Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Few want to hear this but … Darwinism made racism science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A retired surgeon offers some thoughts about John West’s Darwin Day in America (2014, second edition):

At first glance, it might seem that whether we believe in evolution as a purely material, unguided process should make no difference to values or morality. Yet, in his 2007 book Darwin Day in America: How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, Discovery Institute’s John West looks at the question more deeply and shows otherwise. In a nearly encyclopedic manner, he documents the numerous impacts Darwinism has had in the public square. It has had a distinctively destructive effect on our society. Dr. West provides a plethora of examples in each chapter of how Darwinism has changed the courts, the schools, the medical establishment, the conduct of the scientific community, and, indeed, the man on the street.

A War of Worldviews

As the book shows, Darwinism is a Weltanschauung at war with the Judeo-Christian theistic system on which Western civilization and scientific inquiry are based. Many of Dr. West’s examples were unknown to me, and will be news to many other readers. In a skillful and scholarly fashion, he unearths the contest between faith and “science,” while providing references for any claims that he makes. The book is divided into sections, with each oriented around a specific theme. I’ll be as brief as possible in this two-part review.

Kenneth Feucht, “Darwinism and the “So What?” Question: John West’s Darwin Day in America” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 25, 2022)

See, some of us go well back into the 1950s. Darwinism was conveyed in the culture in a way that reinforced racism (like, there were three human “races,” did you know?). As it happened, most of us had little contact with the other two.

For reasons familiar to anyone who follows human psychology, our group was supposed to be the smartest. We were told to be nice to the others anyway. They couldn’t help their stupidity, nor could we.

That was the view smart people had. Stupid Fundamentalists, by contrast, still believed in Adam and Eve…

Most of the legal issues around “race” that we addressed in those days were complicated by Indigenous status or women’s rights (or lack thereof), which is not the same thing as “race.” It was a legal issue in Canada who was or wasn’t entitled to be considered a “registered” Indigenous person and what benefits that such a status did or did not confer. It really didn’t affect our overall assumptions about “race” in general. The implicit assumptions around such ideas were conveyed in the culture.

Comments
zweston, I have great respect for Rabbi Tovia. He has his strengths and some weaknesses. He is very good at demolishing the claims of the "New Testament" writers. The "New Testament" is a train wreck in relation to the Hebrew Scriptures. I will be happy to discuss the "New Testament" with you --RAMram
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @101,
And it will only stay “true” until a more popular lie comes along.
And then the old lie vanishes, never to to be remembered again. According to the recollection of former radical, David Horowitz:
"The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution." - SDS radical during the 1960s
David Horowitz explains:
"In other words the cause - whether inner city blacks or women - is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is the accumulation of power to make the revolution."
The same principle applies to all other areas of human endeavor where "the truth" of any matter is always subservient to the advancement of some goal, whether it involves politics, religion, the arts, science, or business. And there are always people whose aspirations or expediences "transcend" any pedestrian allegiance to truth and morality and are thus willing occasionally (and usually figuratively) to push an old lady down a staircase for the sake of progress. -QQuerius
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Querius
The modern result is that the lie with the most followers is crowned “the truth.”
That's it. And it will only stay "true" until a more popular lie comes along.Silver Asiatic
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Ram
So, do you want to have a live chat on Youtube about Christianity and the Bible in general?
You want to try to prove to me how ignorant and deluded the Jews are?Silver Asiatic
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
Ram, you are a fan of Tovia Singer, no? So an Orthodox Jew?zweston
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
SA, Fair enough. Love and kisses. So, do you want to have a live chat on Youtube about Christianity and the Bible in general? What about you Querius? Your chance to set a guy like me straight live and unedited. What say? --Ramram
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @94,
Morality cannot merely be decided by whatever is the most popular opinion or whatever has the strongest power supporting them.
Yes, exactly. It's a restatement of "might makes right" and "trial by combat," whether the arena is the Russian steppes, a battle over headlines, or a Twitter storm. The modern result is that the lie with the most followers is crowned "the truth." -QQuerius
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
Ram
When it comes to intelligent design, I’m on your side.
That's good to hear.
Peace. Love. And togetherness.
As above, sounds very good to me..
Now, do you want to make this into a Bible study?
I think staying on-topic with ID will be the best. We don't have the structure and enough commonality for Bible analysis anyway.Silver Asiatic
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
SA: Maybe try some respectful conversation with the people you disagree with? Or at least give your point of view? Get over your self-righteousness. Everyone has their point of view. When it comes to intelligent design, I'm on your side. But you (and a lot of other religionists) seem to think your religion matters in the discussion. It doesn't. Let me say this again, so you understand: You bronze-age, anthropomorphic religion is irrelevant in the discussion of ID. The sad truth, you guys chase more people away from ID than you realize because you insist on making it about religion. YOUR religion. Stop it. Now, do you want to make this into a Bible study? (The New Testament is bunk. And it's easy to demonstrate in so many ways.) I'm game. I will be happy to engage. I will put my real name out there and host a YouTube channel where we can all do live discussions. Who is willing? Put up or shut up, cowards. Peace. Love. And togetherness. --Ram P.S. Support Denise.ram
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
Seversky
Quite true but he and his Nazi gang did have to pay attention to the millions who took up arms against them and eventually destroyed them.
The Nazis had to pay attention but with their loss in the war, it doesn't say that the Nazis were morally wrong. It would be no different if they had won. Morality cannot merely be decided by whatever is the most popular opinion or whatever has the strongest power supporting them. If it was, then there would be no reason for minority movements to fight against government mandates, or resist popular decisions like Nazism(as it was at the time) or something like slavery was.Silver Asiatic
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Andrew
But again, why?
Good question. I really don't know!Silver Asiatic
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Queius/87
Using the more precise rate, [Jeanson] traces Y haplogroups back to three men that he labels “Shem, Ham, and Japeth,” based on the direction of their migrations.
I'm disappointed, he should have named them Larry, Curly, and Moe... How does Jeanson, who's a YEC from Answers in Genesis, deal with the fact that Y chromosomal Adam dates to at least 200K to 300K years ago? (PS Don't ask me any more questions about cladistics--we've exhausted that topic)chuckdarwin
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Sev @ 86, >I can form my own moral judgements just like anyone else. Can’t you? But will those moral judgements be the same as anyone else's? How do you know what they will (collectively) be tomorrow, if everyone's moral judgements are derived internally to them, and hence can change on a whim (or a tweet)? What if people diverge morally to the point where they cannot get along in society anymore? Will the statement "I can form my own moral judgements" be worth anything in bragging rights in that case? To put it differently, yes, I can form my own moral judgements, uninfluenced by as many influences as I can shut out of my mind. So? How would that make the world a better place? How does it make life on earth better for others, just because I came up with my own moral standards all by myself? I don't follow the rationale behind your statement.EDTA
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
JHolo @ 72, My list is as follows (at the moment): - Loss of social capital - Loss of moral unity/agreement, and our increasing polarization (reminiscent of 1920's Germany). We never had complete, perfect moral agreement; no society of humans ever has that. We just had more in the past than we do now. - Loss of interpersonal trust - Abortion - needs to be near zero - The Sexual Revolution (among many other things, it created a whole new demographic group [incels] who don't think they will _ever_ get married--easy pickings for a Hitler-type person to give their lives meaning again). - Drug abuse No, I do not think that the "old days" were better in every regard. Certainly technology/medicine were not anywhere near as good as today. But to stay on a non-downward trajectory, certain societal things have to be in place, and they are the areas where we are losing ground. The above changes are tectonic-level things, not just superficial demographic trends.EDTA
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic/80
Hitler’s actions would not have been permissible according to me (if I had been around at the time and if I’d been asked)
Yes, but they were permissible according to him. You would not have been able to tell him that his actions were “not permissible” in a universal sense, but only in your personal opinion and he wouldn’t have cared about that, or needed to care about it.
Quite true but he and his Nazi gang did have to pay attention to the millions who took up arms against them and eventually destroyed them.
So what it means is that anything is permissible to any individual who thinks it is.
To that individual it may be permissible but to a million others who take a different view?
Thus, your unwillingness to permit is offset by his willingness to permit. That’s a stalemate and thus anything is permitted.
If there was just the two of us then it would be a stalemate. But that wouldn't mean anything was permitted or anything was denied. It would be a stalemate and that's how it would remain unless someone or something came along to break the deadlock.Seversky
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Sev, really. Permissible implies one is free to do such without justifiable moral critique [or at extreme end, legal sanction] -- as opposed to whatever rhetorical mouth noises one may wish to utter. When your system does not have such a line then everything is indeed permissible as there are no justifiable lines. The lines of oughtness on evolutionary materialism and/or fellow traveller systems are? ______ We can know them as? ______ And their basis is? ______ As for we disagree with Hitler, that is just the point, without sound oughtness lines you reduce us to a fight as to who is more powerful and can impose his will, AKA nihilism. KFkairosfocus
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
To the point of the OP, while Darwinism made Victorian Era racism and European colonialism scientifically acceptable, modern research in Y-chromosome DNA has been showing that traditional definitions of race are not scientifically supported. Currently, I'm reading a fascinating book by Nathaniel Jeanson (PhD, Cell and Developmental Biology, Harvard) titled, Traced (2022). Its second printing is scheduled for summer. https://www.amazon.com/Traced-Human-DNAs-Big-Surprise/dp/1683442911 Basically, his research into tracing Y haplogroups shows the following: - The rate of mutation in Y haplogroups occurs at a fairly constant rate (outside of haplogroups A and B, which seem to be mutating at triple the rate of all the others). - The rate was computed twice, the first time with sloppy methods, the second time using more rigorous, precise methods. - The first time the mutation rate was computed yielded a human history on the order of 100,000 years, the second time on the order of 10,000 years. Naturally, because this result didn't fit the current science narrative, it was "adjusted" or ignored. - Using the more precise rate, he traces Y haplogroups back to three men that he labels "Shem, Ham, and Japeth," based on the direction of their migrations. This provoked the question of whether mass migrations using the second, more precise method could be matched in time with historical migrations or major events. The answer was that in many cases, obviously yes (for example, the Mongol invasions). Some other cases were mysterious. Questions, Dr. Jeanson addressed include where the ancient Egyptians went, the other Africans, ancient Romans, the Americas, etc. along with some truly surprising results. - "Race" is not what we think it is and seems to be fluid - People are much more closely related than they think So far, it's a fascinating read and his research is ongoing. -QQuerius
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Asauber/79
LOL Excuse me, Sev, but who the h*ll are you to sit in judgement?
I can form my own moral judgements just like anyone else. Can't you?Seversky
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Jerry: Top of the list is Russia making nuclear threats. Then China.
I wasn't aware that Russia and China were part of western society.
Then there is inflation. Crime surge. Abortions. Mental illness amongst women. Border crossings. Grooming of kindergarten children. Decay of education. Drug usage. No independent press. Corruption of medical establishment. Cancel culture. Overt arguments against free speech etc..
OK, let's take these one at time: Inflation: How is inflation a sign of moral decay? Crime: Property and violent crime has been on a decline since the 90s. Abortion: Both teen pregnancies and abortion rates have been on a steady decline for several decades. Mental illness amongst women: Yes, there has been a small increase in reported mental illness amongst women. But, again, how is this related to moral decay? Is it not more likely that people are more likely to seek help for mental illness as mental illness becomes less stigmatized? Border crossing: Again, how is this a sign of moral decay? It seems more obvious that this is the result of people trying to do the best for their families. A good moral value. Grooming of kindergarten children: Just fear mongering. There is no grooming. Decay of education: How so? Education changes over time. It always has, and always will. Sometimes the changes are beneficial, sometimes they are not. Drug usage: I agree that this is a huge problem. And getting worse. How do you propose turning the trend around? No independent press: Has there ever been an independent press? They have always been influenced by public opinion and advertising dollars. Corruption of medical establishment: You have been reading too many conspiracy theories. The medical establishment is prone to the same weaknesses as all human endeavours, greed, corruption, fraud, etc. But it also has many checks-and-balances to keep these negative forces to a minimum. Could it be better? Of course. But is it getting worse? I don't see it. Cancel culture: So, people aren't getting away with behaviours that they used to. In several cases it has gone too far but I think that having consequences for bad behaviour is a good thing. Overt arguments against free speech: Free speech is as alive and as well as it has ever been. I think you are confusing free speech and consequence free speech. The constitution does not say anything about speech not having consequences, just that you won't face any government charges as a result of your speech, except in certain circumstances such as inciting violence, etc. So, again, I would like to see some concrete examples of moral decay. I am sure that there are some, but they are far outweighed by improvements in society.JHolo
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
"they just get outraged and emotional and act as if morality is totally obvious and universal." SA, Right. They just posture like we should recognize their righteous moves. But again, why? Andrewasauber
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Usually it never gets into a discussion - they just get outraged and emotional and act as if morality is totally obvious and universal.Silver Asiatic
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Andrew @79 Exactly. Someone says "there are no universal binding moral norms but what you're doing is not permissible to me because I don't want you doing it". So people can be persecuted and oppressed because someone doesn't like what they do? That's what Hitler said: "I don't like what you're doing so I will kill you."Silver Asiatic
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
What Sev obviously is not comprehending is that he (and any virtue signaller) is appealing to a common sense of virtue. But why is he doing this? Andrewasauber
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Seversky
Hitler’s actions would not have been permissible according to me (if I had been around at the time and if I’d been asked)
Yes, but they were permissible according to him. You would not have been able to tell him that his actions were "not permissible" in a universal sense, but only in your personal opinion and he wouldn't have cared about that, or needed to care about it. So what it means is that anything is permissible to any individual who thinks it is. Thus, your unwillingness to permit is offset by his willingness to permit. That's a stalemate and thus anything is permitted.Silver Asiatic
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
"Hitler’s actions would not have been permissible according to me" LOL Excuse me, Sev, but who the h*ll are you to sit in judgement? Andrewasauber
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus/69
PS, Will Hawthorne, in reply to such ideological imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism, is deservedly withering, echoing the concerns Plato raised in The Laws, Bk X, concerns that reflect lessons hard-bought with blood and tears:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can’t infer an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ [the ‘is’ being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.)
I would grant both assumptions.
Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an ‘ought’. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there’s no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action
… or would require that we perform such an action. It works both ways.
Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it’s not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action . . . [We see] therefore, for any action you care to pick, it’s permissible to perform that action. If you’d like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan ‘if atheism is true, all things are permitted’.
Not so fast. By introducing the concept of "permissible", you are implying the existence of an individual or group that is authorized to grant permission. There is no permission without a 'permitter'. Whenever you see the assertion that "all things are permitted", your next question should be, 'Permitted by whom?' The existence of atheism does not necessarily entail moral nihilism,
For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don’t like this [nihilistic, absurd] consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time.
Hitler's actions would not have been permissible according to me (if I had been around at the time and if I'd been asked) I seriously doubt they were permissible according to the millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals or the mentally ill who died as a result of them or the millions of people who came together to fight the Nazi regime. So, no, it's the logic of Hawthorne's argument that is broken at this point.
Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can’t infer ‘ought’ from [a material] ‘is’.
No, the two principles are not mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible to hold a belief in atheistic naturalism and accept the premiss that 'ought' cannot be inferred from 'is'. The only problem arises if you try to argue that moral prescriptions must be grounded somehow in the 'is', which would be a violation of the second principle.Seversky
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
I was hoping for concrete examples of moral decay in western society but I guess I was being to optimistic
There are literally hundreds. Top of the list is Russia making nuclear threats. Then China. Then there is inflation. Crime surge. Abortions. Mental illness amongst women. Border crossings. Grooming of kindergarten children. Decay of education. Drug usage. No independent press. Corruption of medical establishment. Cancel culture. Overt arguments against free speech etc.. But the most embarrassing thing for you is that ChuckDarwin gave you a positive response. He has yet to be right about anything. As I said you must be unconscious.jerry
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
If there are no objective moral norms there cannot be moral decay since there is nothing to decay. Morality at best would be subjective and nobody would be required to follow any moral standards except whatever they make up for themselves - and they even do not need to make up any morality at all.Silver Asiatic
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
JHolo/74 Legalized reefer…..LOLchuckdarwin
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Jerry: Are you conscious? Apparently not. No one viewing the current world could possibly make such a ludicrous statement.
So, all you have are insults. I was hoping for concrete examples of moral decay in western society but I guess I was being to optimistic.JHolo
April 22, 2022
April
04
Apr
22
22
2022
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply