Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin and the Nazis

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
And allanius jumps on board the character assassination bandwagon. No evidence, no attempt at logical argument, just ad hominems aplenty. Gotta go; my students await...Allen_MacNeill
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Allan_MacNeill at 10 The reference to beliefs of those in prison is interesting. Back to the TOPIC Darwin & Hitler. What is critical is NOT those in prison, but those IN GOVERNMENT. In my research on the 20th century, I counted 33 republics/democracies who failed to preserve their constitutional governments and succumbed to tyrants. These include Russia to Lenin and Stalin China to Mao Germany to Hitler, As Darwin influenced Hitler, there is clear evidence that he similarly influenced China. See: China and Charles Darwin, James R. Pussey, Harvard East Asia Monographs, 1983 ISBN-10: 0674117352.
Although Charles Darwin never visited China, his ideas landed there with force. Darwinism was the first great Western theory to make an impact on the Chinese and, from 1895 until at least 1921, when Marxism gained a formal foothold, it was the dominant Western "ism" influencing Chinese politics and thought. The authority of Darwin, sometimes misiniterpreted, influenced reformers and revolutionaries and paved the way for Chinese Marxism and the thought of Mao Tse-tung. This study evaluates Darwin's theory of evolution as a stimulus to Chinese political changes and philosophic challenge to traditional Chinese beliefs. James Pusey bases his analysis on a survey of journals issued from 1896 to 1910 and, after a break for revolutionary action, from 1915 to 1926, with emphasis on the era between the Sino-Japanese War and the Republician Revolution. The story of Darwinism in China involves, among others, the most famous figures of modern Chinese intellectual history.
Similarly, Darwin's writings were critical to turning Stalin from the priesthood to atheism and tyranny. Stalin's Brutal Faith by Paul G. Humber, M.S. There were some 125 MILLION people who died because of their governments during the 20th century compared to some 39 million due to all wars of the 20th century. Between Hitler, Stalin and Mao, the tyrants that killed the greatest number of people in the 20th century were very clearly influenced by Darwin. From history, the most critical threat to republics from the number of people killed, is in allowing leaders to come to power who hold to Darwin's principles of evolution - Might makes right - rather than to the principles of republican Constitutionalism. DLH
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed wrote (in #63)
"Its likely a good thing I have nothing to say about Allen’s abuse of population statistics on this post."
Hmm. I'm virtually the only commentator citing statistics of any kind in this thread. What does that say about how this argument has been conducted? Let's parse UprightBiPed's statements:
"Its likely a good thing I have nothing to say about Allen’s abuse of population statistics on this post."
But aren't you doing exactly that with this statement? Clever (and underhanded). Would you care to cite some statistics in defense of a contrary position, or are ad hominem attacks and appeals to unsupported prejudice your entire stock in trade?
"As a population research director...
Argument from authority (i.e. no empirical evidence presented).
"...I would probably get carried away and force the moderators to come to his immediate aide."
If you can't make a logically consistent argument, supported by empirical evidence, then simply have the moderators shut me down, right? "My mind's made up; don't confuse me with the facts. And, BTW, shut up." Or do you mean to say the opposite? This statement is so logically incoherent as to be virtually unintelligible.
"Still, what a sight to see. And, this from a man who repeatedly prances and promotes his image of “fairness in thought” to the ID community - certainly to be applauded, like so much of a 1960’s corporation with its token minority in tow."
More character assassination. Upright BiPed has apparently abandoned all pretense at logical argument and decided to simply use slime in place of logic. Grade: F-Allen_MacNeill
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
By the way, Allen, at #51 I challenge your reading and quoting of Descent Of Man. Unfortunately it was held for moderation and I fear you may have missed it.Charlie
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Allen, It is 150 years and you must have missed WWI and WWII as well as the Cold War. You could argue that Western Europe's future path is suicide as they abandon their tradional beliefs for materialism and a tremendous contraction of their population base.jerry
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Beauty is found in strange places, and the beauty of this thread is that it proves its thesis naturally, without any need for intervention, as it were. Naziism thrived on making language a tool of the will to power. It proved Nietzsche right: the Strong Man can indeed win over the masses to a perverse ideology by crafting his message carefully and staying on point. He can indeed obtain the domination over the herd that he longs for in every corpuscle of his alpha male being. QED. Observe the Strong Man in action, his protean rhetorical resourcefulness. The distortion of plain truth to serve the goals of materialism and (more importantly) ego is not just a chimera of the religious imagination; it is a reality being played out in classrooms and science institutions across the country. Should we be surprised that bright young men and women at elite schools can be won over to the tendentious narrative of Neo-Darwinism? What, Heidegger wasn’t bright? True, he wasn’t as cynical as Hitler and Goebbels; he actually believed their nonsense. But do we find this comforting? Science is knowledge; ideology is about winning. Clearly the Strong Man may win in his classroom by manipulating science to unscientific ends, but science itself imposes a limit on his desire for power. The more we actually know about life and its complexity, the smaller his kingdom becomes.allanius
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
William J. Murray asks (in #59):
"Will those high ideals still be in place after 200 years of a culture embracing materialistic Darwinism?"
An excellent question. 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. What do the statistics (i.e. not personal beliefs, opinions, or uninformed prejudice) tell us about trends in criminality and violent behavior over the past 200 years? If the majority of the commentators in this thread are correct, both the rate of criminality and violent behavior in western Europe (i.e. the place both longest and most affected by evolutionary thought) should have steadily increased over the past 200 years, showing a significant increase in frequency following 1859, and reaching an exponential climax today. Empirical research indicates exactly the opposite: that both violent crime and morbidity and mortality as the result of warfare have steadily declined (as a rate function, per capita) since the beginning of the 19th century. See: "Historical Trends in Violent Crime: A Critical Review of the Evidence." Gurr, T. R. (1981) Crime and Justice, Vol. 3, , pp. 295-353.Allen_MacNeill
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
I'm sorry, I missed this:
Dembski:Provine informs his students that by the end of the course any belief they have in God will be shattered. MacNeill:Untrue. However, both Will and I do tell our students that their naive beliefs about both science and religion will be challenged during the course, and a great many of our students attest that this is indeed the case. The last time I checked, challenging a student’s naive and often uninformed beliefs was precisely the point of a university education.
Without Will Provine's notes I can't say, nor would I know how Dembski can say, that he says exactly that to his students. But interesting you admit that you state that your teaching of science will impact their notions of religion. About the same time you take a poll to find out what their beliefs are. And in the class of a man who says that evolution is the greatest engine of atheism and that learning about evolution teaches us that there is no God and no afterlife, etc. Challenging students naive assumptions about religion is not your job, and assessing them to be naive is not your job. Since you state that you make a point of it it is obvious that you, like Will Provine, believe that evolution has religious implications (just like ID, by the way). And then you poll at the end of your course to find out what impact you have had. I would say Demsbki's statement, based upon only what you have said here and have admitted Will Provine says, may be exaggerated but it is certainly a valid interpretation of what you've just said.Charlie
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Its likely a good thing I have nothing to say about Allen's abuse of population statistics on this post. As a population research director, I would probably get carried away and force the moderators to come to his immediate aide. Still, what a sight to see. And, this from a man who repeatedly prances and promotes his image of "fairness in thought" to the ID community - certainly to be applauded, like so much of a 1960's corporation with its token minority in tow.Upright BiPed
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Allan_MacNeill at 54 Your response is ad hominem and demeaning to janice. Please desist from such attacks and such nitpicking. Its unworthy of you. Janice appears to have been trying to make an important point and made an ambiguous statement.
It was just under 20% of the sample.
She did not explicitly distinguish between the TOTAL number sampled vs the portion of the sample that responded. I read her statement to be the total and you misleading imply just those who responded. In the future, please cite and link to your references where practical. The figures you quote were apparently reproduced at: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm Janice's point is that ONLY 20% of those polled responded. 80% DID NOT respond. Consequently there could easily be a much larger portion of atheists in the actual prison population if they habitually do not self report their religious beliefs.DLH
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
One more attempt at logical argument supported by empirical evidence, and then I have to go to office hours. 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. Where is atheism and acceptance of evolutionary biology most common? Among the nations of western Europe. Norway, in particular, has the lowest crime rate in Europe, and is known for the quality of its science (and especially evolutionary biology). It also has among the highest percentage of atheists of all nations in the world. See: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=pzuckerman_26_5Allen_MacNeill
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
DLH:"Correspondingly, similarity between genes could be by design processes as well as common descent." I agree that mere similarity could, but IIRC the Darwinists talk about nested hierarchies. Am I wrong? Are they misleading people?Russell
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
Hi Allen MacNeill,
Untrue. Will doesn’t say this about our students; he says it about himself
No he doesn't. He says it about evolution itself. He says it of believing people in particular and in general:
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism. No Free Will (1999) p.123
===
We do poll our students at the beginning and the end of our courses.
You asses your course for the changed beliefs of the students. And Will Provine has said he likes when they come to believe in evolution. This is what he wants his course to do. And this leads to atheism - according to him and indispute with you.
Furthermore, we both grade our students, not on whether they think like we do, but rather on how well they take a logical and well-supported stand on the various issues in play, and how well they can marshal the available evidence in support of their arguments.
Dr. Dembski said nothing about your grading system.
So, what would you call Dr. Dembski’s allegations? To me, they are the deliberate use of false statements in support of a polemical position. Is this not the definition of “lies?”
The only thing you've even contended to be wrong is Dr. Dembski's calling Provine's course one for freshman when you demonstrate that it is not merely for or even especially for freshman. This is arguably not even false, let alone a deliberate falsehood. What do I call Dr. Dembski's allegations? His interpretation of the situation. And an interpretation which is wholly supported by facts, as evidenced by Provine's own words, and as attested to by you. Perhaps Dr. Dembski drew a faulty conclusion as to motivation, which is not obvious, but being wrong and having a point of view is not lying. What do you call your use of quotation marks in this sentence:
P.S. Dr. Dembski has accused Will Provine of “slanting” our evolution course “in order to convert our students into atheists”
When, given that you accept my source, these are not quotes? What do you call repeating that Dr. Dembski lied when you have nothing to demonstrate that he willfully gave false evidence? What do you call it when you go to TT and say you were banned at UD when you weren't? And refuse to confirm when asked? And what do you call it when, on your own blog, you allow commenters to continue to say you were banned at UD and you do not correct them? Are these outright lies? Are you a liar? As such a strong advocate of looking at your own positions critically and of admonishing all and sundry for their level of gentlemanly discourse ought you not reconsider some of your own actions (and defences)?Charlie
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
I think the real question to pose here isn't how material evolutionists behave, because most material evolutionists behave fairly well (at least as well as believers, generally.) The real question IMO is, why do they behave? Many people behave in hypocricritical or unjustifiable ways when that behavior is compared to their espoused beliefs. While it might be convenient politically or socially to claim, and possible to prove statistically as factual, that Darwinian Materialists "behave" as well as believers, it begs the question of why? Their ideology doesn't support any logical impetus to behave with social, moral, or ethical conscience unless one perceives that it will benefit them in this life in a meaningful way even when nobody is looking, and they aren't going to be held accountable for their actions in any material sense. What is the impetus to behave when one can get away with bad behavior? That they behave can be attributed to many other conditioning, moderating and limiting influences, such as a believer context that has ingrained such ideas as ultimately beneficial, or upbringings that train certain ideas into one's psyche that, while having no direct support from materialistic darwinism, are simply held on to out of some idea of reciprocal self-protection and a hoped-for fulfilled social contract. However, growing up in a society with such traditional views and constraints based on religoius and spiritual morality is one thing; it's another thing entirely to imagine how materalistic Darwinism, as a long-term cultural paradigm, could avoid eventually embracing eugenics, euthanasia, selective breeding of humans, and an overall devaluation of human life. To claim that materialistic Darwinists display "good" behavior and "noble" humanitarian ideals now is irrelevant; they do so by sleeping in a cultural bed of traditional spiritual thought and values. Will those high ideals still be in place after 200 years of a culture embracing materialistic Darwinism? Why would they?William J. Murray
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Allan_MacNeill "Unlike Will, I am most emphatically not an atheist, . . ." Bravo on holding to your principles and not succumbing to peer pressure.
Furthermore, we both grade our students, not on whether they think like we do, but rather on how well they take a logical and well-supported stand on the various issues in play, and how well they can marshal the available evidence in support of their arguments.
Bravo - a fair minded teacher. A rare refreshing find in the midst of totalitarian elitist neo-evolutionary mindset insistent on expelling any who do not toe the line. Keep up the good work. On your other points, we encourage objective writing with fact checking.DLH
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
prhean wrote (in #53):
"Check the low recidivism rate among those who become strong practicing Christians in prison via ministries such as Prison Fellowship versus the high recidivism rate among the general prison population. Now that’s an impressive stat!"
And is cited to support what logical position, exactly?Allen_MacNeill
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
DobyGS wrote (in #49):
"It is inappropriate to say that evolutionary biology makes statements about ethics and how humans make moral decisions."
Thank you! Indeed, it is. Most surprising: A ray of "Uncommon Rationality" in a thread mostly devoted to ad hominem attacks, character assassination, and abuse of simple logical reasoning. I salute you (and your integrity).Allen_MacNeill
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
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... Furthermore, Janice has taken it upon herself to speculate on my tendency toward a life of crime. Character assassination, while it seems to be the hobby of people like Janice, is not generally considered to be one of the tools of a scholar. Furthermore, Janice asserts that:
"...all these people, and not just atheist evolutionary biologists, have been incited to crime and are at risk of succumbing to the temptation to commit a crime because they do not have a personal relationship with the risen Lord."
The abuse of logic and evidence in this quote is so beyond the pale as to require almost no comment. In the complete absence of confirmatory data, Janice has concluded that the criminals who did not indicate their religious beliefs were motivated in their crimes by the lack of "...a personal relationship with the risen Lord." Using the same logic, I could assert that they were motivated in their crimes by the lack of their belief in the Tooth Fairy. After all, none of the respondents stated that they either believed or did not believe in the Tooth Fairy. Indeed, their beliefs in the Tooth Fairy were not recorded. According to "Janice logic", this means that they can be included in the category of "people who were motivated in their crimes by macroevolutionary theory." If a student turned in an essay with this kind of twisted logic in one of my courses, they would receive an F and would be recommended for psychological counseling.Allen_MacNeill
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
RE: Underrepresentation of atheists in prisons You've heard of foxhole conversions. And jail house conversions. Now we see the stats. Check the low recidivism rate among those who become strong practicing Christians in prison via ministries such as Prison Fellowship versus the high recidivism rate among the general prison population. Now that's an impressive stat!prhean
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Allan_MacNeill at 17
Correlation is not causation.
ID highly agrees. Thus, any resemblance between fossils is but correlation and not causation. OFF TOPIC Similarity between genes could be by design processes as well as common descent. Such similarities are parallel to variations known to be due to design processes as anyone familiar with the automobile and aircraft industries can attest to.
DLH
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Charlie (in #39): Yes, that is precisely the reference to Will Provine that I was writing about. Let me quote the first paragraph in full:
"Professor Will Provine teaches a course for incoming freshman at Cornell University. In it, he contends that Darwin’s theory of evolution makes it impossible to believe in the existence of a benevolent God, much less in the God of Christianity. Provine informs his students that by the end of the course any belief they have in God will be shattered. In fact, he gauges the success of the course by the number of new atheists it produces."
Every sentence in this quote is a deliberate and outright lie. Unlike Dr. Dembski, who to my knowledge has never attended Will Provine's evolution course, I have participated in it for more than 15 years, and have taught it myself for the last five. At no time during that period has either Will or I asserted any of the statements that Dr. Dembski alleges. Let's take them one at a time:
Professor Will Provine teaches a course for incoming freshman at Cornell University.
Untrue. Our course (BioEE 207/Hist 287/S&TS 287) is intended for non-science majors, and fulfills both science and humanities distribution requirements. It is not, however, intended for freshman, nor do they comprise the majority of students taking the course. Indeed, during some semesters, the majority of the students taking it are juniors and seniors (most of whom are looking for an "easy" course to fill out their distribution requirements).
In it, he contends that Darwin’s theory of evolution makes it impossible to believe in the existence of a benevolent God, much less in the God of Christianity.
Untrue. Will doesn't say this about our students; he says it about himself. Indeed, you can watch him say this in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", in which he is quite clear that his learning of evolutionary theory made him into an atheist. Unlike Will, I am most emphatically not an atheist, nor did my learning of evolutionary biology transform me into what I am (nor, BTW, did it apparently transform me into a debauched libertine). As there are no direct quotes from his lecture notes anywhere available online or in print, you will have to take my word for this. If any of our students are reading this, however, I would hope that they would support my contention that this statement is a gross distortion of the facts.
Provine informs his students that by the end of the course any belief they have in God will be shattered.
Untrue. However, both Will and I do tell our students that their naive beliefs about both science and religion will be challenged during the course, and a great many of our students attest that this is indeed the case. The last time I checked, challenging a student's naive and often uninformed beliefs was precisely the point of a university education.
In fact, he gauges the success of the course by the number of new atheists it produces."
Untrue. As the description and polling data cited in Comment #20 in this thread indicate: https://uncommondescent.com/science/my-meeting-with-david-berlinski-a-true-renaissance-man/ We do poll our students at the beginning and the end of our courses. And, as the data indicate, the only people whose minds are changed are those who believe in either God-guided evolution or ID. They become either young Earth creationists or naturalists (in about the same proportions). That is, they become what I would consider to be more logically consistent and more rigorous in their thinking (in both cases, BTW). Furthermore, we both grade our students, not on whether they think like we do, but rather on how well they take a logical and well-supported stand on the various issues in play, and how well they can marshal the available evidence in support of their arguments. Every year for the past five years a prize has been awarded for the best research paper by a student in our course. Endowed by a member of the Cornell board of trustees, the Tallman Prize is awarded in honor of William Provine. In at least one case (and I believe there has been more than one), the winner of the Tallman Prize has been an ID supporter. In my own case, I have given A+ grades to a young Earth creationist and C- grades to evolution supporters, not on the content of their beliefs, but rather on their critical thinking abilities, their use of logic and evidence, their responsible use of evidence in supporting their positions, and their ability to communicate all of this in their writing. So, what would you call Dr. Dembski's allegations? To me, they are the deliberate use of false statements in support of a polemical position. Is this not the definition of "lies?"Allen_MacNeill
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Two other thoughts ... While Darwin did, indeed, have a kind thing or two to say in Descent about the lower races, the savages and barbarians, he also mentioned that he would rather that he were descended from a monkey than these...
"The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly-organized form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many persons. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. They possessed hardly any arts, and like wild animals lived on what they could catch; they had no government, and were merciless to everyone not of their own small tribe. He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins. For my own part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper; or from that old baboon, who, descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions."
The Descent of Man And yes, he did think, and not necessarily advocate, that “[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.” But what this quote-mined excerpt fails to tell you is that at such a point man would be further removed from his simian ancestors than he now is - being that the lower races are less evolved and more like apes than the "civilized" ones - according to Darwin.
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Descent Of Man(more civilised even than Caucasions...) And that Darwin stated that man would then have attained a higher average state than the one occupied prior to these genocides. Or, as he says in his letter to Charles Kingsley, "risen in rank".
In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank.
http://darwin.lib.cam.ac.uk/perl/nav?pclass=calent;pkey=3439 He also conceded in Descent that by tending to and promoting the welfare of the lower classes, as we are morally inclined to do, we are inflicting great and known ills upon society. So while he may not have explicated nor advocated for genocide or positive eugenics it is a clear teaching from his science what anybody who wanted mankind to attain this higher rank or wanted his society to avoid such "undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind" and genetic degeneration" as would be "highly injurious to the race of man", would do good to do. Darwin's stated personal feelings aside, the lesson from his science was clear.Charlie
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
How information from a new scientific finding is used or misused should not be the basis for the rejection of the scientific phenomenon. Nuclear physics says nothing about whether we should weaponize this technology and drop bombs on cities. Our country says that gun manufactures are not responsible for the misuse of their technology. This is where religion plays a vital role in our society helping us to decide the ethical use of new information and technology. One could argue that the churches in Germany were silent about the atrocities fearing retribution by the Nazis. It is inappropriate to say that evolutionary biology makes statements about ethics and how humans make moral decisions.DobyGS
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT
Allen, Does this prediction by Darwin about the atheists still hold: "By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses". Does it hold on the secular left? Or do we now see that any lifestyle choice, based on sexual attraction and choice of pleasure is as good as any other, including the bulwark institution throughout human history of marriage and the intact family. Chances are Darwin's observation that a man might "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" are independent of his prediction that godless rationalism would lead to an intolerance of sensual passions over "higher ones" (higher? what's he talking about?) Also, Darwin uses the following impetus "If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives". Hitler must not have lived with the Germans, or this might not be a sufficient impetus for acting for the good of enough others. In stating the first, the brute implications of Darwinism, I think CD was right on the money. In his prediction as to what that would lead to, he proves himself to be quite off. He doesn't have to mean ill in order to set bad things into motion, it could just be a misplaced confidence that enough counters would organically arise to level it out, a hubris of sorts. Also Darwin's personal affectation for the society that he was brought up in means nothing unless the point was to become a devotee to everything that Darwin thinks. Absent this constraint the moral nihilism of Darwin must be taken separately from his affectations. This is no different from Nietzsche, who was a gentle heart as you can gather his letters. He thought it was impolite to broach the topic of his disbelief with a old fashioned Catholic Dame, so he avoided the subject of his writings which would "only upset her". But it is one thing to suggest "The world could do with a little less Christianity" and it is another thing to see what happens when those ideas are carried out. Specifically, on Nietzsche, his work cannot handle a slavish devotion to everything FN thought. His work would ridicule this idea. A river is great by it's offshoots (He got the direction wrong.) Thus Nietzsche is great not by slavish attention to ambiguous treatment of The State, and navigating the fjords of his thought, but by taking from his work and taking it in your own direction. To slavishly devote yourself to the intricacies is to ignore FN's ridicule that he would give to any slavish devotion to another man's work. As a result, all we need to do is jettison a little of Nietzsche's distaste for this add our own proclivities and by the theory of streams, we still have something that if great, attests to Nietzsche's greatness. How anathematic to this are the narrow stipulations of Nietzsche's defenders that he didn't actually like this or that about totalitarianism? Nietzsche thought content of Great Men was more robust than that.jjcassidy
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Allen, For a thorough evisceration of those stats, see this treatment: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2008/03/bogus-atheist-social-sciences_21.html Plus Atheism =/= Darwinism--or haven't you talked with Eugenie Scott of late. So showing that a lower proportion of atheists are in prison than say, theistic evolutionists really does not address how Darwinism makes one more or less likely to commit crimes. (My apologies to theistic evolutionists.) You started off on a (known) false dichotomy, and posted hyped stats. Tell me a little more about this "critical thinking" stuff...jjcassidy
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
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. Given that atheists like to say they have no religion and, furthermore, take offence at the notion that atheism might be considered a religion, might we not reasonably assume that a substantial proportion of non-responders to a question like, "What is your religion?" would, in fact, have been atheists. Something MacNeill appears not to know is that a great many people who call themselves Catholic or Protestant, etc., are only nominally so. Many of them won't darken a church doorway during their life time unless they're getting baptised, married or buried. Even among regular church goers there is a large proportion that are extrinsically motivated. They go to church for whatever they can get out of going to church, not because they love God and want to obey Him. Of all those nominals and extrinsics aged 44 and under (88% of the US prison population are 44 and under) the vast majority will have been taught, all through school, that macro-evolution is true. My bet would be that most of those would have more faith that evolution is true than they have faith that Jesus rose from the dead. The former notion comes with all the weight of authority that has been granted to the teaching and scientific establishments. The latter notion is "foolishness" in the eyes of the world. Thus all these people, and not just atheist evolutionary biologists, have been incited to crime and are at risk of succumbing to the temptation to commit a crime because they do not have a personal relationship with the risen Lord. Therefore the relationship between belief in evolution and crime is not elucidated by reeling off statistics about current religious affiliation. They tell us nothing about whether the current affiliation is instrinsic or extrinisic and, as DrDan noted @ 15, they tell us nothing about what religious beliefs the person had at the time they committed the crime for which they were imprisoned. What would be interesting to know would be the proportion of those currently imprisoned who believed, at the time they committed their crime, that macro-evolution is true. My guess would be that, of those who ever bothered to think about the matter, most would believe it. As for the Ted Haggards of the world, well, my guess is that they're extrinsics. The fact that Alan MacNeill has not succumbed to the temptation to commit a crime for which he has been caught and held to account may be due to factors that have little to do with himself, personally. He may have been well taught by his parents (cultural resources). He may have been well loved by his parents (emotional resources). He may have had no need to try and get money illegally (economic resources). He may have committed crimes too hard to detect or pursue (lack of policing resources). But considering his post here and other stupidities he's written (e.g., about 47 different varieties of random changes not being mutation events because they're not point mutation [change] events) he appears to have within him something that might, eventually, overflow and carry him away. Finally, regarding the above linked post of his, where he likens Hitler's thought to Christianity, I offer him this quote from here.
"Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "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." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] ... Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] 1 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924, p. 286. 2 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859, p. 400. 3 Adolf Hitler, quoted in Joachim Fest's, Hitler, 1974, p. 679-680. 4 Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 14. 5 Ibid., p. 230.
Janice
April 17, 2008
April
04
Apr
17
17
2008
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
Yuck, Sorry for all the typos.Charlie
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT
Intelligent people may disagree on quite a few things, yet continue to respect each other, and even be friends.
True that.Charlie
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Thank, Allen, for your response on Will Provine's position. As for your reference on Dr. Dembsli, I will be patient. Is it this one? http://www.leaderu.com/science/10questionsbioteacher.html While you are searching would you consider the following question? Is it fair to say that Will Provine would hope that his students learn more about modern biology and evolution through their studies in his class? Since he once said that he liked having Phil Johnson speak to his class because it made more of them believe in evolution I think this would be a safe bet that he considers his class to have been a success when more students come to believe in naturalistic evolutio. And then, given the accuracy of the quotes in which he said that evolution is incompatible with theism, that it is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented, that it means that there is no God, and that it makes atheists of people do you think it is far-fetched for somebody to think that teaching evolution for Will Provine is the same as making them atheists? This seems like a very fair reading to me. As such, and depending upon your reference, do you think you might reconsider how quick you are (again, please) to call people with whom you disagree "liars"? Of course, I await your citation before committing myself further.Charlie
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
10:21 PM
10
10
21
PM
PDT
Yes, the quotes from my friend and mentor Will Provine are indeed correct. They are, however, not representative of my own position on the linkage between evolutionary biology and religious belief at all. Quite the contrary, in fact. We have argued about this subject for quite some time, and I anticipate that we will continue to do so. The fact that we disagree on this issue does not, however, lessen at all my admiration of Will as a historian of science or an insightful critic of evolutionary theory. Intelligent people may disagree on quite a few things, yet continue to respect each other, and even be friends. At least it seems so to me. As to William Dembski's alleged assertion that Will Provine teaches his evolution class in such a way as to convert his students into atheists, it will take while to find the citation. Please be patient.Allen_MacNeill
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply