Darwin and the Nazis

_{David L. Hagen

April 16, 2008

Darwinism, Evolution, Expelled, Intelligent Design, Philosophy}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Richard Weikart summarizes his devastating research into the Darwinian foundations of Nazis – and the continuation of those themes by modern evolutionists.
———————————————
Darwin and the Nazis
By Richard Weikart Published 4/16/2008 12:07:03 AM American Spectator

Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and some other Darwinists are horrified that the forthcoming documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, will promote Intelligent Design to a large audience when it opens at over a thousand theaters nationwide on April 18. Ironically, their campaign to discredit Ben Stein and the film confirms its main point, which is to expose the persecution meted out by Darwinists to those daring to criticize Darwinian theory.

One aspect of Expelled that troubles Dawkins and some of his colleagues is its treatment of the ethical implications of Darwinism, especially its discussion of the historical connections between Darwinism and Nazism. Isn’t this a bit over-the-top, suggesting that Darwinism has something to do with Nazism? After all, Darwinists today are not Nazis, and Darwinism has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

However, what is most objectionable about the Nazis’ worldview? Isn’t it that they had no respect for human life? Their rejection of the sanctity of human life led the Nazi regime to murder millions of Jews, hundreds of thousands of Gypsies, and about 200,000 disabled Germans. Where did the Nazis get the idea that some human beings were “lives unworthy of life”?

As I show in meticulous detail in my book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, the Nazis’ devaluing of human life derived from Darwinian ideology (this does not mean that all Nazi ideology came from Darwinism). There were six features of Darwinian theory that have contributed to the devaluing of human life (then and now):

1. Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, attacked the “anthropocentric” view that humans are unique and special.

2. Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul. He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.

3. Darwin and other Darwinists recognized that if morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights. Darwin stated in his Autobiography that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”

4. Since evolution requires variation, Darwin and other early Darwinists believed in human inequality. Haeckel emphasized inequality to such as extent that he even classified human races as twelve distinct species and claimed that the lowest humans were closer to primates than to the highest humans.

5. Darwin and most Darwinists believe that humans are locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence. Darwin claimed in The Descent of Man that because of this struggle, “[a]t 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.”

6. Darwinism overturned the Judeo-Christian view of death as an enemy, construing it instead as a beneficial engine of progress. Darwin remarked in The Origin of Species, “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”

These six ideas were promoted by many prominent Darwinian biologists and Darwinian-inspired social thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All six were enthusiastically embraced by Hitler and many other leading Nazis. Hitler thought that killing “inferior” humans would bring about evolutionary progress. Most historians who specialize in the Nazi era recognize the Darwinian underpinnings of many aspects of Hitler’s ideology. . . .

See Full Article at the American Spectator

Richard Weikart is professor of history at California State University, Stanislaus, and author of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (Palgrave Macmillan).

Comments

Allen MacNeill on his website gave a very good argument that Hitler was a creationist. I must give credit where credit is due, and I recommend ID proponents read what he wrote at evolutionlist.blogspot.com filed under "Godwin's Darwin". The arguments he presented could be used against creationists, so it would be good for ID proponents and creationists to be familiar with the very good arguments Allen put forward. I was lucky enough to ask Richard Weikert personally about some of the arguments used to say Hitler was a creationist, most are wrong and I credit Allen for not using those. Allen found some rather novel passages in Hitler's writings. My counter arguement, is that technically, by today's standards, Darwin could be called a creationist as well. So there are some nuances to all of this. Hitler would be better classified as a Darwinist in terms of social Darwinism, imho, but perhaps not in terms of evolution. Dawkins in contrast is against social Darwinism but advocates it at the biological level. Dawkins is at least smart enough to realize that survival of the fittest would imply murderers and rapists are evolutionarily more fit -- an alarming conclusion that was made by Thronhill & Palmer (tendency to rape is selectively favored), and David Buss (tendency to murder is selectively favored). It seems Darwin was a 1. creationist in terms of arguing for an ultimate Creator who made the first life. 2. Darwin was a biolgoical Darwinist in terms of evolution of species 3. Darwin was a social Darwinist If Allen's essay is accurate, Hitler was basically only 1 and 3, and not #2. So I still would classify Hitler as a Darwinist in the social sence, but not a Darwinist as one might regard evolutionary biologist like our good friend Allen MacNeill. I regret a good man like Allen has been tarred by the behavior of others who claim the case for selection like Hitler. Although if we come to terms with selection as what preserves what is good, and Darwin used the word "good", then murderers, rapists, and plunderers like Ghengis Kahn (who fathered 30,000??? kids in the process), was the world's most exceptionally "good" man. In fact, evolutionary biologists called him The Greatest Lover.scordova_{April 18, 2008
April
04
Apr
18
18
2008
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill said (#112)
Larry Fafarman (re #102): Please read my post #96. If you were intending your post as a response to mine, you clearly have a serious reading comprehension problem.
My comment was #104, not #102. No, it was not an answer to #96. All #96 says is,
jerry asked (in #82): “…are you against patriotism?” No, scoundrels who take refuge in it.
Larry Fafarman_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill (117): "The opposite premise – that being an atheist and accepting evolutionary biology is correlated with antisocial behavior – was, I thought, the underlying premise of this thread, was it not?"
No, that would not be a fair characterization. Wiker's objective (echoed by this thread) is to set forth clearly the historical connection of how Darwin's theory and the consequent effect on the perspective toward human life and morality (NOTE the six points listed at the start of the thread) supported the eugenics movement and the Nazi efforts to purify the race. You have affirmed (e.g. in 121) what DLH wrote (in #115): "Better to forthrightly face up to Haeckel and recognize his impact on Social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust etc." No doubt you are aware that not everyone acknowledges these facts and some Darwinists try to deny them. Well then, this thread is reaffirming the truth about those historical facts. It is to be hoped that that perspective shouldn't have continuing application today -- at least, those who still hold that morality is not merely a human construct tend to hope so. Making sure everyone is informed about these facts is part of the safeguard against their spread and reapplication in new, mutated forms. That is why we make holocaust museums and why we remind ourselves how they came to the conclusions they did.ericB_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill (40): "I believe you are referring to this often quote-mined fragment: “[a]t 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.” [emphasis added] I have emphasized the word “will” in the quote above. It is clear from reading Darwin’s published works that he: 1) was an abolitionist who deeply abhorred slavery, and 2) did not ever advocate the extermination of anyone, and certainly not “the savage races”. " I've never claimed that Darwin, the person, preferred that the savage races be exterminated. Indeed, I don't doubt that Darwin wrestled with the conflicts between the implications of his theory and the perspectives he would like to retain (e.g. that humans not only have "sympathy which feels for the most debased" and "benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature" but that these are or at least are considered "noble qualities"). Nevertheless, you haven't affected my point at all. I agree Darwin isn't advocating. Nor is he merely offering an opinion about world events out of the blue, as though it were somehow disconnected with his biological perspective. His prediction about the expected extermination of lesser races is obviously and inescapably the natural conclusion from applying his theory of biological development to humans and their variations. Surely you are not seriously suggesting the two are disconnected, are you? Your points work against you. If Darwin wanted the lesser races exterminated, then one might say he was stepping beyond the implications of his theory for preference's sake. Since he didn't prefer that personally, one must conclude that his description was nevertheless compelled by the implications of his own theory, despite all personal preference. What Darwin predicted, the Nazis set out to fulfill, having placed their national socialism on a "scientific" foundation. I don't think anyone, especially including Wiker, has maintained that Darwinism inevitably leads to Nazi holocaust. On the other hand, it does not seem that you have shown any internal or inherent contradiction between what Darwin taught and its implementation by the Nazis. From the Nazi perspective, why shouldn't they have concluded, based on Darwin's own theory and conclusions, that their final solution was incompatible or inappropriate?ericB_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

As distasteful as some of Charles Darwin’s resulting morality is to me, he nonetheless was a reluctant witness to some of what he saw. But that's part of the point, the socialists and national socialists who believed the mythology of Progress promoted by Darwin often took the same attitude. What's worse, to openly admit to the sins typical to man or to say that every evil thing you say is just an inevitable "fact" of science? Again, it should be pointed out that biologists have a history hiding their judgments in science. E.g.
S. became a missionary for this biomedical vision... As for anti-Semitic attitudes and actions, he insisted that "the racial question... [and] resentment of the Jewish race... had nothing to do with medieval snti-Semitism..." That is, it was all a matter of scientific biology and of community.(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Lifton :130)
Allen_MacNeill said: Saying that Darwinian evolutionary theory was “necessary” for Naziism and the Holocaust is like saying that science was “necessary” for Naziism and the Holocaust... Do you think that Darwinian evolutionary theory is like science?mynym_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

One more inconvenient “fact”: “In actual fact, knowledge meant nothing to Hitler; he was not acquainted with the pleasure or the struggle that goes with its acquisition; to him it was merely useful... Knowledge seems to mean nothing to many biologists because they are trained to imagine away the only known way of knowing anything: sentience and the intelligent agency associated with it. Is it not the attitude of all Darwinists that knowledge must be defined by its usefulness and fitness as defined by natural selection? I'd agree that Hitler had a rather limited intellect in many ways, yet in my experience biologists are just as stupid. Dawkins is a good example of it. For example, recently he wondered why the topic of breeding better musicians could not be brought up again given how much time has past since Hitler. In his own way he was admitting what biologists are generally stupid enough to try to lie about in my experience, the link between Darwinian reasoning and Nazism. As he said: “…if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?” Because biologists seem to tend to believe irrational things it seems to me that it's important to deal with such reasoning. Just pointing out that it's eugenics revisited and relying on a sense of historically based stigma when so many are ignorant of history isn't enough. So why not? It's hubris. There is no reason to assume that humans cannot think through their biology. Dawkins does not know that they cannot, he apparently does not even believe that he cannot. And if it is possible that humans have the ability to imprint mind on matter then mathematical and musical ability may have little to do with the physical substrate which they inform. But back to the stigma, it's important to point out why it's there. As someone opposed to Dawkin’s “biological thinking” in the past noted:
“We are not talking here about a machine, a horse, nor a cow… No, we are talking about men and women, our compatriots, our brothers and sisters. Poor unproductive people if you wish, but does this mean that they have lost their right to live?” And after a couple of poignant examples of specific people killed, the bishop concluded, as he had begun, with Biblical imagery, this time not of Jesus weeping but of “divine justice”—ultimate punishment—for those “making a blasphemy of our faith” by persecuting clergy and “sending innocent people to their death.” He asked that such people (who could only be the Nazi authorities) be ostracized and left to their divine retribution… Galen’s sermon probably had a greater impact than any other one statement in consolidating anti-”euthanasia” sentiment; hence, Bormann’s judgment that the bishop deserved the death penalty.(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Lifton :93-94)(Emphasis added)
A short story for anti-ID biologists: There once was a pack of beasts who tread the same paths they always tread, eating, sleeping and so on. But one day a beast who was more than a beast spoke and said to them, "Why do you tread these paths?" At this the other beasts all turned and tore that beast apart. But language had already been spoken and all the beasts realized they could speak. Even those who argued against it saying, "But we are just beasts would it not be nice to tread the same paths we always tread?" found themselves speaking to do so. So the beasts tried to avoid speaking while sniffing each other to maintain the Herd.mynym_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

specs at 122
FYI. Political science is not considered a life science. Just thought you should know that.
By the same token, FYI. Life science is not considered political science. The evolutionary metaphysical assumptions of materialism or naturalism should be explicitly declared and not imposed on the body politic as "scientific". Just thought you should know! The proposed citation was as a reminder to clearly distinguish and separate these issues.DLH_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Here’s another inconvenient “fact”: “Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.” Source: Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League He also said: "It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to “reclaim America for Christ”...." I mention that because it reveals the prejudice that apparently motivates him to make ignorant statements. He says, "Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. But Hitler himself disagreed:
Old-fashioned antisemitism, Hitler argued, was insufficient, and would lead only to progroms, which contribute little to a permanent solution. This is why, Hitler maintained, it was important to promote “an antisemitism of reason,” one that acknowledged the racial basis of Jewry. (Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany by Alan Steinweis :8)
That is to say, some shameful aspects of Martin Luther's history would not be enough. Yet science was not merely a means to an end, in the minds of many eugenicists and Nazis it was the definition and foundation of what they believed to be true. That's why they said:
The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populance as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations. (The German Churches Under Hitler: Backround, Struggle, and Epilogue by Ernst Helmreich (Detriot: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979) :303)
Foxman: Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points.... Apparently he is too ignorant to realize that biologists are once again involved in a Kulture Kampf in which an inherently mendacious form of scholarship is being fought for. A scholarship which a history summarized this way:
The scholars whom we shall quote in such impressive numbers, like those others who were instrumental in any other part of the German pre-war and war efforts, were to a large extent people of long and high standing, university professors and academy members, some of them world famous, authors with familiar names and guest lecturers abroad… If the products of their research work, even apart from their rude tone, strike us as unconvincing and hollow, this weakness is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values and, by standing order, knows exactly its ultimate conclusions well in advance. (Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People by Max Weinreich (New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)(Emphasis added)
I've noted this summary of Nazi scholarship many times because biologists still agree with it. Foxman: It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to ... turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.” Apparently it must be remembered that despite those who are ignorant of history Nazi leaders sought to destroy Christianity based on scientism. Indeed, many thought that “biblical law” promoted the degeneration of society because it stands in direct contradiction to Darwinian mythology in which progress as we know it is explained based on the fit reproducing and the “unfit” dying. The stark contradictions between Christian reasoning and Darwinian reasoning is part of the reason why an article of Nazi policy was to demand the “immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany.” cf. (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by William Shirer :237)mynym_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeil: (Echoing Paul Giem) 4. You can simply disappear from this thread, like you did from this thread (see comment 79 ff) and this thread (see comment 64 ff) and hope everyone forgets, and you can come back later and continue to post with some people trusting you to play it straight as you see it. And this thread wherein your debunked atheist talking points were deleted, your allowing us to think you were a professor was corrected (but not by you) and you were put into moderation, which did not prevent you from acknowledging the refutations offered, did it.Charles_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeil’s figures on the religious affiliations of US prison inmates did not include the figure for non-responders. It was just under 20% of the sample. It doesn't matter. A survey which might matter would ask: "What part did the teachings of Christ play in your criminal acts? Did you commit your crimes based on Christianity or because you are a Christian?" Or perhaps: "Would the notions of survival of the fittest and the absence of God prevent your criminal acts?" (After all, most evolutionary biologists aren't in prison so Darwinism must prevent crime and so on.)mynym_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill: This “fact” explains why evolutionary biologists are over-represented in prisons, whereas Christians and Muslims are under-represented, right? Actually sociologists have observed that many prisoners claim to be Christian because they think it helps how people view them. It should also be noted that there are prison ministries which lead prisoners to actual conversion. Indeed, psychologists have observed that religious conversion is one of the few variables which correlates to lower recidivism rates. Atheists, by contrast, comprise about 8 to 10% of the American population, but only 0.2% of the prison population. Again, I strongly suspect that this pattern is also mirrored by the percentages of evolutionary biologists that wind up incarcerated. Your argument is rather ignorant, as many sociologists would point out. You have failed to control for variables, apparently fail to analyze raw data and instead simply argue: "Here are the numbers, see, see!" One might as well argue that the Nazis weren't criminals based on a survey of German prisons when they were in power. So every assertion made by the majority of the posters in this thread are not only wrong, they are as wrong as they could possibly be. That's incorrect. You may as well argue that Nietzsche had nothing to do with Nazism because he wasn't a criminal or some such. I haven't read this thread yet but I hope that someone pointed out the utter absurdity of your argument on this topic. I've debated many people about such things, many who wish to deny things, including holocaust deniers. It is about accurate history, perhaps for you it's about politics and so on and that's why you project that onto others.mynym_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Alllen_MacNeill, You have some work to do. In (10) you gave some statistics, which indicated that a tiny fraction of federal prison inmates identified themselves as atheists. You gave as your source the "Federal Bureau of Prisons." Then Janice said, (46)
Allen MacNeil’s figures on the religious affiliations of US prison inmates did not include the figure for non-responders. It was just under 20% of the sample.
JjCassidy (47) then seconded her observation and gave a link which supported her claim, specifically debunking atheist propaganda on this issue. You then came back at (55) with: ______ Janice wrote (in #42):
“It was just under 20% of the sample.”
Janice is apparently both mathematically and logically impaired. If you add up the percentages listed in my post (#8, above), they total 98.8%. This means that the “non-respondent” frequency was 0.02%, not “just under 20%”. Off by four orders of magnitude… ______ Did you read jjcassidy's link? The link acknowledges that the percentages add up to approximately 100%, but notes that this 100% was of the respondents who named a religion, not of the total respondents, and that there were approximately 20% whose data didn't get counted in that "100%", who were labeled as "Unknown/No Answer". You have billed yourself as fair and a practitioner of critical thinking. You have four options: 1. You can come up with a link or a reference to the original data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons showing that indeed there were essentially no "unknown/no answer" inmates. rather than the number cited by Janice and jjcassidy; 2. You can acknowledge Janice's point, and apologize for spreading misinformation, and explain why you said that the data you cited came from the Federal Bureau of Prisons when you actually got it from a website which had filtered the data (or however you got it) (apologizing is not easy, but sometimes necessary ;) ); 3. You can ignore the criticism, continue posting, and allow everyone to realize that you play fast and loose with statistics and are willing to distort them to imply that opponents are dishonest on issues where they are not, and thus lose trust; or 4. You can simply disappear from this thread, like you did from this thread (see comment 79 ff) and this thread (see comment 64 ff) and hope everyone forgets, and you can come back later and continue to post with some people trusting you to play it straight as you see it. The choice is yours. BTW, note that I am using my own name.Paul Giem_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

is that being an atheist (and therefore in most cases accepting evolutionary biology as a reasonable description of how nature came to be the way it is) is not correlated with antisocial behavior. Allen, very few people self-describe themselves as atheists. Those that do are responsible for vastly disproportionate amount of antisocial behavior. I think it is probable that a handful of atheists were responsible for most of the murders in the last century -- and that's not counting the pagan Hitler.tribune7_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

begin each evolutionary biology textbook by: We affirm that “all men were created equal and were endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights . . .”
FYI. Political science is not considered a life science. Just thought you should know that.specs_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill at 120 The challenge is taking evolutionary biology, that has: * 1) materialistic assumptions, * 2) practioners stating that this AND ONLY THIS is "Science" * Consequently only evolutionary biology is "true" * All others are "not science" and thus "false". * Imposing exclusively that view on schools and academia. * Firing etc anyone who disagrees. Exposing this is the object of Expelled. Allowing neo-Darwinian evolutionary biology as "A" theory is one thing - and even then, applying its "laws" to social situations results in totalitarian consequences that are diametrically opposed to the foundational rule of law in the USA. Requiring and imposing those assumptions and theories brings with it an elitist oligarchical totalitarianism. It is those methods that were evident in Hitler and Nazism that we see evident today. Such are the objections - to put it politely. For the impolite version , look at 125,000,000 people killed by totalitarian dictators strongly influenced by Darwinism and atheism, including Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot. Such implications and consequences can only be countered by a vigorous corresponding education in the rule of law and of unalienable rights. e.g., begin each evolutionary biology textbook by: We affirm that "all men were created equal and were endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights . . ."DLH_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

DLH wrote (in #115):
"Better to forthrightly face up to Haeckel and recognize his impact on Social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust etc."
I completely agree, and have done so, repeatedly. What relevance does this have to evolutionary biology today?Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

One of the things that gets lost in all this is that Darwinism didn't make homocidal maniacs out of scientists. As distasteful as some of Charles Darwin's resulting morality is to me, he nonetheless was a reluctant witness to some of what he saw. Science being what scientists say it is, and the ultimate understanding of life as evolved being the sophisticated preserve of experts alone, is perhaps a fine point. But there are other things in view here. For example, if scientists and their refined knowledge of evolution didn't create the NAZI state, who did? We can answer that the general unwashed public, not understanding the finer points of biology did. Upon this, the "skeptic" is satisfied. But that just misses the point of this culturally. We are now advocating it not for all future biologists, but for all informed citizens. And while saying it is the narrow province of biology to determine what exactly it is, we offer that it can be somehow leverageable knowledge, that somehow if I just believe it, I don't have to go running to the nearest biologist to make informed decisions--or do I? If Darwinists complain that people frequently don't understand it, how can we argue that society as a whole benefits from a illusory "common understanding"? It's crap. It's all special pleading and elitist crap. Who is willing to accept that History is "what historians say it is"? However, even given that all we have to do is have enough scientists siding with eugenics, and that principle gives us "Eugenics as Science" again. If you're providing it as a general elixir, it helps to examine it's general effects in the past. Narrowly focusing on Darwin's preferences more than misses the point--it boots the ball.jjcassidy_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

That got posted early by accident, so I'll continue. My problem comes down to the uneven treatment across the scale. Behe, Dembski, and others - the 'ID movement' as a whole, a large collection of viewpoints - get attacked and derided for their views, on the grounds that it is an abuse of science. Meanwhile, Victor Stenger not only claims that 'science proves there is no god', but slaps the claim right on the cover of his book. Where's the condemnation? Where is the outcry at the abuse of science? When Dawkins talks about God as a scientific hypothesis, where are the cries of 'misusing science'? Why is one mere opinion to be ignored, the other a perversion that must be crushed? You complain that people are unjustifiably linking evolution and atheism - yet on these blogs and on bookshelves, we routinely see quotes from 'defenders of science' who do exactly that. Hell, I always find it interesting that you routinely talk about how neo-darwinism and the modern evolutionary synthesis is radically out of date, while elsewhere people assert that to question the rapt validity of either is tantamount to being a scientific troglodyte. Again - insofar as any group or individual attempts to 'keep science and philosophy distinct' even among professionals, all evidence points not only to a failure, but one that is so due to purposeful bias, or selective concern.nullasalus_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Tribune7 wrote (in #107):
“…the case you make via the stats you cite is that religious persons are more inclined to crime than avowed atheists…”
Apparently I have not been clear enough: the case I have been trying to make (and the reason for citing the statistics about crime and religious belief) is that being an atheist (and therefore in most cases accepting evolutionary biology as a reasonable description of how nature came to be the way it is) is not correlated with antisocial behavior. The opposite premise – that being an atheist and accepting evolutionary biology is correlated with antisocial behavior – was, I thought, the underlying premise of this thread, was it not?Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Allen, "I’m sorry if it seems that way to you. I’ll address this question now: In my courses at Cornell" I've said before, I'm not talking about your classes at Cornell - I'm not there, I have no idea how they're run either way, and I have no view on them. Others have commented on what Provine thinks his teaching accomplishes, and even that I don't care to verify or claim.nullasalus_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Allan_MacNeill at 100
DLH at 91 “Since evolution requires variation, Darwin and other early Darwinists believed in human inequality.” This is an absurd misrepresentation of the concept of variation between individuals in populations.
A strawman argument, misrepresenting the author. Before you start rewriting history, please read the rest of Weikart's conclusion #4 above:
Haeckel emphasized inequality to such as extent that he even classified human races as twelve distinct species and claimed that the lowest humans were closer to primates than to the highest humans.
This is supported by numerous authors: e.g. See:
Haeckel divided humans into 12 species and 36 subspecies (using criteria such as hair type, skin color and speech) and arranged them in a hierarchy depending on their proximity to the ape. These species were the equivalent of zoological species, and white Europeans – the “Mediterranean species” – were the most highly evolved of all. Haeckel contended that the differences between civilized races and the lowest “savages” were such that the latter should be classified with the animals. He also believed that the differences could not be overcome by attempting to civilize savages, as this would only accelerate their extinction, to which they were doomed in the struggle for existence with superior races.
Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism and Race, in Ch 17 of A Companion to Nineteenth-century Europe, 1789-1914, by Stefan Berger 2006 p 228 ISBN:1405113200; citing Haeckel 1876 Vol. 2 pp 307-9, 325, 363-5. Better to forthrightly face up to Haeckel and recognize his impact on Social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust etc.DLH_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

nullasalus wrote (in #106):
“I bring up the comparison of reception and treatment between people who say ’study of biology demonstrates there is no God’ and ’study of biology demonstrates there is a designer’ and you ignore it, repeatedly.”
“ I’m sorry if it seems that way to you. I’ll address this question now: In my courses at Cornell (as I have posted repeatedly), people are not silenced on the basis of their views. On the contrary, they are encouraged to present their views to the rest of us, and to defend them to the utmost of their ability. It is the responsibility of the rest of us to do everything in our power to tear those ideas apart; to subject them to the most rigorous skepticism possible. Only by doing so can we come to some understanding of the way things are, rather than how we would like them to be. And so I not only do not attack creationists and ID supporters as persons, I give them as much respect as anyone else, so long as they reciprocate the same (and indeed, even if they do not, which sometimes happens). I am not interested in repressing anyone’s viewpoint, I am interested in discovering what a dispassionate examination of nature can tell us about its workings. This is why I (and my friend Will Provine) invite and encourage creationists and ID supporters to make presentations in our evolution classes and to subject themselves to the kind of intense critical scrutiny that we encourage our students to bring to bear on their ideas (and our own). Furthermore, I post regularly on this and other blogs, defending my ideas with evidence (not opinion) and attacking those I find unsupported by the evidence or in support of political or personal opinions.Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

I will say this for Allen, he uses his real name and this gives his viewpoints added honesty and legitimacy imo. There are few on this site that do so, and I commend those that do, Dr. Dembski, Allen, etc. Also if one uses their own name they likely will feel, from time to time the urge to retract rash statements. Allen has on this site retracted some of his thoughts both on this site as well as others. As a minor participant on this forum, though a major participant on others, I urge more of us to give our real names. Sure there is some risk involved but it keeps the discussions cleaner in my experience and more worthwhile. All for now joshuabgood (real name =)joshuabgood_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Larry Fafarman (re #102): Please read my post #96. If you were intending your post as a response to mine, you clearly have a serious reading comprehension problem.Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

KF--you are singing very sweetly. We will miss you.tribune7_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Trib: This is a swan song -- I am here because I am babysitting a misbehaving USB disk drive. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Larry: Remember, in Europe Jews had -- sadly, and in the teeth of serious NT counsels, e.g. in Ac 17 [i.e. the culture was in a state of rejection of specific moral duty as identified in its primary reference on morality; but then, to be human is to struggle to be morally sighted and serious] -- long been seen as an identifiable, despised religious and racial minority. That is why they were scapegoated. In Germany, too, many had been given distinctive names when they were forced by the state to stop using patronymics. Major state efforts were made to separate the races, including having to show one's racial "purity" to get married, hold key jobs, etc, etc. So, they identified those they intended to target, and set out to murder them. Whether they succeeded with 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 millions [the upper end being more likely] is immaterial. BTW, similar things obtained for the Gypsies, who in large swathes of E Europe were a significant, identifiable and oppressed population. And more. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

KF, I'm glad you are sticking around :-)tribune7_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Furthermore, I’m not certain what relevance a single case of anecdotal evidence has to any argument being pursued here. Because the case you make via the stats you cite is that religious persons are more inclined to crime than avowed atheists, and if the reality is that atheists claim membership to religious groups -- and it is pretty hard to argue against that reality -- then the argument falls apart. So you then must look at what is the criteria for being religious. Checking a box on a form? Regular attendance at a service? Tithing? Fidelity to a set of standards? Using the first three are rather useless since they can easily be gamed. Citing the last is where light might be shone on the issue but you have to ask what standards. If the standards are to lie, steal and cheat to get ahead, then practitioner of that religion would be expected to be disproportionally represented in prisons. If the standard is to love one's neighbor as one's self and one is faithful to that standard, then the only way one will be in prison is as a martyr.tribune7_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

Allen, "Popular with whom? You seem particularly fond of ad hominem attacks." I bring up the comparison of reception and treatment between people who say 'study of biology demonstrates there is no God' and 'study of biology demonstrates there is a designer' and you ignore it, repeatedly. You respond to the topic of a link between eugenics and darwinism with a poll about the religious beliefs of prison inmates, interpreting it to do vastly more predictive and explanatory work than it can - ad hominem, and disconnected from the topic besides. When you bring up how you allow ID and creationism proponents to lecture your class, I respond that I have no opinion on the content of your class one way or the other. I've gone out of my way to leave the 'ad hominem' out - you've been relying on it. You assert "The question for the future, therefore, is not “Does evolutionary biology lead inevitably to crime, debauchery, eugenics, and totalitarianism?”, because the answer clearly is NO, not any more than religious belief does." That's an oversimplification to say the very least, Allen - we know for a fact it happened in the past. And nowadays we have Peter Singer justifying his views about eugenics and morality largely on the grounds of evolutionary history, and 'condemnation' doesn't seem to be the reaction some of the more outspoken scientists have to this. If your instinctive reaction to this is to dive for an utterly unrelated 'Well, this statistic says religious people have committed crimes' article, it's clear you're doing so because you don't like the point that's being made. It all comes down to the same problem - when does a mere 'personal opinion' become 'a perversion of science'? Because as near as I can tell, the answer is 'when it's unpopular with the right people, in the right number'. Once upon a time, people - even scientists - didn't view the link between evolution and eugenics as an abuse. They saw it as a reasonable application of known science to public policy, and the scientists weren't clamoring to correct them. You say they were wrong? Wonderful - I agree. But what will you do about the abuses in the here and now? You certainly seem to be motivated to handle this 'Intelligent Design' problem. And I imagine - correct me if I'm wrong - you approve of the reaction James Watson experienced for his comments. Meanwhile, Provine and others hold what amounts to a 'design detection' view of scientific data that has yielded 'no design' across the board, and oh - that's mere personal opinion. Not abuse. Even, apparently, if books and articles are written for the layman public expressing as much. You may think I'm attacking you, but I'm not - I'm trying to make you understand why people like me, even with our skepticism of ID, are far more skeptical of the people running around "defending science". Because as near as can be seen, there's a double standard in play - like when appeals to academic freedom and open-mindedness are made, only to have it mentioned that a person can and should be denied tenure for any damn reason desired by the committee, because that's just the name of the game. Can you see why people would regard these positions with some derision, Allen?nullasalus_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply