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

Hi Allen MacNeill,
choose to deliberately misrepresent its contents.
Speaking of which, the other day you made yet another accusation that somebody was lying. It was on this thread: https://uncommondescent.com/science/my-meeting-with-david-berlinski-a-true-renaissance-man/ I asked you about it but never saw your answer. Could you point it out to me, please? Thanks.
By the way, both Will Provine and I plan on showing “Expelled” in our evolution courses at Cornell, as soon as it comes out on DVD. Should make for some very spirited discussions!
Speaking of your good friend Will Provine, were those quotes of his accurate? Thanks. At #28 you say you disagree with Provine on this issue of knowledge about evolution leading to atheism. Does that mean that, as far as you know, the quotes are accurate and he does believe that learning about evolution leads to atheism and that evolution does tells us there is no God and no life after death, etc.? https://uncommondescent.com/science/my-meeting-with-david-berlinski-a-true-renaissance-man/#comment-229736Charlie_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT}

EricB wrote (in #34):
"...it would be perhaps more plausible to believe that the well-documented historical connection between Darwinism and Nazi eugenics was an abuse if Darwin himself had not explicitly anticipated genocide of the lesser races as the expected outcome of his theory applied to human conduct."
I believe you are referring to this often quote-mined fragment:
“[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” [emphasis added]
I have emphasized the word "will" in the quote above. It is clear from reading Darwin's published works that he: 1) was an abolitionist who deeply abhorred slavery, and 2) did not ever advocate the extermination of anyone, and certainly not "the savage races". On the contrary, he was simply observing what he saw going on in the world during the middle of the 19th century. And, as history tells us, he was (unfortunately) nearly right: the "civilized" races (and especially the British) did indeed almost exterminate the "savage" races. A complete reading of The Descent of Man... (and his sutobiography) indicates that in many cases Darwin felt quite a bit of sympathy with "the savage races". Indeed, he proposed that "primitive man" was ultimately the source of all of our moral and social values:
"Man may be excused for feeling some pride at having risen, though not through his own exertions, to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having thus risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hopes for a still higher destiny in the distant future. But we are not here concerned with hopes or fears, only with the truth as far as our reason allows us to discover it. I have given the evidence to the best of my ability; and we must acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system—with all these exalted powers—Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin."
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.2&viewtype=side&pageseq=422Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Allen, "And so, a question in return: is the use of ID (which I assume you would assert is a “science”) in support of a particular political or religious viewpoint justified as science, or is it part of a political, religious, and social movement?" Did you miss when I said outright I'm a resident TE here? I routinely express my skepticism of the ability to "scientifically" detect design on the scale typically discussed. I, personally, consider it a philosophical endeavor - I think strong philosophical arguments for design, informed by science, can be mounted. And who knows; maybe specific claims made by ID proponents can be scientifically fruitful. Behe's claims about evolution certainly seem answerable through experimentation - and thus he may be wrong. I'm open to having my mind changed, but I don't follow the specific fights rigorously - they're less interesting to me, since I regard materialism as a convoluted joke, and big-d Design entirely possible within a context of naturalism. I'm an odd duck here. You claim that any mix of science and philosophy/personal viewpoint is a perversion. Then my next response is obvious - the scientific "establishment" at large has been doing an abysmal job of making that clear, and this was the case long before Intelligent Design arrived on the scene. The mere fact that guys like Stenger, and yes, even Dawkins can rally "science" in defense of their positions with nary a peep from the same people who demand punishment for ID proponents says it all. From where I'm sitting, it seems that the standards in play are tremendously uneven. Until guys like Stenger receive as much denunciation as guys like Behe (who, frankly, is vastly more restrained and limited in what he's argued) from the Paladins of Science, I'm going to regard all the cries of 'perverting knowledge' as essentially biased favoritism.nullasalus_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill: "Odd; I thought we were in the profession of encouraging our students to become critical thinkers. That’s why I always invite prominent creationists and ID supporters to make presentations in my courses, and encourage students with dissenting opinions to do so as well. But, they can’t think for themselves, can they?" You are quite right to think that is an appropriate way to approach university instruction. Would you care to try to make a case that you are normative and representative of college biology with regard to the access you give to these other perspectives? For instance, when Expelled comes out on DVD, about what percentage of college evolutionary biology programs will choose to give it a fair presentation and frankly discuss the issues of loss of academic freedom? How many would even acknowledge there is a reprehensible absence of academic freedom on this topic? Should we expect to see it in Iowa where Gonzalez was denied tenure for what a scientific position he held, despite the fact that he was not teaching it in class? You may make for a fine example, but its excellence is sadly exceptional, not representative. Pointing to your own practice is insufficient to establish a positive pattern. On your other points, it would be perhaps more plausible to believe that the well-documented historical connection between Darwinism and Nazi eugenics was an abuse if Darwin himself had not explicitly anticipated genocide of the lesser races as the expected outcome of his theory applied to human conduct. As a general observation, I find it interesting that Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes in the famous Scopes monkey trial, had previously served for the defense in the Leopold and Loeb case. (The Hitchcock movie The Rope is inspired by the crime.)
After Darrow had repeatedly trumpeted the benefits and necessity of teaching Darwinian evolution to high schoolers in the Tennessee schools, Bryan quoted from the trial transcript of a first-degree murder case that had occurred one year earlier in Illinois, the famous case of Leopold and Loeb. In this earlier case, Darrow said that his client (Loeb) should not be given the death penalty because it was the teachers and the universities that had filled the young murderer’s mind with Darwinian ideas—ideas that more evolved humans should be able to kill and destroy lesser humans with impunity. Darrow, in other words, had just defended a teen-aged murderer the year before who was a dedicated follower of Darwin and Nietzsche and who had become so enthralled with the “survival of the fittest” cult that he had killed another boy in cold blood just to demonstrate his superiority. Darrow, in Loeb's defense, blamed the teachers of the dangerous (not the ideas themselves) and so naturally, in the Scopes trial, he attempted to backtrack from the implication that what those teachers had taught Loeb was—literally!—deadly. But the attempt was futile and Darrow abandoned it with the empty assertion that his words in that earlier case spoke for themselves and needed no defense. (pp. 178ff of the trial transcript)
For many more inconvient facts, see http://www.themonkeytrial.com/ericB_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

nullasalus asked (in #31): "...is ANY combination of science and personal viewpoint not a perversion?" Yes, especially if that viewpoint is clearly part of a larger political movement. I think I mostly answered this question, above, BTW. Care to answer mine?Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

nullasalus asked (in #27):
"When does rallying science to justify a viewpoint cross the line from ‘harmless opinion’ to ‘perversion and abuse’?"
The very first time one rallies science to justify a viewpoint (personal or group), one has stopped doing science and started doing politics. And so, a question in return: is the use of ID (which I assume you would assert is a "science") in support of a particular political or religious viewpoint justified as science, or is it part of a political, religious, and social movement?Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, "As to whether I invite creationists and ID supporters to make presentations in my evolution course to somehow bias my students against them, you seem to have a very low opinion of both the abilities of my invited guests to make their cases and the ability of my students to come to their own decisions about what to believe." No, Allen - I told you flat out I have no idea what you do one way or the other, and thus your claims mean nothing to me. I picked up a degree in Political Science, and I have first-hand experience with how some professors stress, overtly and subtly, their personal views on any subject that's controversial or that they care about - including lower marks if you don't show you're learning the 'right' points of view. I have a low opinion of the university system as a whole, and probably some pessimism about most people's interest in pursuing a topic vigorously. Considering you yourself put up a blog entry expressly to educate people - including evolution supporters - on fundamentals of the very thing they support or attack, you seem to be more in more court than you'd think. "The first two assertions are metaphysical propositions, without a shred of empirical evidence, and the last two are pure political character assassination, nothing more." Then let me make something abundantly clear to you: That's not how it comes across to many people. Victor Stenger's book was entitled "God: The Failed Hypothesis" with the subtitle "How science shows that God does not exist". THIS is mere 'personal opinion'? Where was the outcry? Where were the denunciations of science being so abused? Frankly, they were nowhere. At least not among the typical self-appointed 'defenders of science'. Just as they're nowhere whenever any scientist talks about the philosophical and theological conclusions one must take if they look at science (often with horrible, shoddy reason put on display, might I add.) You can assert that there's absolutely no design in biology or cosmology, and few scientists or science organizations will care. Oh, but assert that there are indications of design, or that the natural world shows evidence of there being a creator - and suddenly, this is a very important subject. We can't let science be abused, after all. Did you know that the Templeton organization funds and rewards scientists, and *gasp* has an innocuous religious viewpoint? They're poisoning science! I ask you again - when does 'mere personal opinion' cross the line from that, to perversion? Again, look at Victor Stenger's book title. Is that an abuse? Is it a perversion? And if it's not, then how in the world is ANY combination of science and personal viewpoint not a perversion?nullasalus_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

And as for the assertion that I "twisted" this thread away from an uncritical celebration of argumentum ad hitleram and toward a more realistic discussion of what evolutionary biology as an empirical science can and cannot do, that's my job: Cornell pays me to make critical thinkers out of my students, and I guess I just can't help myself.Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

Odd; I thought we were in the profession of encouraging our students to become critical thinkers. That’s why I always invite prominent creationists and ID supporters to make presentations in my courses, and encourage students with dissenting opinions to do so as well. But, they can’t think for themselves, can they? The first part about critical thinking is indeed mandatory. I don't see the need to invite creationists and ID supporters when you and so many Professors so-obviously present the balanced view. Lets take this from a students perspective, if a student learns Darwinian non-sense all summer long and suddenly you call in batman (ie: creationist or ID supporter ) to the rescue, do you think that will have any impact on what the students views are at that point? You have failed the critical thinking part, instead you brought about more confusion onto the students who are writing exams on Darwinian Evolution and in the meantime a sideshow ID supporter pop-ups as a bonus so hopefully they can then make up they're mind about the final exam they just wrote?godslanguage_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT}

nullasalus wrote (in #27):
"...when Provine talks about how evolutionary biology “proves that life is meaningless and there is no God” or thereabouts, well - that’s just him expressing his opinion, he’s entitled to that, wink wink. Victor Stenger wants to write a book about how God is a ‘failed hypothesis’, well, he’s being showy, but again, that’s just his viewpoint."
Exactly. Both my good friend Will (with whom I disagree on many things, including his assertions about evolutionary theory leading to atheism) and Victor Stenger have expressed their personal viewpoints on this subject. Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Stephen J. Gould, T. H. Huxley, Charles Darwin, and I (among many others) have expressed precisely the opposite viewpoint: that the science of evolutionary biology says absolutely nothing about either the existence or non-existence of God, the necessity for atheism, or anything about eugenics or Naziism. The first two assertions are metaphysical propositions, without a shred of empirical evidence, and the last two are pure political character assassination, nothing more. As to whether I invite creationists and ID supporters to make presentations in my evolution course to somehow bias my students against them, you seem to have a very low opinion of both the abilities of my invited guests to make their cases and the ability of my students to come to their own decisions about what to believe.Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Since Darwin never advocated violence against the Jews but Martin Luther did, I'm at a loss as to how Martin manages to fly under the radar on this. BTW, if anyone can show me that Darwin did indeed advocate violence against the Jews, I'd appreciate it.pmr_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, "Indeed; I give an entire lecture on the rise and fall of eugenics in my evolution course at Cornell, and participated on a panel for Darwin Day last year in which this very topic was the subject of discussion." Honestly, you frequently refer to how you conduct your classes, and I have to say - hearing that does nothing for me. For all I know, you air ID views primarily to criticize them rather than take them seriously. Or maybe you don't. I really have no way of knowing. What I do know is how this thread has gone, and 'twisted considerably' is what I'm seeing in play here. And for the record, I'm a resident TE with strong ID sympathies. " Evolutionary biology is not about politics, nor is it about twisting the observed facts about nature in the pursuit of “social ends.” This is why eugenics is historically not part of the science of evolutionary biology, but rather a perversion of it for “political and social ends.” The attempt to demonize evolutionary biology by asserting that it played a “causative” role in the rise of Naziism and other social ills not only trivializes the victims, it diverts our attention from the real causes of those ills." Go back to what mynym said - having it both ways. Face it; when Provine talks about how evolutionary biology "proves that life is meaningless and there is no God" or thereabouts, well - that's just him expressing his opinion, he's entitled to that, wink wink. Victor Stenger wants to write a book about how God is a 'failed hypothesis', well, he's being showy, but again, that's just his viewpoint. But somehow, when evolutionary biology is rallied to support an unpopular viewpoint - say a scientist talking about how 'clearly blacks are inferior', or if the topic of eugenics comes up.. why, that's an abuse! A perversion! And if someone believes that biology doesn't naturally lead to atheism, but in fact inspires one to believe in design - abuse, unscientific! And if they're denied tenure due to that alone, well, sorry - that's the name of the game, pal! So you tell me, professor: When does rallying science to justify a viewpoint cross the line from 'harmless opinion' to 'perversion and abuse'? Because as near as I can tell, mynym is on to something with his observation.nullasalus_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

One more inconvenient "fact":
"In actual fact, knowledge meant nothing to Hitler; he was not acquainted with the pleasure or the struggle that goes with its acquisition; to him it was merely useful, and the “art of corrected reading” of which he spoke was nothing more than the hunt for formulations to borrow and authorities to cite in support of his own preconceptions: “correctly coordinated within the somehow existing picture”. Joachim Fest, Hitler, Harcourt 2002, p. 201"
For more inconvenient "facts", see: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/03/godwins-darwin.htmlAllen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

nulassus wrote (in #21):
"...talking about this subject directly and honestly seems to be the last thing desired by some."
Indeed; I give an entire lecture on the rise and fall of eugenics in my evolution course at Cornell, and participated on a panel for Darwin Day last year in which this very topic was the subject of discussion.
"Evolution as a theory has been abused for political and social ends."
Indeed; so has Christianity (and republicanism as well). You have said it yourself: "political and social ends." Evolutionary biology is not about politics, nor is it about twisting the observed facts about nature in the pursuit of "social ends." This is why eugenics is historically not part of the science of evolutionary biology, but rather a perversion of it for "political and social ends." The attempt to demonize evolutionary biology by asserting that it played a "causative" role in the rise of Naziism and other social ills not only trivializes the victims, it diverts our attention from the real causes of those ills.Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

"Considering what you just pulled with religious incarceration statistics, that’s an amusing claim." nullasalus, if we are to engage in a real debate, we must make real arguments. Clearly Allen used statistics to try and demonstrate atheism does not cause amorality, not that Christianity does. While correlation does not mean causation, you cannot have causation without correlation. We must focus on the question, how many were atheist when they were incarcerated? Jorde Student of the Intelligent Design Institute of Theoretical ScienceJorde_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

And just to set the record straight: There may be a lot of problems with universities, but atheism is another question altogether. It's not so clear-cut - statistically speaking, of course. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/10/09/religion "While the study found no sector of higher education without believers, there are significant differences by type of institution and discipline. Faculty members at religious colleges made up about 14 percent of the sample in the survey and they were more likely to believe in God. While 52 percent of professors in non-religiously affiliated colleges believe in God either despite doubts or without doubt, 69 percent of those at religious colleges feel that way. Professors are most likely to be atheists or agnostics at elite doctoral institutions (37 percent) and less likely to be non-believers at community colleges (15 percent)."nullasalus_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

By the way, godslanguage (so appropriately named, BTW), this is the last time I will respond to your particular brand of character assassination:
"...chance and luck worshiping cowards..."
Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

godslanguage wrote (in #19):
"The scary part about those statistics is that atheists who compromise 10 percent of the population have 99.9 percent control of academia."
And it's a well-known "fact" that college graduates (especially those with PhDs) are over-represented in prisons, and form the core of the American Nazi party, right? Again, the "statistics" (which are, of course, false) show just the opposite. So why is this "scary", exactly? "Scary" because those of us in academics are likely to lead our students into a life of crime and debauchery, not to mention slavish adherence to totalitarian ideologies? Odd; I thought we were in the profession of encouraging our students to become critical thinkers. That's why I always invite prominent creationists and ID supporters to make presentations in my courses, and encourage students with dissenting opinions to do so as well. But, they can't think for themselves, can they? Or can they? How much respect do you have for them (my students, that is)? By the way, both Will Provine and I plan on showing "Expelled" in our evolution courses at Cornell, as soon as it comes out on DVD. Should make for some very spirited discussions!Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

"Correlation is not causation." Considering what you just pulled with religious incarceration statistics, that's an amusing claim. And then the example of how Nazism only arose in Germany - what are the odds that a political and social philosophy intimately connected with Germanic origins would only arise in Germany? Expand the question from 'nazism' to 'eugenics' and suddenly the story changes - but then, talking about this subject directly and honestly seems to be the last thing desired by some. Evolution as a theory has been abused for political and social ends. From social darwinism to eugenics to - this may come as a shock to you - attempting to link it as necessitating atheism. And when I say that, I speak of Dawkins, Myers, and the rest, far more than critics of darwinism.nullasalus_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

DrDan wrote (in #14):
"Actually, the facts are in the individuals stories of each inmate. When you take the numbers and reduce them to one moment of the raw numbers (in this case, a simple average), you are losing a lot of information. You need to take an infinite number of moments to keep all the information from the raw data."
That is exactly right. Indeed, what you are describing is what is known in social psychology as "fundamental attribution error". That is, the tendency to attribute simple group-level causation to members of other social groups, but complex ideosynchratic causation to members of one's own social group. And it's an error, just as conflating correlation with causation. Here's yet another inconvenient "fact": Evolutionary theory is certainly much more widely accepted today than it was in first half of the 20th century, if trends in court decisions and public education are any indication. If that is the case, and if acceptance of Darwinian evolutionary theory is a causative factor in both criminality and the rise of Naziism, then there should be more crime and more Nazis today than during the 1930s. Check out the statistics (which are, of course, false). Violent crime is significantly lower per capita today than at almost any time during the 20th century, and the last time I checked, the Nazi party isn't doing so well (even in Germany).Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

The scary part about those statistics is that atheists who compromise 10 percent of the population have 99.9 percent control of academia. This is a God fearing nation after all, and to think that its being overrun by the tiny fraction of chance and luck worshiping cowards is even more reason to release Expelled and get the public to think twice about what has transpired.godslanguage_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

I'm not throwing out statistics. In fact, quite the contrary, I recognize the limits that statistics can provide in any experimental setup. The more compicated the question, the less meaningful one number can mean and the more moments one needs from the raw data.DrDan_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

And another inconvenient "fact": As I have pointed out before at this website, it is a "fact" of history that Darwin's theories were most widely adopted by the following countries (and in this order, based on publications in scientific books and journals and founding of scientific societies for studying evolution): England, America, Russia, Germany, and France. Yet, Naziism arose in only one of these countries; indeed, the rest formed the alliance that eventually defeated the Nazis in 1945. Saying that Darwinian evolutionary theory was "necessary" for Naziism and the Holocaust is like saying that science was "necessary" for Naziism and the Holocaust, as the countries listed here were also on the forefront of the natural sciences during the 19th and 20th centuries. There is a very basic principle in science, which the posters here have apparently never encountered: Correlation is not causation.Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, "BTW, Christians comprise about 76% of the American population, but according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, they comprise about 87% of the prison population. Atheists, by contrast, comprise about 8 to 10% of the American population, but only 0.2% of the prison population. Again, I strongly suspect that this pattern is also mirrored by the percentages of evolutionary biologists that wind up incarcerated. So every assertion made by the majority of the posters in this thread are not only wrong, they are as wrong as they could possibly be." C'mon, Allen. You're not that daft. Let's put aside whether some people are culturally christian (As good ol' Dawkins recently described himself), or are only nominally christian, or otherwise - why are you even trotting out religious incarceration statistics when the claim was about what a belief in Darwinism (or at least, taking the conclusions of your colleague Provine seriously, what conclusions evolution-as-presented one is impelled to come to) stirs in people? What you just pulled was a blatant, mind-boggling twist of the subject at hand - part of those 'transcendental values' I hear are all the rage among evolutionary biologists, perhaps?nullasalus_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

For examples, how many converts were there after they were arrested and convicted? By what standard are they claiming to be protestant? One number means little when you consider how complicated the question is.DrDan_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT}

Actually, the facts are in the individuals stories of each inmate. When you take the numbers and reduce them to one moment of the raw numbers (in this case, a simple average), you are losing a lot of information. You need to take an infinite number of moments to keep all the information from the raw data.DrDan_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Here's another inconvenient "fact":
"Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis."
Source: Abraham Foxman, Anti-Defamation League (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4877_52.htm)Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT}

Right, Dr. Dan, so let's throw out statistics; they're just "facts", and as we all know, "facts" can be so darn inconvenient. Odd, though; statistical verification has been the bedrock of the empirical sciences for at least a century. So, let's throw out science, too, while we're at it.Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT}

And 82% of people know that statistics can't be used to bolsters anyones asssertations.DrDan_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

Thank you, Duncan, for posting the entire quote from Darwin's autobiography. Anyone reading it would immediately discover that Darwin was exactly the opposite of the atheistic monster portrayed by most creationists and ID supporters. To me, this means that they have either never read his autobiography, or choose to deliberately misrepresent its contents.Allen_MacNeill_{April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply