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

PS: it is also utterly unsurprising to me -- on long observation -- to see that people who think and act like that are often associated with the pattern of tyrannical, oppressive and unjust behaviours documented in the upcoming movie, Expelled.kairosfocus_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

No connection between Darwinism and eugenics? Well, the Station for Experimental Evolution merged with the Eugenics Record Office in 1920 to form the Carnegie Institution's Dept. of Genetics. LOL The Darwin-to-Hitler connection is at least as strong as the bible-to-ID connection. We have known ever since the demise of the dodo that there is such a thing as "survival of the fittest" or natural (or sometimes artificial) selection. The idea that Darwin introduced is that the action of this natural selection upon random mutations produced higher and higher forms of life, and I think that is the idea that inspired eugenics. Also, Nazi anti-semitism targeted the fit as well as the unfit and so was not a traditional eugenics program. I think that Nazi eugenics was extended to include the idea that society could be improved by getting rid of people believed to be of low moral character, e.g., Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies. Another consideration is that the Jewish holocaust was probably exaggerated. A "systematic" holocaust of Jews was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews. It would be like, say, trying to systematically exterminate all of the Presbyterians, or all of the Methodists, or all of the atheists in the USA. It couldn't be done. I am still waiting for the Anti-Defamation League to comment on the Darwin-to-Hitler message of the movie "Expelled." It is becoming apparent that the ADL's Abraham Foxman's attack on the Coral Ridge Ministries' Darwin-to-Hitler "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" TV program was motivated more by anti-Christianity than by opposition to the Darwin-to-Hitler idea (Ben Stein is Jewish and one of his supporters in the movie wears a yarmulke, the mark of an orthodox Jew).Larry Fafarman_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

Mr MacNeill: You are a scholar. Please, re-read the summary of a lot of research. Among other things it will tell you a lot about the problems of using self-identification as a metric of proneness to criminal activity,as opposed to more committed behaviours. Next, when one counts in the patterns of evolutionary materialism influenced declines in serious religious affiliation, and the associated import of atheists and associated secularised who do not name themselves explicitly in that way [e.g. through non-responsive or calling themselves non-religious], a very different picture will emerge than you are trying to paint. Namely, that the highly secularised and secular -- which as a mass [as opposed to majority] phenomenon in our civilisation traces directly to the rising influence and associated agendas of evolutionary materialism -- dominate in imprisonment and in recidivism. Also, may I beg to remind that evo mat rooted secularism and secularisation are deeply implicated in the damage to families and related issues; sometimes in ways that are actually celebrated as "liberation" -- but liberty is not license or libertinism. [BTW: for most of history, people have usually been far poorer and subjected to far greater deprivation and hardship than in our day, as e.g. life expectancy numbers so chillingly tell us. The sort of cultural breakdown we are seeing is unprecedented, save for previous periods of the death of a high culture [Cf Rom 1, read as a classic eyewitness summary of a decadent culture and where it was headed, Augustine's City of God also makes for chilling reading on this]. And, that has usually been associated with a loss of faith and a loss of morality, LED by the decadent and corrupt wealthy and powerful. By far and away, most poor people across time have been honest and decent -- so let's stop slandering them. The same, historically, can hardly be said for the rich and powerful. Thus, Lord Acton's "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely . . ." Today's social dynamics and family dynamics are horrible, but that is not unconnected to the ideas and agendas that have dominated the intellectual elites for generations now across Western Culture; ESPECIALLY in the universities, the finishing schools for the elites.] Note, therefore, the explicit summary of a lot of research:
. . . only 54% of Federal and State Prisoners actually consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed to be practicing their religion. . . . . In the federal prisoner statistics, a full 20% of the respondents either answered “none” or provided no response to the question on religious affiliation. Based on response patterns to similar questions on nationwide surveys, it is likely that all or nearly all of these persons would be in the “nonreligious” category (or the “atheists” category, to use the terminology from the atheist web page itself). Even without adding the “.209%” of the population that specifically identified themselves as atheists, the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population . . . . Virtually any article in an academic, peer-reviewed sociology journal that addresses religious behavior and criminal behavior finds that religious behaviors such as church attendance, prayer, home observances, etc., are either negatively correlated to criminal and/or anti-social behavior (drug use, school drop-outs, etc.), or have no correlation. In other words, according to social scientists, religious behavior is associated with lower rates of criminal behavior.
Third, this is all on a distraction from a very important issue that needs to be fairly and squarely faced. Finally, please, do not do damage to any respect you may have built up in this blog by playing cherry-picking games with important balancing information. For instance, let us draw attention back to:
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 . . .
Now, think about what people who think of themselves and others along these lines are liable to do when they attain sufficient power or get into situations where they can get away with acting out on such beliefs. (As one who has worked in the College and university context myself, I can report that I find there the principle is too often that the only restraint is prudence: can I get away with it? And, often that is in the precise context of evolutionary materialist views and socialisation within the institution, often from student days on. I am not asking on this; I am reporting as an eyewitness.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

In other words, religious belief (and the lack thereof) today is mostly an effect of these factors, rather than a determining cause (and exposure to evolutionary biology as a science is irrelevant). And you miss (or amazingly discount) the effect cultural values -- which are invariably based on some kind of religious view have on parenting, social peer pressure and how the poor are treated. BTW, should economic inequality be addressed via the means of: Karl Marx -- forced distribution of services and goods? Ayn Rand -- the explicit recognition that economic inequality is deserved and that there is no moral compulsion to assist the poor? Jesus Christ -- that God loves the poor and there is a several moral requirement to assist them but force should not be used to compel it?tribune7_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

tribune7 asked (in #92):
"How do your stats handle him?"
I don't know; I didn't collect the data, I am only citing it as evidence as part of the argument I am making. Furthermore, I'm not certain what relevance a single case of anecdotal evidence has to any argument being pursued here.Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

DLH wrote (in #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. As Richard Lewontin has pointed out, the amount of variation between individuals in populations is immensely greater than the measurable differences between mean values in different populations. this conclusion flows directly from work in comparative population genetics, carried out mostly by evolutionary biologists. Ergo, the quotation cited above is not only wrong, it is such an egregious misrepresentation of the facts as to lead one to question the motives and veracity of the person making it.Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

nullasalus wrote (in #86):
"The latter seems to be popular."
Popular with whom? You seem particularly fond of ad hominem attacks.Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

As I have already pointed out, I have very publicly and vigorously condemned eugenics (in all of its negative forms) as a perversion of science in general, and evolutionary biology in particular. Furthermore, I am very happy that such uses of sciences are now mostly behind us. 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. Nor is the question "Does evolutionary biology lead naturally to good behavior, equality, freedom, and 'niceness'?", because the answer again is clearly NO, not any more than religious belief does. The real question for the future is "Given what we now understand about the root causes of human social behavior, can we shape human behavior to bring about a better world for all of us? This question hits close to home, because it's a question every responsible parent and teacher asks many times a day every day. Recognizing the evil purposes to which science has been perverted in the past is part of finding answers to that question. So is admitting that religious belief (and the lack thereof) is largely irrelevant to the answer to that same question.Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus wrote (in #85):
"...if one accepts as accurate the estimate that 0.209% of federal prisoners, this is still an incarceration rate only one half of their numbers in the general population."
This was precisely my point. I was not arguing that religious believers are more likely to commit antisocial acts, I have been arguing that the data indicates that atheists (and therefore many, if not most evolutionary biologists) are less likely to do so, an empirical observation that directly contradicts the thesis upon which this thread is based. Personally, I believe that what causes most people to commit antisocial (and social) acts is not their religious beliefs nor their understanding of evolutionary biology (or lack thereof). As a parent of six children, a thirty-six-year teacher, and a long-time student of human behavior, I have a very strong belief (supported by much empirical data from human development and family studies, psychology, and sociology) that both antisocial (and social) behavior is overwhelmingly a product of family dynamics, parenting, economic inequality, and social peer pressure. In other words, religious belief (and the lack thereof) today is mostly an effect of these factors, rather than a determining cause (and exposure to evolutionary biology as a science is irrelevant).Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

jerry asked (in #82):
"...are you against patriotism?"
No, scoundrels who take refuge in it.Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

William J Murray (59) & bililiad (61) I can see the logic in concluding that no afterlife = no being held to account = doing whatever you can get away with + morals / norms based only on expediency. However, I’m an atheist and I intuitively and actually know that this argument is fallacious. So… why? Here are some thoughts. Human morality is a function of a combination of memory, imagination and reason. If you stick your hand in the fire you feel pain. If you later see someone forcing another person’s hand into the fire you know (i) it will hurt them (memory), and (ii) they are not doing it voluntarily (reason), and you feel empathy (imagination). The inevitable conclusion is that the event should be prevented – it’s simply logic. The empathy is involuntary. Why is a murder scene in a film frightening? We know perfectly well that the participants are actors, no-one is actually getting hurt, and that all we are actually seeing is the effect of light passing through celluloid. But the apparent suffering of others produces an unpleasant and alarming reaction in ourselves, whether we like it or not, even when we know the whole thing is staged. For many people this reaction is so strong that they will avoid frightening films even though they know there is no actual suffering (apart from their own!). Unless you have some form of malfunction it is impossible to escape emotionally from the effects of involuntary empathy – which becomes guilt when it’s a consequence of our misdeeds. There are of course degrees - someone starving to death at the bottom of your street would be completely unacceptable, but someone starving to death half way across the world is troubling when we think about it, but for most of us has little real impact on how we live our lives. Objectively, both events should produce the same moral response, but they don’t. The “me” versus “us” question is all about self-interest. We enjoy helping people, and we all benefit from the general application of good behaviour. We want to contribute to an environment where good behaviour is the norm because the consequence of not being able to assume a general level of good behaviour i.e. a breakdown of order, is extreme anxiety. It is interesting how our moral involvement and sense of obligation dilutes with physical and emotional distance (this is the ‘imagination’ aspect at work). A parent’s love for their child, which can involve complete self-sacrifice, is given entirely willingly. We want to be good because it suits us. People’s good behaviour is often dependent upon the facility for good behaviour. You think you’re not violent? Well, you might soon be if you were starving and found yourself in a food riot. Let’s say I had the chance to steal my neighbour’s money and could be confident I’d be unseen, I’d still have the problem that it would show on my face. Why would it? Whatever the reason, it’s nothing to do with believing in Jesus.duncan_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

Darwin’s and early Darwinist’s belief in human INequalitydirectly opposes the foundation of the USA
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Human inequality exists. There is a wide range of innate physical and mental capabilities across the human species. The quote above, one of the most beautiful ever penned IMO, is a political statement not a scientific observation. Science does not stand or fall based on how it's used or misused by politicians. That is why your point and, indeed, this whole conversation is a farce. Darwin is no more to blame for eugenics or Nazism than nuclear physicists are for nuclear weapons and, indeed, probably less so. Eugenics is essentailly animal husbandry as applied to humans and animal husbandry predates Darwin by untold centuries.specs_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Please refrain from responding to bililiad, he's/she's/it's a Panda's Thumb troll. Exposure of Nick Matzke's idiotic contention that the Nazis banned Darwin's Origin of Species.angryoldfatman_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Allen The Rev. Klaas Hendrikse has been ha pastor for more than 20 years at one of the Protestant congregations in the southwestern town of Middelburg in the Netherlands . He calls himself an atheist. How do your stats handle him?tribune7_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT}

Darwin's and early Darwinist's belief in human INequalitydirectly opposes the foundation of the USA where:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . .
Weikart documented that:
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.
DLH_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

-----"Who is the almost the only person in this thread to use his own full name, and is unafraid to have his background, evidence, positions, and training fully exposed for all to view? I believe that anonymity, like patriotism, is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Like Jerry, I have had similar experiences. Also, I critique both Islamic and Materialist ideologies. In the bizarre world of political correctness and selectivee freedom of speech, your point of view is safe. Mine isn't.StephenB_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Following on kairosfocus' post (83), I, too, suggest that we get back on topic. Allen, the original point of the thread was not whether Darwinism leads to lawlessness; rather, it was that Darwinism led to eugenics, which in turn had a large role to play in Hitler's Germany. Along the way, several issues have been raised on this post. Let me address a few: 1.) Evolutionary biology, per se, did not exist yet in the thirties. So, to even be talking about evolutionary biology within the context of Hitler's Germany is simply ahistorical. 2.) According to Will Provine, Mendelism, when discovered in the first decade of the 1900's, was death to Darwinian theory. Darwinian theory had to be, as it were, 'resurrected' through the likes of Morgan, and Fisher and others. In particular, the work---statistical work---of R.A. Fisher revived the possibility of Darwinian mechanisms giving rise to new species, and breathed fresh life into Darwinian theory. In his "The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection", the renouvement of Darwinism was complete, resulting finally in Thomas Huxley's "The Modern Synthesis". Thus, historically, Darwinism, after a 'near-death experience' in the beginning of the 20th century, nevertheless, experienced went into an ascendancy from the middle of the second decade of the 1900's (~1915) until 1940---the very time that eugenics was experiencing its own ascendancy. It's simply covering your head in the sand to think that there was no historical link between Darwinism and the atrocities of Hitler's Republic. 3.) Regarding the Scope's Trial, let's not forget that the VERY reason that Wm. Jennings Bryan got involved was NOT to defend the Christian interpretation of Genesis, but because he was extremely concerned that Darwinism, unchecked, would lead to a rise in the Eugenicist movement. The "eu" of eugenics means 'true' or 'good'. Thus, eugenics means, literally, "good genes". Now is anyone going to seriously argue that, based on this translation, eugenics has nothing to do with Darwinism and its concomitant notion of the 'fittest' ? 4.) Someone, in a quote above, told of an incident wherein a teenager, way back in the twenties, killed someone from no more than a 'eugenicist' urge. Let's remember that at Columbine, the killers went specifically after Christians---the 'unfit'---seeing themselves as enforcers of Darwinian theory (the killers wore T-shirts with the picture of Darwin on the front IIRC). Indeed, there are at times 'inconvenient truths'.PaV_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

Allan_MacNeill at 72
"I believe that anonymity, like patriotism, is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
Again you employ an ad hominem attack, attributing bad motives to discredit others without evidence. See: Expelled: The Tip of the Iceberg which explores others who have been severely discriminated against. Are you willing to guarantee the employment of scientists who criticize or oppose evolution on scientific/empirical grounds? Are you actively and ardently supporting legislation outlawing such discrimination against "apostates" from neo-darwinism ? When such legislation is in place and we have that change in practice, then maybe those posting here would be as free to use their names as those, such as you, who have privileged positions currently protected by the totalitarian evolutionary elite.DLH_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, you had the link I was looking for. Thank You for posting it.Upright BiPed_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

Allen Macneill has repeatedly argued that, insofar as anyone uses evolution or darwinism to promote a social or (a)theological agenda, they have left the realm of science - and it's apparently on this basis that he vigorously condemns ID. I've gotten no answers about why ID must be singled out for condemnation (and not just the teaching of it in classrooms - but the mere proposal of it at all) while, apparently, books that argue that scientific study of nature proves there is no God get hardly a peep from the same 'defenders of science'. Why the double standard? Why is one 'mere opinion' and the other 'perverting science'? Instead, we're getting sidetracked to what 'belief in evolution' causes in a general population and trying to discern as much through statistics that don't even touch on darwinism in their surveys. It's an attempt to obfuscate and argue about things that can be taken any number of ways. A red herring. Notice the pattern carefully: Bring up the influence of darwinism in political or social thought, and there's both an immediate condemnation that it's a perversion of science, and a desperate attempt to talk about something, anything other than eugenics, or subjects of organizations that dealt with genetic desirability. That said, I want to make some claims outright - Allen can agree, attack, or ignore. The latter seems to be popular. Fact: 'Darwinism' was used to justify eugenics programs and views in Germany, America, Norway, and other countries during the height of the movement. And it wasn't exactly done with the widespread condemnation of evolutionary biologists. This may well have been a 'perversion of the science', but at the time it certainly wasn't regarded as such. Fact: It's been asserted here that arguing biological science 'proves God doesn't exist' or 'proves God did not use evolution to create humans' and such is also a perversion of science - and I frankly agree with this. But demonstrably, special condemnation for 'abusing science' is directed at people who argue (and remember, I'm a TE myself) that the work of a high intelligence can be discerned in biology and other sciences. But those who argue the opposite - whose 'design detection' turns up no designer - are ignored by the same people and groups who scream of the need to "defend science". Fact: Attempting to deny the links between eugenics philosophies and darwinism (perversion or not), and ignoring the unequal treatment of 'personal opinions' of science, is what drives a whole lot of these fights. Maybe the answer to these problems isn't 'try to change the subject', but dealing with them head-on and honestly. There's a problem with the greater 'science' establishment, and it certainly can't be summed up as "ID".nullasalus_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

H'mm: Had to go back online to email a reply on some public meetings, and decided to check in. Noticed this thread. I seem to recall that the question of religious affiliation of prisoners came up several weeks ago, and served to divert a thread form a serious topic. Mr MacNeill, I think you need to pause and think about the following, from adherents dot com, which supplies religious affiliation stats; just as a start-point for a more balanced assessment: __________ We are aware of two non-academic web pages, featuring commentary by self-described atheists, which attempt to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. Some of these statements are addressed here, but that is not the focus of this page. Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise. Religious proponents, on the other hand, often use statistics relating to religiosity to show that religious participation prevents crime and incarceration. The statistically verifiable reality should come as no surprise to those who have first hand experience with criminal and religious sociology: 1. The majority of Americans (85%) have a stated religious preference. 2. The majority of American prisoners (between 80 and 100%, depending on the study consulted) also have a stated religious preference. 3. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religionists prior to incarceration. That is, they exhibited none of the standard sociological measures of religiosity, such as regular prayer, scripture study, and attendance at worship services. Thus, some commentators on one side have claimed that being religious is associated with incarceration. This is based only on religious preference statistics. American sociologists are well aware that nearly all Americans profess a religious preference. But there is a major difference between those who are actually religious affiliated, that is, members of a congregation (approx. 45 to 65% of the population, varying by region), and those who merely profess a preference, likely the name of the denomination that their parents of grandparents were a part of. (One of the best discussions of this phenomenon can be found in The Churching of America, 1776-1990, by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark; New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1992.) Commentators supportive of religious involvement invariably point to participation in religion (being affiliated), rather than having a stated (and quite possibly meaningless) religious preference as showing being a statistically strong deterent to crime. According to the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Census of the Jail Population 12/31/95), while 72% affirmed affiliation with religious institutions (determined through answers to the question on "Religious Background" on the Penal entrance form) only 54% of Federal and State Prisoners actually consider themselves religious, and 33% can be confirmed to be practicing their religion. [And I add, guess what intellect6ual and cultu5ral movements have been strongly associated with the decline in practised religiosity over the past 100 years or so?] This is demonstrated by attendance records at religious services, which averaged anywhere between 30% and 40%, depending upon the time of year and the institution in question (and who was preaching). These figures are comparable to the national average as establish by the Gallup organization. [source -- go to the link] Attempts to "prove" either simplistic statement: "Religion leads to incarceration" or "Religion prevents incarceration" are polemical in nature and are neither academic in their approach nor statistially supportable. Neither statement is completely true, and both statements ignore the extremely large differences between religions. Each religious affiliation exhibits different statistical properties relating to incarceration. The actual situation in America can no more be summed up by a discussion of "atheists in prison vs. non-atheists in prison" than by analysis of "Buddhists in prison vs. non-Buddhists in prison." One atheist web page (link on page) presented statistics stating that 0.209% of federal prisoners (in 1997) stated "atheist" as their religious preference. This site said that this is far less than the 8 to 16% of the American population that are atheists. The atheist site, however, provided no source for the notion that "8 to 16%" of Americans are atheists. This statistic is completely without support from the available data. Gallup polls which include questions about religion have consistently shown that between 93 and 96% of Americans say that they believe in God. Presumably atheist writers would not suggest that up to half of their claimed "atheists" believe in God. The actual proportion of atheists in the United States is about 0.5% (half of one percent). This is the figure obtained from the largest survey of religious preference ever conducted: the National Survey of Religious Identification (Kosmin, 1990), which polled 113,000 people. The religious preference questions were part of questioning completely unrelated to religious preference (consumer preferences, entertainment, etc.), so the frequent retort of atheists that their numbers don't like to admit to atheism, and hence are undercounted, is unlikely. Still, if one accepts as accurate the estimate that 0.209% of federal prisoners, this is still an incarceration rate only one half of their numbers in the general population. The high estimates of "8 to 16%" of Americans being atheists are actually produced by combining figures from non-atheist groups. Basically, all people who don't profess a religious preference are sometimes claimed by atheists part of their grouping. The Kosmin survey of 1990 indicated that 1.5% of the population is agnostic, and 7.5% "nonreligious." "Nonreligious" does not mean the same thing as "atheist." It is a classification which includes people who believe there is no god, believe there is a god, or who don't believe either way, or believe that such information is unknowable. Grouping "nonreligious" along with atheists and agnostics, one would obtain a figure of 9.5%. This fits within the claimed "8 to 16%" figure provided for the total number of "atheists." It is true that, historically, the word "atheist" has been used to include agnostics as well as atheists, and that it has been used to include "nonreligious" as well. But the word has also been used to include many people whose religious preferences conflict with the majority, including Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Wiccans, and others. After the Protestant reformation, Catholic writers used the word "atheist" interchangeably with "infidel", referring to all Protestants (whether Anglican, Baptist, or otherwise) as "atheists." Today in the United States, "nontheist" does not mean "nonreligious", as indicated by the fact that all but 5% of the population professes belief in God, while approximately 9.5% of the population belong to nonreligious or "antireligious" categories. In the federal prisoner statistics, a full 20% of the respondents either answered "none" or provided no response to the question on religious affiliation. Based on response patterns to similar questions on nationwide surveys, it is likely that all or nearly all of these persons would be in the "nonreligious" category (or the "atheists" category, to use the terminology from the atheist web page itself). Even without adding the ".209%" of the population that specifically identified themselves as atheists, the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population. However, a valid argument could be made that the prison population may exhibit different response patterns pertaining to questions of religious identification than the non-prison population. An atheist pundit may believe that this difference is so extreme, that all 20% classified as "none" or "unknown" are actually Christians, Jews, etc., but were being beligerant or evasive in not saying so. A religious pundit might assume that all 20% are actually non-religious. Sociologists and statisticians can not make absolute conclusions about this group, but based on previous experience with similar studies, the response patterns to this question are unlikely to differ significantly from the general population, and the "nonreligious" segment of the prison population does indeed seem significantly higher than the religious segment. Furthermore, academic researchers are likely to include additional measures of behavior and religiosity beyond mere religious self-identification, and conclude that although the segment of the prison population which specifies a religious preference is as high as in the general population, the proportion of practicing religionists (immediately prior to incarceration) is much lower. Virtually any article in an academic, peer-reviewed sociology journal that addresses religious behavior and criminal behavior finds that religious behaviors such as church attendance, prayer, home observances, etc., are either negatively correlated to criminal and/or anti-social behavior (drug use, school drop-outs, etc.), or have no correlation. In other words, according to social scientists, religious behavior is associated with lower rates of criminal behavior. _____________ Mr MacNeill, I think you need to do a bit more research before drawing conclusions and making assertions and arguments based on them. Now, can we get back to the focus for the thread? GEM of TKI PS: I see this has come up several times, so I am going to communicate this to a contact so if the distractor comes up again the link will be there for a quick response.kairosfocus_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Allen, It would help if those stats really meant what they seem to. I'm repeating this link ( http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2008/03/bogus-atheist-social-sciences_21.html ) for people to see what a crock those numbers are. And as for my secret ID, I'd wager than I've encrypted my last name so well in my handle that you'll never figure it out (Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!) Here's something not at all directed to Allen, but something that I've wanted to post: Atheists seem to believe that they are the only ones with a right to make up their own mind about data. They believe that "Religion causes all wars," and evidence to the contrary is troublesome, but that they on balance believe that to be true is enough for them. It's not always convincing to the believers--but the counsel of believers is not really needed, because their brains don't function right. However, everything an oppoent finds convincing must be passed through their authoritative filters in order for it to be fair for us to believe it. Richard Carrier finds it enough that the SS had belt buckles with "Gott" on it. Despite that atheists are otherwise fond of mentioning that the "Creator" doesn't entail "Jesus". And that a central body of founding fathers did not believe the Bible's miraculous content, yet still believed in a "Gott". Also they equate the neutral concept of "Designer" with religion, despite that deism is considered secular in terms of America's founders, and the closest thing to atheism that they could get. These things convince them, therefore they are rational until proven irrational. Atheists however don't buy that Darwinism majorly influenced the massive bloodshed of the 20th century because Charlie-bear would never do such a thing. Therefore, it is invalid and unfair that you should find that to be true in the balance--because it is not based on any inconvertible facts of history--is an example of how unreasonable you are. You, Ben Stein, everybody must hold off forming a decision about it until inconvertible facts emerge that convince the opposition. Meanwhile, Carrier will continue to find major significance that the German's embraced "Gott" in some form and deny that Table Talk could be an actual representation of Hitler's atheism and hatred for Christianity, because the belt buckle and Hitler's public persona is just too important to making the case that NAZI-ism Christianity. Atheism doesn't by definition entail an intellectual elitism, it just tends to yield it in practice. I read the other thread where the reviewer panned the Darwin-NAZI connection saying that the producers did not look into the Great Chain of Being connection. So I checked out what he could possibly have meant. It sounded promising, but even the worst part of GCB was that the lower served the higher. Had Hitler proposed enslaving the Jews, that would not have been unprecendented in history, and very much in keeping with the Great Chain. However whacking out a whole level of the "Great Chain" is not in anyway consistent with it. As early theorist argued that the low have to exist, because everything exists. So within the concept is the idea that we cannot do better than nature by removing a whole rung. But there was a theoretical system that concieved that the removal of a whole population resulted in advance... anybody remember the name of that system... anyone? anyone? Thus despite the mismatches between the "Great Chain" theory (which was birthed in the Enlightenment btw), just the reviewer thinking that this is a significant omission is enough to think that Expelled point is invalid--and by extension, unfair, and biased. He only needs the suggestion and his own buy-in, and not inconvertible proof.jjcassidy_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

#78: If you check http://www.cafonline.org/, you'll find that no other country even comes close to the USA in charitable giving. Also, one can probably directly assess the higher number of per capita abortions (the USA being #6, Norway being #7) to fertility rate differences between the two populations. But that isn't the real issue; the real issues is the philsophical defense of materialistic Darwinism and what it can produce. As the spiritual and religious context and limitations of conscience upon that ideology slowly wane and disappear, what can we expect of it other than a decline into bleak expressions of evolutionary functionality?William J. Murray_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Allen, I once used my full name on a thread a few years ago that also had my email. I then got some obnoxious emails and one that identified my home address. After seeing locally what some people can do to people they don't like or disagree with it is just not worth it. That is when I limited my name here and elsewhere to my first name. So I view your remark, "I believe that anonymity, like patriotism, is the last refuge of a scoundrel" as childish. By the way are you against patriotism?jerry_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Allen: "Would you care to cite some statistics" First World War 1914-18 15 million Russian Civil War 1917-22 9 million Stalin's Soviet Union 1924-53 22 million Second World War 1937-55 55 million Nationalist China 1928-37 3.5 million Congo 1886-1908 8 million Shall I continue? I can. There is no end to these numbers. The Sudan? The French Colonies? Portugal? Rwanda? Kinsasha? Ethiopia? North Korea? Cambodia?, Lybia? The Balkins? Mexico? Bangladesh? German East Africa? Tibet? The idea that the age of science has effected a new level of kindness in mankind is absurd. Allen: "The alleged causal relationship between evolutionary biology, atheism, and criminality should be reflected in crime statistics and general lawlessness. Therefore, if one surveys the various nations of the world, one should find such a correlation." I simply don't know where to start with this statement. It’s like searching for the causes of cancer by perusing the sufferer’s shoe sizes. One might think that greed, lust, power, hubris, hunger, spite and other such human motivators might play a role. Instead, we have Allen defending an intellectual absurdity that suits him. NEWSFLASH: 94.3% of rapists have fingers that fit their nose holes; while a mere 91.3% of extortionists bury their dead. More research must be done!Upright BiPed_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Next year is the 200th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, and so I think we might actually have an answer to this question.
Or not.Charlie_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

#65: Correlations are not causes, and statistics are only as good as the number of parameters one accounts for. Your analysis of Norway, for example, ignores the fact that there is virtually no ethnic diversity whatsoever there. Your ststistics may or may not include, for another example, the variation in kinds of laws and progressions of those laws; one way to have fewer criminals, is to make less things illegal. A growing trend of leniency or removal of laws as darwinian materialsim advances through the lawbooks might correlate to a reduced crime rate, but not to any actual changes in human behavior. You focus on crime and criminal behavior, which might have various explanations for the statistical variance, but I made no claim about increased criminal behavior; my comment was about behaving. If you gain ideological power in a country, and make abortion legal, euthanasia legal, eugenics legal, etc., you are committing no crimes. If one's country is killing millions of the unborn, or aiding in the suicide of the infirm, or drugging their population into docility, no crime has been committed ... yet have the humans become better? Has the culture become better? Does "less crime" intrinsically mean that the human condition has become better? No. Your statistics on the crime rate might represent factual information, but it is irrelevant to the concerns expressed; namely, how can the culture of materialistic Darwinism refute the apparent dystopian projection that is reasonably calculated from its basic precepts, if it washes from it all spiritual and religious ideals of the value of noble ideals, spiritual advancement or ramifications, the idea of a divine human soul that imbues each life with dignity and intrinsic value ... etc? You're not explaining how a materialistic, Darwinian, cultural philosophy can eventually produce anything other than devalued human life and the dystopian rise of ideology based on Darwinian principles. Once the spirituality and religion have been drained out, what is there left to logically indicate that such values, morals, and ethics as we hold now are of any value? What is to prevent a gradual decline into the functionality of eugenics, euthanasia, selfishness, hedonism and evaluation of worth by percieved contribution to the long-term survival and betterment of the species? One can easily see how spiritual and religious beliefs inspire humans towards noble and selfless behavior, compassion for the weak and tolerance of others ... I fail to see how Darwinistic materialism is going to inspire young men to join the military to defend their country from aggressors (hey, if they're stronger than us, they deserve to win, right? What does it matter?), or fill us with the mercy and love and compassion for those less fortunate than us, or towards those that cost society more than they can be shown on a materialistic balance sheet to contribute. The most religious industrialized country in the world - the USA - out-gives your more atheistic/materialistic countries when it comes to per-capita charity and humanitarian aid by an embarrassing margin. Why is that? Where does Norway come in when it comes to humanitarian aid around the world? How about volunteer time towards charitable activities? While your focus on current crime statistics makes a compelling emotional plea, it really does nothing to address the real concerns expressed here.William J. Murray_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

I believe that anonymity, like patriotism, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.
Causation/correlation? Does it follow that all anonymous commenters are scoundrels? Of course not. There is no logical conclusion to be drawn here about anonymous posters.Charlie_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Hi Allen,
quoting UB:“…I would probably get carried away and force the moderators to come to his immediate aide.” AM: If you can’t make a logically consistent argument, supported by empirical evidence, then simply have the moderators shut me down, right?
You made either a reading or a logical error here.Charlie_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Just one more point: Who is the almost the only person in this thread to use his own full name, and is unafraid to have his background, evidence, positions, and training fully exposed for all to view? I believe that anonymity, like patriotism, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.Allen_MacNeill_{April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply