as you do with regards to behavior. If tomorrow there was solid evidence that proved there was no true evil or good, what would this conversation matter? If those things are purely subjective, all of your arguments are empty - the only difference between your being a good neighbor and someone mugging a child is subjective and popular view. But if those things are objective, one has to start asking why nature seems to have objective moral principles worked into their fabric. Theists have an answer to that. Do you? nullasalus

On what basis can we decry eugenics and genocide? Those are the practical outworkings of Darwin’s theories into society.

Only if people mistake the words "is" and "ought". In order to do this "outworking", you have need to have principles that allow you to go from what is to what (you think) should be.

We can only decry such by appealing to moral and legal principles outside of Darwin’s theories ...

Quite. In order to take Darwin's ideas out of political philosophy we need to apply some moral principles. But it's only though applying different moral principles that they got in in the first place. Bob O'H

Allen MacNeill wrote,

Knowing what we know now about the political and social effects of eugenics, would anyone (including any evolutionary biologist I know) advocate it, especially in the ways in which it was advocated during the first two decades of the 20th century? I believe that the answer is no; that would certainly be my answer.

Does Peter Singer count? As a more sophisticated exploration of the abolition of man? In Singer's case we are not superior to other mammals, so there is no apparent breeding plan vis a vis euginics, but culling defective children up to a certain point after birth plays a part is his overall ethic. todd

DaveScott at 29

He then extrapolated selection as something that explained not just variation between individuals of the same species but also explained the origin of new species. Attributing more than that to Darwin is either mistaken, uninformed, or dishonest.

By principles of evolution, I refer to "survival of the fittest" or "law of the jungle". See Weikart etc. on how Hitler applied that and Darwin's comments on how future superior human races might exterminate the lesser human races. See Richard Weikart's article Darwin and the Nazis and the discussion here Darwin and the Nazi's discussion at UD. See also discussion under your thread: A complete Darwin quote with a brief translation" DLH post 20 and DLH Post 21 DLH

Allan_MacNeill at 56

From our perspective today, we almost universally decry that branch of technology known as eugenics, but we do this mostly as the result of our historical knowledge of what the technology of eugenics resulted in: at the very least, injustice, and at the very most (and most horrific) genocide.

On what basis can we decry eugenics and genocide? Those are the practical outworkings of Darwin's theories into society. We can only decry such by appealing to moral and legal principles outside of Darwin's theories - and thus to recognizing intelligent causation - or by appealing to transcendent moral principles as in the Judeo-Christian codes etc. DLH