Jeffrey Schloss, and Now Richard Weikart’s Reply to Him

_{William Dembski

August 7, 2008

Expelled, Intelligent Design}

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

Jeff Schloss, formerly an ID supporter and Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute (until August 2003 — click here for Way Back Machine), has since been distancing himself from ID and even going on the offensive against it. I witnessed the beginnings of this offensive at a symposium featuring Ron Numbers, Howard Van Till, Schloss, and me in 2007 at Grove City College (go here for the program). His criticisms of ID at that event seemed to me naive and ill-considered. Yet he did seem to advance them sincerely, and I hoped to have an opportunity try to persuade him otherwise, which unfortunately never happened.

Schloss’s critical review of EXPELLED, however, raised his opposition against ID to a new level and frankly upset me for what I perceived as its disingenuousness (the review appeared with official sanction of the American Scientific Affiliation [ASA] on its server here). By offering so many nuances and qualifications, his review missed the bigger picture that many ID propoents really are getting shafted. I confronted Jeff about this and we had an exchange of emails. As it is, Jeff and I go back and had been friends. He contributed to the MERE CREATION volume (1996) that I edited (his essay was a fine piece on altruism and the difficulties conventional evolutionary theory has in trying to account for it). I even had occasion to visit him in the hospital after he had a surfing accident. The exchange ended with my asking him to admit the following four points:

(1) ID raises important issues for science.
(2) Politics aside, ID proponents ought to get a fair hearing for their views, and they’re not.
(3) A climate of hostility toward ID pervades the academy, which often undermines freedom of thought and expression on this topic.
(4) That climate has led to ID proponents being shamefully treated, losing their reputations and jobs, and suffering real harm.

As it is, Schloss never got back to me. I suppose I could have responded to him on the ASA website — Randy Isaac, the executive director of the ASA, invited me, as an ASA member, to do so. But by putting Schloss’s review front and center as the official position of the ASA on EXPELLED, I saw little point of trying to argue for EXPELLED in that forum.

In any case, Richard Weikart has now responded to Schloss’s review on the most controversial aspect of EXPELLED, namely, the Nazi connection. Weikart’s response may be found by clicking here.

Comments

DaveScot--Excellent question, that IMO may advance things. I think that Mike's book does offer what I ask for; it does give an alternative narrative--and I think it's appropriate to use that term, whether or not you're interested in stories. It's actually an alternative interpretation of the same narrative that mainstream science asks for: an alternative interpretation of the story in which humans and other creatures are linked historically by common descent, and in which God (if I may use that word here, since I think it's a good word that adequately identifies the source of the novelty that Mike believes "chance" can't provide by itself) guides the process of evolution by controlling in some unknown way the raw materials on which selection operates. Have I misunderstood Mike? You undoubtedly know his work even better than I do. I've felt for a long time, DaveScot, that it's hard to slip more than a razor blade between Mike's view of this and that of Asa Gray, the first defender of Darwin's theory in America. As Gray famously put it, "variation is led along certain beneficial lines." Bob Russell has a virtually identical view, incidentally, updated by the twist of identifying the locus of divine action as quantum uncertainty--a view he takes from William Pollard. So does Owen Gingerich, judging from what he says in "God's Universe." And, so do I. I've always argued for this reason that Mike is a classical TE. This does not rule out IMO him being identified as an ID advocate, but I can recall being told by Nick Matzke that Gray wasn't really a TE after all (Matzke is wrong), and I can recall being told by some ID folks that TEs are the bad guys (you don't have to look very hard here for lots of verification on that one), so I guess Nick was right after all, wasn't he? You might say that it's only just a matter of definitions, might ye? And who cares about them? Apparently, a lot of people do, so let me offer mine. IMO as an historian of these things--and please keep in mind that the term TE appeared a long time ago, at least as far back as ca. 1900 if not earlier--a TE is someone who believes in common ancestry (including humans), and that the process was directed toward certain ends by the creator. Now, here's where it can get very sticky for me, where I probably won't find a lot of friends in the room. But I chose to enter this room, so I'll continue. IMO, directed evolution or TE includes those who believe that science can demonstrate pretty well the need for such guidance (Conway Morris might be a modern example; Behe is another one) along with those who believe simply that blind chance isn't the whole story, when all is said and done. I'm comfortable with either view myself, and I'm not certain which one is better. I probably identify more closely with the latter, however, since I really like the openness that comes with QM; and the whole world is ultimately governed by physics, not biology, and my views on evolution and divine purpose are based on more than just biology (indeed, more than just science of any kind). If we can believe what he says in Debating Darwin, and I do, then even Ken Miller holds the latter view, and in the same book Mike says that he's fine with that. (Yes, I realize that Miller is the worst guy to bring in here, but my interactions with him haven't been nearly as negative as yours apparently have been. I really liked "Finding Darwin's God.") Are you with me, so far? Do you disagree with part of all of this analysis? Also, do you consider me an ID, a TE, neither, or both? Is it even possible to be both, in your view? OK, DaveScot, I answered your question directly, with no ducking or weaving. Now I have one for you to answer in the same way: If I were to ask for a show of hands, starting from the top down, how many folks here and elsewhere in the ID camp would agree with Behe's view that common descent is a virtual slam dunk? In other words, using my definition above, how many would say that evolution (TE would be the likely form) is almost certainly true? How many would agree that the standard narrative of natural history (insofar as it involves the big bang, an ancient universe and earth, and common descent including humans) is accurate? Will there be a lot of hands going up, or only one or two? What do you think, DaveScot? And, please don't avoid my question by saying that ID doesn't deal with that. I didn't ask you whether ID dealt with it, I asked only how many hands would go up (as far as you can guess).Ted Davis_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT}

Mr Scot: Re: 113. I first note the track-record based implications of your last statement. So, while I had intended to remark on Mr Davis' remarks, I leave that to Stephen B [Steve, please email me . . .] and instead compose a farewell. On the substantial point, in leaving I have a few remarks that I believe are relevant, whether or no you may find them boring. Pardon such boredom, please -- you will never have to deal with my boring or troubling you again, ever. For, I am now taking the "semi-" out of the "retiring," as at the close of this post. On points: 1 --> Germany indeed is part of historic Christendom. And, for instance Luther's antisemitism -- as I noted above -- was wrong and without gospel ethics foundation, as say Rom 13:8 - 10 makes plain. As was other antisemitism in Germany and broader Christendom. 2 --> At the same time, at the time of Hitler's rise to power, Germany had been subjected to over a century of major apostasising and hyperskeptical destructive criticism of its Christian heritage, to the point where on responding to Fuerbach in the 1840's, Marx observed that the criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism, and in Germany that criticism was finished. (This you may recall from earlier threads.) 3 --> By late C19, it is evident that there were many trends of academic and popular thought, several of which gave influence to the rise of Nazism. Nazism, in particular, drew on several threads of what we would now call neo-paganism; in Himmler's case, perhaps classical German/Nordic paganism too. It also drew on lines of influence from Nietzsche and from the German versions of Darwinism tracing especially to Haeckel etc. This comes out in many ways, in writings, speech, actions and symbols. That is what I pointed out above. (Reflect for a moment on the implications of the Swastika as being visually, a twisted, broken-armed cross, in a nation that used the equal-armed cross as a national symbol; including in some of its highest national decorations for bravery. One of which Hitler had himself earned. (Cf here the Victoria CROSS and the cross-based flag of that cluster of anglo-saxon-celtic island nations.)) 4 --> Now, too, on a very different question: while rising to power, post-Munich 1923, Nazism had to present itself in a way that was sufficiently persuasive to the Christian-influenced sentiments of many, that it was a more or less lesser evil than the Red Threat. Sufficiently so, that it could form the required political coalitions. [But note that even at the end, President Hindenberg refused to see Hitler on his own and had to be persuaded by Papen et al to accept Hitler as part of a coalition, the Nazis by then being the single largest faction in the much divided Reichstag; perils of proportional representation, some would observe. Note, too: until he had locked down power, after the Reichstag fire and the death of Hindenberg, Hitler NEVER won a majority of the German electorate. He came in by coalition, as more or less the lesser of evils. (There is a lesson in that, methinks . . .)] 5 --> Many Christians and Christian-influenced people were indeed gulled, or were even sympathetic to the nationalist goals he espoused. Many were appreciative of the role the semi-autonomous SA -- its brutality notwithstanding -- had long played as heir to the Freikorps as an effective reserve for the Versailles-limited German Armed Forces, and for their being a counterweight to the street armies of the leftist radicals. Others -- probably most -- were simply and plainly intimidated by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. Others, as I have shown by citing the Barmen Declaration and the White Rose movement, were dissidents and/or even resisters; some at the cost of their lives. Thus, in the context of significant exceptions and alternative movements of costly Gospel-based dissent, there is undoubted Christian involvement in the process of the Nazi rise to power, and there is thus indubitable -- and acknowledged -- guilt that attached to the Christian movements in Germany; but that is a matter of failing to live up to "the Faith once for all delivered . . ." (You will note that I have repeatedly alluded to the sins of Christendom. After all, as my fellow Caribbean, Atom, pointed out above: we here in the Caribbean are victims of some of those sins, after all is said and done on the debates over specific points; but of course I am also a beneficiary and spiritual heir of the brave dissenters who stood up to slavery etc, in the name of the gospel; starting with men like Wilberforce. That I am a convinced Christian is no thanks to the sins of Christendom, but instead to the grace of God. [Onlookers, kindly observe that above I have pointed out that we are all individually finite, fallible, fallen and too often ill-willed; also that all movements of consequence therefore have their sins to acknowledge and turn from. The point is to repent and to seek reformation; indeed that is a major underlying point in my allusion to Ac 17:24 in my handle: Kairosfocus.) 6 --> In this regard, we must see that the 1934 Barmen statements of the Confessing Church on the so-called German Christians, are telling: APOSTASY. Apostasy that over the next decade or so had bitter, bloody consequences. Apostasy in a context where it seemed that there was only the alternative of the Reds or the Brownshirts. I therefore cite the first Barmen thesis:
The Confessional Synod of the German Evangelical Church met in Barmen, May 29-31, 1934. Here representatives from all the German Confessional Churches met with one accord in a confession of the one Lord of the one, holy, apostolic Church. In fidelity to their Confession of Faith, members of Lutheran, Reformed, and United Churches sought a common message for the need and temptation of the Church in our day. With gratitude to God they are convinced that they have been given a common word to utter. It was not their intention to found a new Church or to form a union. For nothing was farther from their minds than the abolition of the confessional status of our Churches. Their intention was, rather, to withstand in faith and unanimity the destruction of the Confession of Faith, and thus of the Evangelical Church in Germany. In opposition to attempts to establish the unity of the German Evangelical Church by means of false doctrine, by the use of force and insincere practices, the Confessional Synod insists that the unity of the Evangelical Churches in Germany can come only from the Word of God in faith through the Holy Spirit. Thus alone is the Church renewed.
7 --> So, plainly [and as previously noted], there was a split, tracing to apostasy: some were involved in the apostasy, others -- often at bitter cost -- were not. For that apostasy, and for its associated anti- Judaic and antisemitic behaviour, the church in Germany has had to confess its involvement and its failures to stand by the gospel. This, others have noted on above, linking statements of penitence. But, equally, it was in fact objective failure to live up tot he gospel and its ethics that was implicated, not the gospel, proper. That others formed a remnant of fidelity unto death in protest and opposition is also a vital balancing point if "a true and fair view" is to be found. 8 --> And, in context: I had spoken to a rather specific point, showing where Nazism drew its particular religious roots (i.e. mostly from neo-pagan and occultic sources). Thus, it is in my opinion -- and Mr Scot pardon my directness here -- simplistic and unfair on the evidence to dismiss the holocaust as Christians killing non-Christians. As, another commenter also briefly pointed out before focusing on the witch hunts. 9 --> But, on Hitler's seizing the opportunity of the Reichstag Fire (on evidence, set by a Dutch, half-mad communist, but with the blame being conveniently transferred to the Reds as a whole), in effect dissent was treated increasingly as treason, as enabling acts were passed and dictatorship emerged. Including, ruthless manipulation of public media. 10 --> That also means that, once power was seized, most of the Christians and Christianity-influenced in Germany did not have the accurate information to understand (e.g. the "Final Solution" was largely secret -- guess why . . . ), nor the means of effective organised protest, in a world that was in massive crisis, and one in which the Nazis did deliver significant economic improvements. (I just hope and pray that we in our day don't ever have to face that sort of situation.) And, so, now: FINIS Grace be with us all, GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

Ted “I do not see ID as offering a genuine alternative to evolution, insofar as ID makes no effort at an alternative narrative” You think Behe's Edge of Evolution took no effort? We have all the data we need to make our case. I've never understood how using the accumlated knowledge of all of math, physics, biology, paleontology, geology, cosomology, and any other releventologies in referenced citations is somehow not good enough. Please explain why you think it isn't. Thanks in advance for explaining this to me. By the way, narratives are stories. We aren't interested in stories. We are interested in describing what the data supports and stopping our description where the data stops. Necessarily that stopping point is before the point where we start making up historical narratives. We can make up stories as well as anyone. When pressed for a possible mechanism a designer could have used to influence the course of evolution I've suggested a sufficient mechanism that can be observed in the present - a highly infectious retrovirus that targets reproductive cells in one or more species and inserts a custom genetic payload. We use that mechanism ourselves for the same purpose. But I can't go on to say this is how it happened a million or a billion years ago any more than anyone else can say that random mutations are how everything was accomplished in the past. The data stops for both hypotheses before that point. You guys seem to want us to give you the brand of sequencing equipment the designer used as well as the address of his lab. We could make one up but since we have no empirical data to support it we don't. The use of only verifiable data from observation and experiment in support of an argument seems a reasonable way to bound things from my point of view. Don't you agree? DaveScot_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis said, "I do not see ID as offering a genuine alternative to evolution, insofar as ID makes no effort" Yes, that is the essence of ID and that is why it is the only honest approach to evolutionary biology. The science of the 21st century as we now see it, offers no legitimate narrative of evolution. ID could make up a million scenarios just as current evolutionary theory does but then ID would be just as guilty as those who profess Darwinian evolution or whatever modern version of it is in fashion today. From my view point Darwinists, those of the atheistic or agnostic kind or theistic evolutionist of whatever kind there are who support some form of gradualism or the creationists are all driven by ideology and as a consequence their science is flawed. Because ID is honest and does not provide a narrative it is disdained. ID does not say there is any particular narrative of the history of the biological universe that one should embrace. It says there is no basis grounded in scientific evidence for accepting any specific narrative and anyone who does is just speculating. And if one imposes a view of evolution in the curriculum then one is imposing an ideology and not science on the curriculum. There is no theology involved even though many who support ID hold very definite theological beliefs. But these beliefs are not ID and will vary dramatically from person to person who supports ID. This is the basic flaw in George Murphy's understanding of ID and why his attempt to engage us here on theology failed 16 months ago. Ted Davis and StephenB can discuss theology till the cows come home and it means nothing for ID. They can enlighten each other and the rest of us but they are not talking ID. I think Ted Davis understands this. I do not share Bill Dembski's theology and I doubt that Michael Behe shares his theology either so why debate it or bring it into the discussion when analyzing ID. Maybe if one probed deeply there may be some kind of theological commonality but I doubt it since we have agnostics, non Christians and all forms of Christians who would agree on little theologically outside of some basics. Bringing up theology may be an interesting topic for many but it has little to do with ID. It is a diversion from the real issue which is the science of evolution or rather the lack of science in certain key areas of evolutionary biology. And I am one who thinks that evolutionary biology can explain most of the life forms on the planet but I also believe it fails miserably not just in OOL but also in any meaningful example of macro evolution. I believe that those who claim that science supports any form of gradualism for macro evolution are being dishonest intellectually as well as in other ways. That is the essence of the debate and why ID is disliked so much. We are looking for an honest person and finding very few. ID is honest enough to say there is no evidence. If there were nearly all of us would support it.jerry_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Stephen, We agree that the "theologians" issue is peripheral and not worth talking about further. I like the way in which you put things here, b/c it's clear and gives us some basis for more conversation. I've inserted numbers into your paragraph to identify the points on which I will comment below. "(1) The ID movement is cultural and ID methodology is scientific. In that same sense, Secular Humanism is cultural and Darwinist methodology is scientific. (2) In both cases, the cultural movement may spill over into the motivations of scientists. Many, not all, ID scientists are unabashedly Christian just as many, not all, Darwinists are unabashedly atheist. But if we are going to obsess over the one link, then we ought to obsess over the other. So, let us ask the relevant questions in parallel fashion. Does William Dembski’s religion inform his science? Does Eugenie Scott’s atheism inform her science? (3) Did Barbara Forrest’s atheism affect her testimony at Dover? Did your colleagues ask all three questions, or did they stop after the first one? (4) Motives are not methods, but some of us seem to apply that principle only to atheists. Why is it that only they are to be given the benefit of the doubt?" OK, Stephen, I won't argue with you, in the sense of trying to convince you that you are wrong on some of this. I think it's more productive to explain my own views on these points, that is to explain why I differ with you. If we try to argue this out, I fear this will become protracted, and I'll just have to move on to other things (off this blog) that need to be done, leaving you hanging in an unsatisfactory manner. No one is well served by that--not you, not me, not the truth (whatever it happens to be). So, let me respond as I have explained. (1) We agree in principle that ideas and cultural movements can be understood separately. I am less convinced than you, that ID is scientific, even though its central component is a critique of Darwinian evolution. To clarify: I do not see ID as offering a genuine alternative to evolution, insofar as ID makes no effort (that I can see) to provide an alternative narrative about the history of the universe and the life within it. Scientific creationism does do that--it offers a false alternative, obviously, but at least it does that much. Creationists have specific beliefs about when and how the universe, the solar system, plants, animals, and people came into existence. Mainstream science offers the same type of narrative, simply one that is consistent with a much larger amount of evidence. If ID were to put forth such a narrative, I'd be more inclined to see it as an actual alternative to the standard narrative. At the moment, however, ID is IMO an interesting philosophical critique of the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution. The refereed literature promoting ID is, almost without exception, in the field of philosophy of science rather than science itself. ID offers no suggestions on how a chemist or biologist might do laboratory science differently, or how a paleontologist might interpret the fossil record differently--except to say that, when all else fails (and remember, ID is IMO a deeply sceptical critique that looks for explanatory problems), enlarge the tool box and invoke design. What this means, in terms of how the design gets there and when it happens, ID is apparently unable to say. At least Darwinian evolution has specific ideas about that, in many (most?) cases. (The origin of life, I will grant, is a great sea of ignorance, and likely to remain so for a long time.) However--and here comes once again the tight link with the culture wars--if ID were officially to embrace a specific narrative of the history of the universe, it would probably accept a lot of the mainstream narrative, enough of it at least to move the YECs decisively away from ID. Failure to be specific about something this fundamental and well established, it seems to me, is not in favor of its status as a scientific view. (2) As an historian who looks for ways in which scientists' basic beliefs influence their theory formation and selection, I need no convincing of this, and I have no doubt that it's involved to some extent in the examples you offered. In nearly all cases I am aware of historically, however, it's deucedly difficult to translate those background beliefs into specific scientific claims, and especially so since the early 19th century. (One rather interesting example that holds up IMO is Cantor's mathematics of infinity, which probably did reflect in powerful ways his theism. Another would be Hoyle's efforts to advance the steady state universe.) It may well be less difficult to see such beliefs at work in shaping the larger assumptions of scientists, and this is probably more of what you are intending: thus, the view that an atheist *must* keep away from miracles and design (which are obviously not the same thing, but they might be connected in some cases), whereas a theist needn't do so. Is that what you mean? Suppose this is what you are driving at. It's still quite problemmatic for me to endorse the delineation/identification of miracles in the history of the universe as fully "scientific." This is not a modern bias; it goes back to the Greeks, and even deeply Christian believers in design such as Robert Boyle insisted that an appeal to miracles was inherently not scientific (I won't cite chapter and verse here, but I'll send them to you if you contact me privately). Now I've been talking about miracles, you might say, rather than design. But one does have the sense that, for many and perhaps most ID thinkers, the objects that can be shown to be designed (by whatever criteria) were probably assembled miraculously. That's at least a very reasonable inference. Now, I'm actually quite happy with the idea of miracles myself. I believe in a number of genuine miracles, the supreme examples being the creation of the universe and the resurrection of Jesus. But, I fail to see how science can draw the conclusion that Jesus was raised; and I fail to see how science can conclude that the universe was actually created. Both of those things can be given strong rational support, IMO, but neither can be shown by science. Furthermore, I do not agree that meth naturalism (MN) is inherently atheistic. You didn't say that, but some ID thinkers have said as much and I sense that it is implied by your comments under this point. One can appropriately, IMO, distinguish a specific method that has historically proved to be enormously powerful at producing coherent, testable explanations of so many things, from a larger philosophy that simply denies that anything invisible to this method actually exists in reality. That is IMO a philosophical leap, not a scientific conclusion, just as theism is a philosophical leap and not a scientific conclusion. IMO, theism makes better overall sense of the universe, e.g. by explaining *why* MN is so fruitful in the first place, and why mathematics (both simple and very complex) is so amazingly powerful a tool for understanding the universe. But science itself can't go there--it can't make that leap without going beyond itself. And, in order to make the God inference (if you will), a lot of other things need to be talked about, esp theodicy, which can't just be left for later IMO. So, we agree that worldview assumptions have something to do with science, but we probably disagree on just what that something is. I believe that they have a lot more to do with forming the larger framework into which science fits--the larger framework that makes sense of science itself--than with the actual practice of science. To put this another, much more direct way: an atheist, IMO, can be just as good a scientist or physician as can a theist. But an atheist, IMO, can't give as good and satisfying (in the sense of getting a deeper explanation, which is what science is ultimately looking for) an explanation of "the whole shebbang" than the theist can. But, if the atheist can do science equally well--he/she can calculate orbits and measure fundamental constants and determine the ages of rocks and show how natural selection alters populations, just as well as the theist can--if this is so (as I believe it is), then I fail to see how belief in design fits into the doing of science. It certainly fits into the bigger picture, but (as I've stated) IMO that's another story. (3) I wouldn't be surprised if Forrest's atheism--specifically her secular humanist faith--affected her interest in testifying at Dover. It might also have led her to select certain things for emphasis. But not perhaps in the way you may mean here. I am convinced (perhaps you are also) that the received interpretation of the First Amendment unfairly favors one specific faith (namely secular humanism) over other faiths (esp traditional monotheism). What I mean by this is, that secular humanists are probably pretty happy about an arrangement that keeps a lot of religious questions (not all) out of bounds in publicly funded schools; whereas many religious people are understandably upset that those same schools can teach things that go against their religious beliefs. That fundamental assymmetry, IMO, ought to be questioned and eventually overturned. I don't expect that in my lifetime, but I would applaud it. Insofar as Ms Forrest's testimony was clearly aimed at showing how ID is not religiously neutral (namely, she showed how the textbook in question had "morphed" from a creationist text into an ID text, in order thereby to encourage the court to apply existing precedents about creationism to ID), it was obviously in line with her own, legally favored secular humanist beliefs. But, insofar as she presented actual facts about the history of that book, her testimony was religiosly neutral. A fact is a fact, regardless of one's religion. If those facts had been known to me, I too would have been able to offer the same testimony. (4) Of course motives are not methods. But, as already stated, I do not believe that theists can or should do science any differently from non-theists: in other words, their methods ought to be the same. I hear ID suggesting or implying that those methods ought to be different, but I fail to see how or why. The issue of motive, in the sense of working for cultural transformation (as I also do, though not through science), is relevant here simply b/c (a) it's stated explicitly to be a big part of what ID is about (I've already shown that above); and (b) a religious motive drives ID advocates to claim that MN is inherently atheistic, since it keeps design questions out of science as a matter of the limits of science. I've so often seen here and elsewhere, the point made to me that a science that refuses to go into the design question is unacceptable to the Christian, since (it is said) it contradicts Romans 1. Therefore, the motive leads to the claim that the methods must be different, in order for the science to be legitimate. Or, so it seems to me, Stephen. I don't expect you to agree with most or all of this, but I hope at least that you understand my position better. I'll hang up now, as it were, and read what you write probably without further comment.Ted Davis_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

-----Rude: "In other words we should hope that one can be a biologist be he an atheist, Democrat, or even something worse—" LOL. I wish I had said that.StephenB_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis: The definition of a theologian is not in question here, so I don’t understand why you spend so much time discussing it. The issue is motive mongering, and if you choose to disengage without addressing it, that is your privilege. The ID movement is cultural and ID methodology is scientific. In that same sense, Secular Humanism is cultural and Darwinist methodology is scientific. In both cases, the cultural movement may spill over into the motivations of scientists. Many, not all, ID scientists are unabashedly Christian just as many, not all, Darwinists are unabashedly atheist. But if we are going to obsess over the one link, then we ought to obsess over the other. So, let us ask the relevant questions in parallel fashion. Does William Dembski’s religion inform his science? Does Eugenie Scott’s atheism inform her science? Did Barbara Forrest’s atheism affect her testimony at Dover? Did your colleagues ask all three questions, or did they stop after the first one? Motives are not methods, but some of us seem to apply that principle only to atheists. Why is it that only they are to be given the benefit of the doubt? And what can we say about the relevant social initiatives? Is not the Humanist Manifesto even more of a defining document for a cultural movement than the Wedge Document? Which one do you think came first, and, therefore constitutes the opening gambit; which one do you think came later and constitutes a defensive response? Which one is almost a century old--- and has been signed by hundreds of nation’s leaders---and is gaining strength every day? Which one modestly begun with one heroic attorney and has begun to fade? Which one gets to remain almost anonymous, while shaping the ideology of every major institution? Which one has been outed time and time again, and is held up for public ridicule. I am sure that you know the answer: Materialist Darwinists struck first and they continue to call the shots in all of our major institutions. Yes, I can understand why those uniformed on the matter might get confused about the difference between creation science and intelligent design---at least in the beginning. What I don’t understand is why the uninformed remain uniformed? Why would educated men and women with PhDs, who teach, blog, and speak on the subject of evolution and intelligent design, consistently fail to understand basic terms and definitions. I can understand why the uninitiated could, at first, confuse a religious presupposition with an empirical observation. What I don’t understand is why the confusion persists after, say, ten years and hundreds of explanations. After a time, one begins to suspect that confusion has given way to willful ignorance or even duplicity.StephenB_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Charlie Jerry takes an occasional long break from blogging.DaveScot_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

Hi Ted Davis, I'm still appreciating your thoughts here. I agree that you are far less hostile and threatening than others on this thread. Have you considered that Schloss admits that (like Weikart's book) the film does not make the connect-the-two-dots from Darwin to HItler - event though that was the message you got from the film? Making a similar case is the ASA essay on Hitler, Darwinism and Christianity, that I linked earlier: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Bergman.html I thought to look into the author, Jerry Bergman just a little: http://www.asa3.org/asa/topics/NewsLetter80s/FEBMAR84.html
The history of Jerry's situation is too complex to repeat here, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that the university violated its own rules to get rid of an excellent teacher and prolific scholar-with no substantive charges brought against him. One apparent irony is that in his teaching and professional writing about education Jerry never endorsed "creationism " -even though that's how his case is now being described in print. ... The ''trouble" seems to have been caused by their dislike for Jerry and ' ironically, by the fact-that he worked harder at scholarship than they did. He published more papers in professional journals than the rest of his department put together. At the same time he managed to write an impressive textbook, Understanding Educational Measurement and Evaluation (Houghton Mifflin, 1981), plus several other books and monographs.
That sounds familiar. Do you know what has become of Jerry?Charlie_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

Rude: I apologize for seeming hostile--a consequence of the brevity and abruptness of that post. I'm sure you'll agree that this thread (and many others here) offers multiple examples of much more obviously hostile language. Nevertheless, I'm not trying to raise the ante. We share an admiration for the great Russian writer (despite in my case some regret for his support near the end for Putin), and (apparently) similar political views. But I don't want to get into either of those topics here.Ted Davis_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

As for Bob Russell, Stephen, you are quite right that he lacks the doctorate in theology, which (as I stated) *most* theologians have. He is an exception--and, if Polkinghorne is also a theologian (as I would say), then he's another exception. My criterion explicitly allows for this. In Russell's case, he's the founding director of the "Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences," and the word order here is significant. If you look at even just the condensed form of his c.v. (http://www.ctns.org/about_founder.html), it's very clear that most of his work focuses on (not deals tangentially or incidentally or in passing with) theological topics, such as resurrection, eschatology, divine action (in prayer as well as in natural history and the ongoing operation of the world), etc. He edits a theological journal, teaches on the theological faculty at the GTU, and supervises dissertations dealing with "theology and science." I don't see a similar emphasis in Bill's work--and (again), keep in mind that this isn't a criticism of any kind, it's simply a statement about the nature of his work. Bill, no differently from me, may write or speak sometimes about such topics, but they aren't his consuming passion in the way that they are for Russell, Murphy, or Polkinghorne (referring to his more recent work). Those guys are theologians; Bill isn't. Nor am I. I've nothing more to say on this peripheral topic.Ted Davis_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis, No need to get hostile. Or impute things that were not said: “Even if you abhor ‘experts’…”—who said abhor? Nobody’s saying that we don’t need experts. Vive les experts d'ID! But we do need to be wary. Too often the experts pontificate outside their area of expertise and so often betray less wisdom than the man in the street. Albert Einstein, for one, denied the existence of free will and leaned toward Marxism. Those of us at the middle of the political spectrum should not ignore the fact that a huge portion of academia sits at the absolute extreme left in their politics and religion. Another problem is the urge to believe that the experts have it all figured out, from the Big Bang to Darwinism and all the important stuff in between including “bioethics”. Here I think David Berlinski sets a good example of doubt, as reported by Ron Rosenbaum. The world lost a great one a week ago Sunday and many recalled the following quote:
…. It was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil. …. If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” ????????? ??????? ??????????
That is not to say some political parties—the Nazi and Communist most notably—do not promote an evil ideology. What’s hard for many to see is that not all who have fallen for evil ideologies are necessarily more evil than others. All of us are ignorant and/or deceived in various ways. Most human beings are not incorrigible. That is why, let me suggest, that it is so vital we have an open discussion in all controversial areas—that efforts to silence those who disagree is a great evil, as are efforts to keep the discussion from the general public. Nobody should be “attacking” Francis Collins—but it is good that we disagree with him and express it publically. In no way should we be intimidated by his credentials or his sincerity.Rude_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

Say whatever you want about "experts," and you won't change the fact that we live in a society--the modern West--in which academic experts (those acknowledged to be such) carry great cache on some very important matters. On another thread, Frank Beckwith wisely pointed out that there is nothing to be gained from attacking someone like Francis Collins--he's done the hard work of establishing a very substantial scientific reputation, and unless/until a number of ID advocates do likewise (by showing that ID is the genuine alternative to evolution that its advocates hope it will be), then ID does not have much of a future. Even if you abhor "experts," in other words, you're going to have to become them if you want to change the way in which evolution is seen and taught. This matters, IMO, more than you may realize.Ted Davis_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

KF Germany was one of the most predominantly Christian nations in the world preceding Hitler's rise to power. Surely you're not prepared to argue that Hitler's rise to power happened in a vacuum absent the active participation and support of the Christian populus. You're beginning to seriously bore me.DaveScot_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Stehpen writes: "Whatever Schloss thinks of the ID movement, he ought not to confuse it with ID science. Frankly, this kind of motive mongering calls into question the sincerity of anyone who resorts to it. It is time for ID critics to learn the difference between a religious presupposition and an empirical observation." Just as frankly, Stephen, there are some very good reasons why fair-minded people (and IMO, Schloss is such a person) often find it very difficult to separate ID ideas from the ID movement. If there is confusion, in other words, it can arise easily and honestly and not from any absence of sincerity. Consider for example the statement on the masthead of this very blog: "Uncommon Descent holds that Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins. At the same time, intelligent design (ID) offers a promising scientific alternative to materialistic theories of biological and cosmological evolution -- an alternative that is finding increasing theoretical and empirical support. Hence, ID needs to be vigorously developed as a scientific, intellectual, and cultural project." Most of this statement promotes the view the ID is about science--I'll grant you that--but the final sentence expressly links ID with cultural reform. More to the point, Bill Dembski has said (in his foreword to Ben Wiker's book, Moral Darwinism) that ID’s challenge to evolution and naturalism is “ground zero of the culture war.” And, in his preface to Darwin’s Nemesis, Bill says that “Because of Kitzmiller v. Dover, school boards and state legislators may tread more cautiously, but tread on evolution they will — the culture war demands it!” Plainly, Stephen, Bill himself links ID with a much larger agenda. Just as the cultural agenda of eugenics (taken for genuine science 80 years ago) was linked with the idea of evolution at one point--for which scientists have been justly criticized--so the "culture wars" appears to be linked with the idea of ID. By its adherents, quite a few of them (remember the "Wedge" document, the authenticity of which has not to my knowledge been denied by TDI). Now, Bill and others have every right to associate themselves with this particular cultural and religious movement; they have the same right to make those decisions as you or me. But then, Schloss has every right to be confused, as you put it. It doesn't take an act of bad faith to connect dots that leading advocates of ID have already connected, in clear and unambiguous ways. Speaking now for myself, and not for Schloss, I do very clearly distinguish in my own speaking and writing between ID as a set of ideas and ID as a cultural movement. I see that distinction and uphold its validity, at least for purposes of analysis. At the same time, I point out that it can be very hard to tell that ID is not a political movement under the guise of science. Do you see why I say this? Is this not a fair point?Ted Davis_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

... William Dembski’s personal beliefs are irrelevant to the integrity of his science, and his theological comments ought to be considered in a theological context. ... To imply, as Schloss does, that Dembski’s faith may leak into his scientific method is an insult that should not be endured. Let Schloss comment on the method itself, if he dares, and we will soon discover that there is no substance to his critique.
Well said!
The quality of their education depends less on the number of years spent in academia and more on where they were trained and who trained them.
Amen to that too. This is true in just about every field. It is also true that every department in the most prestigious schools is not necessarily superior to its equivalent in some lesser school. It all depends on the professors. And again it's not just quantity of publications and recognition. Great discoveries in science are not necessarily recognized in the lifetime of the scientist---Gregor Mendel, for example. Therefore it's important we engage with ideas and the reasoning behind them and not just look to who is speaking.Rude_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Ted Davis: To use a theological formulation, I think you are “straining at gnats and swallowing camels.” Are you saying that William Dembski is not a “real” theologian because his M.Div is not sufficient to qualify him as an expert? By way of contrast, you say that Robert Russell is a true “theologian.” As far as I know, he has not achieved a PhD in theology nor can he claim the status of Doctor of Divinity. By your standard, we could also say that he is not a true theologian, which means, I gather, that we should discount his comments on God and evolution. Why labor over these irrelevancies while ignoring the main point: William Dembski’s personal beliefs are irrelevant to the integrity of his science, and his theological comments ought to be considered in a theological context. Given your reputation for being fair, I had hoped that you would appreciate the importance of making these kinds of distinctions. To imply, as Schloss does, that Dembski’s faith may leak into his scientific method is an insult that should not be endured. Let Schloss comment on the method itself, if he dares, and we will soon discover that there is no substance to his critique. Under the circumstances, I must reiterate that which should have already been understood. A design inference does not begin with a religious presupposition; it begins with an empirical observation. As basic as this point is, ID critics continue to miss it. Whether this confusion reflects an inability to reason in the abstract or whether it represents a cynical strategy to misrepresent the issue, I cannot say. One thing sure, Schloss’s motive mongering is the preferred method for discrediting ID. Inasmuch as you are defending him, I gather that you are on board with that dubious strategy. With regard to UD and its inventory of theologians, I don’t have a clue. Many of our best commentators do not wield their credentials, so I have no way of knowing how many or how few of them do theology for a living. I often comment on theology myself, when the topic calls for it, and I feel no need to define my ethos by elaborating on my advanced degrees. What good are arguments if they are not strong enough to do all the talking? I can tell you this, I often interact with professional theologians, and here is what I have found: The quality of their education depends less on the number of years spent in academia and more on where they were trained and who trained them.StephenB_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

107 above Hmm ... it seems that the point was not so much that WmAD is a credentialed "theologian" (whatever that means) but that we are free to hold theological positions even as ID in general does not. In other words we should hope that one can be a biologist be he an atheist, Democrat, or even something worse---that he can hold personal opinions and speak on any subject he wishes and still join in some discipline with others who hold to different philosophical persuasions. Surely the contention is not that we must all agree to be materialists in order to "do science" on tax dollars. This also brings up the subject of "expertism". We're so accustomed these days to deferring to experts and trusting in professionals that sometimes I wonder whether we're being seduced into some kind of Dictatorship of Experts (which is what fascism was). The idea behind a government "of" the people is that there should be wisdom out there among ordinary folks. And even as rotten a job as our public schools have done (not asking our children to think but rather, "How does that make you feel?"), there is still distrust out there among the unwashed as to the wisdom or our credentialed scientists and experts. Long live that distrust!Rude_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Incidentally, if there is a theologian in the ID movement, I can’t presently think of who that would be. OTOH, the movement is loaded with scientist, mathematicians and engineers. Hmmmmm. Wonder why? Golly, could it be that ID is science-based? No!!! That's impossible!!! ID is just closet creationism!!!!! Everybody at the Smithsonian knows that!!! LOLOLOLtribune7_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

StephenB wrote, "It is also a little late for Schloss to be learning the meaning of the word “context.” As anyone who cares knows, William Dembski is a theologian. His comment about the “Logos” theory of the gospel was an attempt to explain a scientific phenomenon (design) in the context of a theological paradigm." Stephen, this is a peripheral issue IMO, but I'll comment on it anyway. I am not aware of any evidence that Bill Dembski is a theologian, any more than my pastor (who has a doctorate from a seminary in Old Testament) is a theologian. Or, for that matter, that I am a theologian (I don't even have a seminary degree, as Bill does, but I do read more theology than most lay people read) either. Please don't interpret this as an ad hominem, for it is not intended as one and it is not one. Bill is one of the brightest and most original thinkers I know. But he's a mathematician and philosopher by training and professional practice, not a theologian. He does not have a doctorate in theology (which most theologians have), although he does have an MDiv in theology; he does not publish tomes on theology that are intended mainly for theologians to read, advancing new arguments/interpretations on (say) the doctrine of God or the atonement. He does write on theodicy, but many philosophers do that (and Bill is a philosopher). Yes, Bill has written some articles in theological journals, such as the Scottish Journal of Theology (where I also have published, and I'm not a theologian either), the Princeton Theological Review, and Theology & Science (which is in the process of reprinting an essay of mine, but I'm not a theologian). The fact that I have written for American Scientist (three times) doesn't make me a scientist, any more than my editing a book for the Cambridge Studies in History of Philosophy makes me a philosopher. Bill is not a member of any professional society to which theologians typically belong (and neither am I), and he is not a professor of theology at his seminary (rather, he's "Research Professor in Philosophy"). George Murphy is a theologian; Robert Russell is a theologian; N.T. Wright is a theologian. All of those guys are bright (like Bill); two of them write about science (like Bill), and one of them (Murphy) actually publishes original work in technical scientific journals. Russell (PhD in astrophysics) has a case to make that he's also a scientist, but he isn't active as a scientific researcher whereas he's very active as a theologian. Murphy has a track record of doing both--a very rare example. Bill's c.v. does not look like theirs. (Neither does mine.) His c.v. doesn't even look like John Polkinghorne's, and some would say that John isn't really a theologian either (I would say that he is, at this point in his life). Does Bill know quite a bit of theology? Undoubtedly. But he's not a theologian. Incidentally, if there is a theologian in the ID movement, I can't presently think of who that would be. Jack Collins might come to mind, but he's really a biblical scholar rather than a theologian. Help me out here--who am I missing?Ted Davis_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Pardon: Scotkairosfocus_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Mr Scott: Re: the executioners in both cases where Christians and the victims non-Christians. So there. I think it is necessary to make a few balancing remarks. First, it is hardly correct to assert that Hitler and co were "Christians." Cf, e.g. Wiki, on Nazism:
. . . Although Adolf Hitler had joined the Nazi Party in September 1919, and published Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) in 1925 and 1926, the seminal ideas of National Socialism had their roots in groups and individuals of decades past.[20] These include the Völkisch movement and its religious-occult counterpart, Ariosophy. Among the various Ariosophic lodge-like groups, only the Thule Society is related to the origins of the Nazi party.
Similarly, on the Thule Society, we may read:
. . . A primary focus of Thule-Gesellschaft was a claim concerning the origins of the Aryan race. "Thule" ((Greek): ?????) was a land located by Greco-Roman geographers in the furthest north.[7] The term "Ultima Thule" ((Latin): most distant Thule) is also mentioned by the Roman poet Virgil in his epic poem Aeneid. This was supposed to be the far northern segment of Thule and is now generally understood to mean Scandinavia. Said by Nazi mystics to be the capital of ancient Hyperborea, they identified Ultima Thule as a lost ancient landmass in the extreme north: near Greenland or Iceland. These ideas derived from earlier speculation by Ignatius L. Donnelly that a lost landmass had once existed in the Atlantic, and that it was the home of the Aryan race, a theory he supported by reference to the distribution of swastika motifs. He identified this with Plato's Atlantis, a theory further developed by Helena Blavatsky, the famous occultist during the second part of the 19th century. The Thule-Gesellschaft maintained close contacts with Theosophists, the followers of Blavatsky.
In short, it is far more credible to say that the major religious roots of Nazi ideology [a part of the matrix from which it sprang . . . I am in no wise saying that Nazism is solely a consequence of Darwinism] were in the neopagan-occultic circles that gave rise to the Aryan Man myth and the swastika -- note, in effect, a broken cross [pregnant with meanings in a post-Christian, occultic context . . .] -- symbol. The Aryan man idea of course was integrated with the Darwinist notion of races as quasi-species struggling to survive in a context where the cost of A's survival is B's extinction, and the will to power amorality of the Nietzschean superman to make a potently intoxicating and highly destructive ideological brew. And, while indeed many witch hunters -- an acknowledged and repented of sin of Christendom -- were clergy etc, they can hardly be said to have been acting under the relevant ethical principles of the gospel. Indeed, in part, that is why the witch hunts stopped: they were recognised as injustice and carried out through dubious investigatory procedures that sadly led to many a serious ands destructive miscarriage of justice, in a climate of mass hysteria. [And, BTW, some of those who led in the protests against and stopping of the witch hunts, were Christian clergy and laymen who came to see what was happening. As I recall as well, in the Salem case, one of the leading judges involved made public confession of his sins in the church.) As to the idea that one can equate the errors and sins of an era where sound judicial procedures were not even fully emergent and it was honestly believed by a lot of people that Witches were a threat to the basic survival of a largely subsistence level society, with one that turned away from centuries of [largely Christian influenced] progress to return to savagery and genocide on an unprecedented scale, it is its own refutation. Even, before one gets into addressing debates over numbers of victims. On that, we note that it is generally acknowledged that the estimates vary wildly, so the sort of comparison made just above has but little merit, apart from emotive rhetoric. It is, however, worth noting that the rate of such executions was such that perhaps one in 25,000 deaths in the 250-year period was as a result of such a witch hunt; which simply bears no resemblance to the close-on wiping out of Jews in Europe, and the [overlapping] 1/4 - 1/5 of the population of Poland and perhaps up to 10% of that of the USSR that perished in the six years of WW 2. A far better response, would be to observe that Nazism [among other things] has some sobering lessons to teach us about where Darwinist thought and the use of "Science" as an absolute can go, and that we -- finite, fallible, fallen and too often ill-willed -- had better not let such things happen again. So, when we come to select worldviews, we need to make the attitude to and implications for moral restraint on the beast within a key criterion. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
01:28 AM
1
01
28
AM
PDT}

-The Nazis were not Christian.
Indeed, the leading Nazis - Hitler, Himmler, Rosenberg, Goebbels, and Bormann - were all fanatically anti-Christian, though this was partly hidden from the German public.
Robert Wistrich, professor of Jewish history in Hitler And The Holocaust, as quoted in Vox Day's The Irrational Atheist. - A significant number among the first euthanizing doctors were not Christians but Jews. Jews were not considered among the inferior at first as they had become successful in German society. http://www.history.vt.edu/Jones/priv_hist3724/CarrieBuck/Nazis.html http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Mildenberger,F
The German eugenic leadership was originally less anti-semitic than the British. Most German eugenists had originally believed that German Jews were Aryan, and consequently the movement was supported by many Jewish professors and doctors. The Jews were only slowly incorporated into the German eugenic laws which, up to this time, were supported by a large number of persons, both in Germany and abroad.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1992/PSCF6-92Bergman.html See the above ASA posting also for more on Nazis and Christianity. -Almost half of the Nazi victims were Christian. -Thousands upon thousands of clergymen and nuns were killed for their opposition to Hitler. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/4f6dd82c90d73cecCharlie_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

In neither the witch hunts nor the Holocaust is either case so simple as "Christians killing non-Christians": -The secular authorities killed the greatest number of witches while the Church usually ordered penance. -Atheists were among those adamant that witches ought to be killed.
Even atheists and skeptics such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Bodin advocated the killing of witches, the latter of whom wanted it done in the slowest possible fire. Rodney Stark argues that it was one of several "collateral results" of conflict between Europe and Arabia.
David Marshall, The Truth Behind The New Atheism page 161. -The Church was a mediating factor. Where the Church and government were strong witch hunts were the least prevalent. -The witches were no more non-Christian than was general population - they were not, contra myth, Pagans. -Witches were not killed for beliefs but for (alleged) deeds - especially murder and other violent crimes tried in civil courts. http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html http://www.tangledmoon.org/witchhunt.htm
Witch hunts were a collaboration between lower-level authorities and commonfolk succumbing to garden-variety pettiness, vindictiveness, superstition and hysteria. Seen that way, it's a pattern that recurs over and over again in various forms throughout human history, whether or not an evil international church or a ruthless patriarchy is involved, in places as different as Seattle and Rwanda. ... In fact, while the justification for condemning witches was religious, and some religious figures joined in witch hunting campaigns, the trials were not run by churches of any denomination. They were largely held in civil courts and prosecuted by local authorities (some of whom were also religious leaders) as criminal cases. ... The evil eye is not a particularly Christian idea, and early on the church actually discouraged members from clinging to old folk beliefs in magic and evil sorcerers because they were inconsistent with church doctrine. Current popular history holds that the witch hunts were concerted campaigns by a male-dominated church that felt its sway diminished by stubborn pagan and folk traditions that gave too much respect to wise old women. The persecution, the story goes, was designed to stamp out those beliefs. However, when you look at actual cases, the picture is quite the opposite. "In 1627," writes Roper, "in the town of Ochsenfurt, rumors about witchcraft had involved the allegation that a child had been eaten ... Later that same year, 150 citizens gathered in force to complain about 'the enemies of their livelihood, and vermin and witchcraft,'" and to demand action. Against the bishop's express orders, the mayor and council arrested and tortured several suspects, causing the death of one. ... And if the victims of witch hunts were disproportionately older women, their chief accusers, and the initiating force behind many of the trials Roper details, were often women, too. Young mothers, overwhelmed by the demands of newborn infants and raised in a world where everyone believed that angry or negative thoughts could cause serious physical harm, cast about for someone to blame when something went wrong. In an old woman they saw someone with cause to resent their good fortune as well as a reminder that their youth and fecundity, too, would someday be gone. In some cases, a midwife was simply the old woman most likely to have had contact with a new mother and her child, and therefore a prime target. None of this excuses the Catholic and Protestant churches for the many atrocities they've perpetrated over the centuries, against "witches" or anyone else who earned their disfavor.
http://www.powells.com/review/2005_02_18.html http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/burning_times_inquisition_witches.htmCharlie_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
01:05 AM
1
01
05
AM
PDT}

Check my math ... Estimated world populations: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html Even taking the population statistics offered by DaveScot with the difference as (very roughly) an order of magnitude in population between the early modern era and the early 20th Century, the Nazis killed over 10 million people as compared to the upper end estimate of 100,000 witches killed. Note as well that they did so in at most 10% of the time (closer to about 2-3%). The Nazis killed roughly a million a year compared to a maximum of one thousand a year (bunching all witches killed into the single century peak rather than the four centuries over which the killings were actually spread) so the Nazi death rate, per capita, is still two orders of magnitude greater than that of the witch hunts. This is, of course, very conservative, estimating populations and deaths in the favour of the Nazis in all cases. Rough: 10 million deaths / 10 years /2,500 million population vs 100,000 deaths / 100 years / 350 million population In fact, in about the year and a half from 1940-1941 Hitler gassed nearly as many "patients", 70,000 (only 5,000 Jewish), as the high end estimate for all witches killed in 400 years. In six years they killed more than twice as many (and as high as 8 times as many) handicapped people as all the witches who died during all the 4 centuries of witch hunts. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.htmlCharlie_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

Hi Rude: Re, @ 98: "why is it that at any suggestion that Darwinism also may have played a role there is such a loud cry of foul? Is it that materialism is incapable of introspection?" 1 --> Who is there -- per materialistic premises and implications for credibility of mind and conscience [Cf here] -- to "introspect"? [This is part of the reductionism to the image of the ape and its implications.] 2 --> This leads us to the point that materialism-linked Darwinism is part of the post-enlightenment devaluation of man -- "ascended ape, not fallen angel" etc [cf Ch 6, Darwin's Descent of Man on predicted consequences and implications as excerpted at 86 above, point 5] . . . -- and thus of basic morality. The events in Europe of the 1930's and 40's when seriously addressed in the context of underlying worldviews and absolutising of "science" issues, would give a lot of people serious pause. [Mr Davis is right to point out that that certain features of the German buildup to and actions in WW I (Cf W. J. Bryan here) already foreshadowed what would happen in the 1920's - 40's. Indeed, it is not improbable that some of the German propaganda during the war would have influenced Hitler, a soldier on the Western Front. Not to mention, many of those who would become his key supporters.] 3 --> Rage, denial and angry dismissal on being confronted on moral faults, potentially dangerous tendencies and the defects of favourite ideas, are not unexpected. The challenge our culture faces is to rise above emotive reactions to think soberly and objectively; then to change its mind [attitudes and thought], make amends and undertake appropriate reforms. (Some public apology and restitution to victims of being "expelled" may also be in order.) 4 --> Given the observed balance of power in institutions and the sad track record of the fate of dissidents in the halls of science that Expelled documents, one may be tempted to think that silence is a better answer than trying to speak truth to power in potentially angry and ruthless hands. But, one of the major lessons of the 1920's - 40's, is that silence is in fact almost the worst thing one can do under such circumstances. For, silence in the face of rising evil becomes enabling behaviour, and the trend is for ruthless abuse to get worse, not better if it is unchallenged and unchecked. (Similarly, we should be VERY suspicious of any movement or trend of thought that undermines the foundations of morality, especially if it entails or suggests that in effect "might [or success] makes right.") 5 --> So, unless we want to repeat some chapters of history that are plainly best not relived, we have to stand up and fight now, before it truly becomes too late. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 11, 2008
August
08
Aug
11
11
2008
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT}

-----Ted Davis: For my part, I am less interested in Shloss’s commentary on the Darwin/Hitler connection and more interested is his lack of objectivity about intelligent design in general. To be more precise, I am concerned about his clichéd approach to describing it and his irrelevant criteria for assessing it. For one thing, it shouldn’t be necessary to remind Schloss that a man’ beliefs or his associations, past or present, should not disqualify him from being a scientist. Translation-- Philip Johnson’s impatience with cultural atheism has nothing at all to do with the validity of Dembski’s explanatory filter. Whatever Schloss thinks of the ID movement, he ought not to confuse it with ID science. Frankly, this kind of motive mongering calls into question the sincerity of anyone who resorts to it. It is time for ID critics to learn the difference between a religious presupposition and an empirical observation. It is also a little late for Schloss to be learning the meaning of the word “context.” As anyone who cares knows, William Dembski is a theologian. His comment about the “Logos” theory of the gospel was an attempt to explain a scientific phenomenon (design) in the context of a theological paradigm. Ironic isn’t it. When Dembski explains that a design inference cannot uncover the designer’s identity of the designer, his critics say he is hiding something. On the other hand, when he says that he personally believes the designer to be God, his critics ignore the theological context and accuse him of bootlegging religion into his science. Apparently, Schloss is just this kind of critic.StephenB_{August 10, 2008
August
08
Aug
10
10
2008
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

Ted re; witch executions I said millions in the highest estimates. This is the true number of the highest estimates and I made no comment on the quality of those estimates. The widely excepted range of witch executions is somewhere between 40,000 and 100,000. However, there's another way of looking at these numbers. In the witch hunt centuries the worldwide human population is estimated to be about 350 million and in the Nazi years that number was about 2,500 million. Thus as a percentage of the living population the fraction killed in the holocaust is in the same ballpark as the fraction killed in the witch hunts. One also needs to keep in mind that the executioners in both cases where Christians and the victims non-Christians. So there. I don't desire apologies from anyone for what their dead ancestors did. I desire the juvenile finger pointing from their living descendents to stop. DaveScot_{August 10, 2008
August
08
Aug
10
10
2008
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

For some seventy years now the role that Christianity played in the Holocaust has been discussed. I’ve read a number of books on the subject myself. Wikipedia, I know, is quite biased on socio-cultural issues, but I suspect that few would disagree when it says, “Christian anti-Semitism ultimately played a dramatic role in the Nazi Third Reich, World War II and the Holocaust. The dissident Catholic priest Hans Küng has written that ‘Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years’ pre-history of ‘Christian’ anti-Judaism...’” The Holocaust has led to, for better or worse, much introspection within Christendom. Of such was the Catholic declaration Nostra Aetate, also it has influenced at least in part the growth of Christian Zionism. So why is it that at any suggestion that Darwinism also may have played a role there is such a loud cry of foul? Is it that materialism is incapable of introspection? Anyway while we’re on the subject, let me deviate a little and suggest that some might be interested in an article by David Berlinski’s daughter Claire.Rude_{August 10, 2008
August
08
Aug
10
10
2008
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Ted Davis said:
However, the film did apparently make an historically unjustified claim about Darwinism and Hitler — namely, that there are these two dots and you just connect them. DaveScot put it like this above: “Expelled’s argument wasn’t “WATCH OUT!! The Darwinists are NAZIs!!”
Now that I'm reading Schloss' review I see even he didn't draw this conclusion.
So another option is that Darwinism did not “lead” to Hitler – the road to the Holocaust is paved with something else – but perhaps it provided some of the necessary gas to get there. Movie producer Ben Stein appears to endorse this option, saying “Darwinism does not lead inevitably to Hitler” but it may have “inspired” such ideas. In his film interview David Berlinski makes this same distinction with the very emphatic claim that for the atrocities of the Reich “Darwin was not a sufficient idea but a necessary one.”
Charlie_{August 10, 2008
August
08
Aug
10
10
2008
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply