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

_{William Dembski
August 7, 2008

Expelled, Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Expelled
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

tribune7 wrote:
And the second clause in your sentence indicates a grave ignorance of history. The Holocaust was not “50 years or so”. The mass murder of Jews did not start until 1939 and the Final Solution did not begin until 1942. The end in either case came in 1945 with the defeat of Hitler.
For my "grave ignorance of history", I was approximating not just the time of the German Holocaust, but of the "Darwinist atrocities" you mentioned...I was tyring to be generous and estimate 50 years of the 20th century were spent in genocide, the Jews being the primary example. I was going to say 10 years, but I didn't want you to think I was underplaying the extent of carnage that took place, so 50 years sounded like a good estimate to me. Sorry if I didn't make my reasoning clear. I'm not speaking from authority (though the current scholarship agrees with me), I'm speaking from firsthand observations I've made in Latin America and the Caribbean (13 different countries, hundreds of cities and regions.) Have you done the same? As you've ducked all my questions and are clinging to the hope that Wikipedia is the state of the art scholoarship at the moment (on a politically contentious topic such as the Conquista, nonetheless), I'll let you off the hook. Obviously you didn't mean to get in over your head and I don't want to cause ill will on the board. But do take some time to read up on the subject before you ever argue it with another person. The implication was from the following statement of yours:
And when slaughter not seen since the end of the pagan era occurs after the widespread adoption of Darwinism
You missed out on the entire Black and Indigenous Holocaust by the statement, implying either it didn't take place or that it somehow it wasn't as bad as what happened in the *10* years you informed me you were speaking of.Atom_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

Atom -- So anyway, your “scholarship” is a couple decades It's not "my" scholarship. It's a link to Wiki and there is no reason to think that it doesn't reflect the best and most up to date understanding of events. Granted, consensus doesn't mean "truth" but neither does an appeal to a favored authority that perhaps reflects what you want to believe. Note-- the Wiki version would follow the logic of plantation imperialism. It was clearly understood by the conquerors that it was undesirable to see their labor force die off. This should be obvious to you since the importation of black slaves began after the Indians died. Um, with regard to your appeal to the mods, why do you distort my arguments? In what post did I "imply" that the whole 500 year period of death and slavery for blacks and Native Americans never happened? And the second clause in your sentence indicates a grave ignorance of history. The Holocaust was not "50 years or so". The mass murder of Jews did not start until 1939 and the Final Solution did not begin until 1942. The end in either case came in 1945 with the defeat of Hitler. You seem to be unable to comprehend the uniqueness of what happened in 20th century Europe.tribune7_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Denyse, You're terrific. I just slogged through the first half of Schloss---somebody should deal with the way he disses Crocker, Sternberg, and Gonzalez. Did the movie misrepresent their cases? If Schloss is as bad here as he is with Weikart, then Crocker, Sternberg, and Gonzalez deserve to have their reputations defended.Rude_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

Dave, I don't think you're appreciating the sheer weight of my argument. It's not about Darwinism -> NAZI-ism necessarily. That's just one of the possible outcomes when combined with modern materialistic propaganda. One of the ideas central to this conflict is that Darwinism--or learning Darwinism--promotes the social good, the Council of Europe argued as much. Is this a direct implication of the scientific implications Darwin's theory or an interpretation? If you are arguing for a auxiliary effect as an affect of Darwinism, then you cannot simultaneously use the fig leaf that racism wasn't a central result as well. The entire argument of the opposition is rendered inconsistent or invalid. (Including all the chiding about "Dark Age" thinking, or getting with the times...) I'm trusting that you know enough about math and logic to know invalidating something does not imply anything else has been validated, unless that alternative makes up the entire complement of the possibilities. I've shown the methodological problem of the progressive position.jjcassidy_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Mods, sorry for discussing politics here, but the comment was made to imply that the whole 500 year period of death and slavery for blacks and Native Americans never happened or somehow wasn't as bad as the 50 years or so of Holocaust that happened to the Jews in Europe. My people dying in forced labor camps, plantations and mines, are every bit as horrible as Jews dying in German forced labor camps. More Natives died, the time period was an order of magnitude longer, and the different groups affected were more in number...any way you look at it, the tragedy was as bad if not worse. Anyway, Darwinism does lead to a dire view of human worth, but so did (pre-Darwinist) racism. But I'm willing to drop it. I would just like tribune7 to stop guessing at who my slaughtered ancestors would dislike more.Atom_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

I have just read Weikart's response. Jeffrey Schloss is an embarrassment to scientists who claim to be Christians and part of the ongoing disgrace of the American Scientific Affiliation. His scholarship is unbelievably poor. But, of course, anyone who attempts to deny that Hitler was influenced by the Darwinism of his day would have to sign on to poor scholarship just for starters. It is one thing for a group of Christians in science to disavow young earth creationism on insufficient evidence, but quite another to deny design in nature and suck up* to atheistic materialists. = Hey! Guess what! The atheistic materialists as worried about design as we are! They have the courage of their convictions but we don't. Still, they and we are friends, and whoop, whoop, they have invited us to coffee! So we are no longer scum, like the ID theorists. Any serious scientist who belongs to such an organization had better have a plan for rescuing it.O'Leary_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

tribune7 wrote:
Researchers today doubt Las Casas’s figures for the pre-contact levels of the Taíno population, considering them an exaggeration. . .Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives.
Scholars have estimated low numbers for decades, even though all first hand accounts recorded high numbers. The scholars thought that it was impossible that so many people could have died in so short a period of time, even though the Americas are literally littered with cities and all first hand accounts record how populated the land masses were. In North America, it was said that prior to Invasion boats had trouble finding spots on the coast to land, since the entire coastline was inhabited with indigenous peoples. That scholarship has recently undergone revision and discoveries have shed light on the true numbers of people living in the Americas. For example, pottery mounds (basically old school trash heaps) found in obscure cities have been found to be larger than those of ancient Rome. Meaning the population size was probably as big, if not bigger. Tenochitlan (Mexico City) was actually the biggest city on the planet when the Spanish arrived, more populated than London or Paris. So anyway, your "scholarship" is a couple decades outdated. "1491" by Charles Mann gives a good overwiew of the current state of the scholarship, including going over Bartholomew de las Casas' accounts and the controversy surrounding them. It is one thing to say the eyewitnesses probably "exaggerated", but you have to back that up with evidence. Scholars say eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection were exaggerated as well. I'll stick with the people who were actually there. Speaking of which, have you ever been to Tenochitlan? Cuzco? Chincha (the black capital of Peru, home of the El Carmen plantation)? Aguadilla (where the last of the Taino sought refuge from the Spanish and were hunted down...my family hometown)? To the Taino center at Tibes? La Paz in Bolivia? To Argentina, where the indigenous population was wiped out to a degree not seen in the surrounding countries (lowest indigenous and meztizo population in the Americas)? Oaxaca? Chipas? Merida? Have to seen Ollantaytambo, the city the Inca were building when the Spanish arrived? Have you talked with the remnant of these Amerindian groups and found out how colonization affected them and their ancestors? Which books have you read on pre-colombian civilization and the Amerindian Holocaust? End of the Spear? Come on, the majority of Amerindians (by population) lived in cities. Cities like Chan Chan, Cahokia, Machu Picchu, Chichen Itza, etc. The hunter gatherer image of pre-colombian indian life is an outdated hollywood idea based on contact with some of the tribes that did not live in cities. This would be like a traveller visiting hillbilly mountain folk and concluding that North Americans as a whole were really backwards people without running water or basic math skills. Until you've done even some of these things, you're really not in a place to debate me on these issues. You are free to debate, but I know that you don't know what you're talking about. I've been to these places and seen the effects of Colonization. I've talked with these people and I can tell you who they hold grudges against. It changed my way of thinking real quick. (I was a right-wing Republican at the time, and thought what happened wasn't that bad, the people were cannibals and probably deserved it, etc.) Seeing the reality (being confronted with it actually, it was not something I went out looking for) set me straight real quick. Needless to say, it does tick me off when I see people denying the suffering that took place and still continues to this day in places like Peru and the Mexico.Atom_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

Probably this powerful example from the University of Delaware, which conclusively shows that the mousetrap evolved via RM+NS. Drat! Darwin was right. This scientifically proves it and explains all of biology.GilDodgen_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Which scientifically understood processes are these? Probably this powerful example from the University of Delaware, which conclusively shows that the mousetrap evolved via RM+NS.tribune7_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

To see where Schloss stands now, go to http://www.issr.org.uk/id-statement.asp From the ISSR ID statement:
In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it [ID] has not provided examples of "irreducible complexity" in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be "irreducibly complex" today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.
This ISSR group is apparently a collection of clowns who have never checked anything for themselves, and just swallow anti-ID drivel completely uncritically. Research has led to the conclusion that the vertebrate eye can be readily understood as a product of natural selection? Just which research is this? Oh yes, now I remember: First you start with a light-sensitive spot, then you get a concave cup, then you get a lens -- that research. Or perhaps it's the research that resulted in the famous "evolution of the eye" computer simulation that Dawkins talks about but that never existed. ID has not provided examples of "irreducible complexity" in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes? Which scientifically understood processes are these? Oh yes, now I remember: Ken Miller has explained it all by redefining IC as the fact that none of the parts can serve other functions and then talking about a homologous protein. Or perhaps it's that "scientifically understood process" called co-option or exaptation which scientifically explains it all with: First you get a bunch of parts that have other functions but that just happen to be compatible with each other to serve another function when they accidentally get assembled by a bunch of assembly instructions that happen by accident. I almost forgot about that scientifically understood process.GilDodgen_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

The idea that ideas don’t have consequences has consequences. And it seems to me that "the idea that ID will gain wider acceptance by arguing that Darwinian theory was a necessary factor in the holocaust" is not Ben Stein's and not Richard Weikart's idea. Right or wrong it's the truth they're after! If what we want is acceptance we should all be TEs.Rude_{August 8, 2008
August
08
Aug
8
08
2008
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT}

William Dembski: "CannuckianYankee: To see where Schloss stands now, go to http://www.issr.org.uk/id-statement.asp" Thanks for the link. I appreciated the fact that the statement separates Biblical Creationism from Intelligent Design. I sensed, though, that theistic evolutionists do just as their atheistic Darwinist counterparts do, and that is to elevate a philosophy of methodological naturalism as science, and as such, leave out any place in science for Intelligent Design, which leaves open philosophical assumptions, while looking at the evidence. Dr. Dembski, I am not a scientist, so it really is not my place to determine what is and what is not science based on current scientific thinking. I am, however, well read, and can think logically, and I cannot fathom how naturalists come to equate a philosophical assumption with science. I know the history of how this happened from Hume and beyond, but it appalls me that many naturalists do not grasp the philosophical history behind their thinking. I think that it behooves ID theorists to continue to recognize that the enemy is methodological naturalism, the basis for Darwinistic thinking in the first place. Phillip Johnson I believe argued this very well in "Darwin On Trial."CannuckianYankee_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT}

For the most part, Schloss’s commentary is less of a movie review and more of an apologia for theistic evolution. In his judgment, the movie wasn’t fair because evolution doesn’t necessarily lead to atheism. To make that point, one gathers, the producers should have included those “evolutionists” who also believe in God, meaning, of course, the theistic evolutionists. But how would that have helped? Aren’t theistic evolutionists simply Christian Darwinists? Do they not agree with the Darwinist agenda that ID scientists should be expelled from the academy? Do they not participate with Darwinists in the enforcement of methodological naturalism, which is the academy’s way of justifying the expulsion? Of what significance is their lip service to theism when their Darwinist ideology calls all the shots? What good is personal piety if it translates into professional atheism? Also, Schloss insists that the Movie doesn’t define ID sufficiently. Well, no, it doesn’t. It is trying to dramatize the fact of persecution, and there is no reason to deviate from that theme. You don’t move people or mobilize a group effort by making fine shades of distinction. Anyone who sees the machine-like bits in a DNA molecule gets it; nothing else is needed. In any case, ID has already defined itself very well. Unlike Darwinists, who go around using weasel words like “evolution,” which can mean anything to anybody, ID puts it on the line by offering precise terms and logical arguments. William Dembski and Michael Behe have not been persecuted for being ambiguous; they have been persecuted for being exact. To me, Shloss is at his most comical when he criticizes Ben Stein for saying, “either we were designed or we were an accident.” Like the typical TE, he wants to have it both ways and characterize us as a “designed accident.” But no, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. Of course, it is possible that God designed evolution, but then that would be design now, wouldn’t it? Of course, that is the very thing that the TE’s sensibilities will not allow---design. So, to fool the public (and themselves) they use the rhetoric of design even as they argue for non-design. Finally, Schloss resorts to the well-tested, “why-can’t-we-all-just-get-along” ploy. If ID is to tear down walls, he insists, it must stop polarizing the two sides. Oh, I get it. The victims of exclusion and slander should learn to be more inclusive and magnanimous. Well, sorry, but Ghandi-like passivity has not been known to work well under Nazi—like oppression. But the irony doesn’t end there. On the one hand Schloss admits that that “it is suicide” to posit intelligent design in an academic setting, on the other hand, he questions the testimony of those who did committed suicide and are now dead in their careers. Oh, well, the man does write well.StephenB_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

Lol! The Yoko Ono of philosophy - Well said, Frank Beckwith.Charlie_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT}

"Why can’t a good philosophical argument count against the alleged deliverances of “science”?" Because science is based on evidence. You may be able to come up with a good philosophical argument to say how many teeth a horse has, but a biologist can actually go out and count the teeth. The biologist will have evidence and you won't, and I'm afraid that's why your good philosophical arguments don't count against the actual deliverances of science.Portishead_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee: To see where Schloss stands now, go to http://www.issr.org.uk/id-statement.aspWilliam Dembski_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

History can be considered science and is no less politics than Global Warming; a UD non-ID favourite.Charlie_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Schloss' criticisms don't seem even half as naive and ill-conceived as the idea that ID will gain wider acceptance by arguing that Darwinian theory was a necessary factor in the holocaust. I used to think the major obstacle to getting ID more widely accepted in the science community was its close association with young earth creationism. But you know, at least young earth creationists use scientific arguments to make their case that the creation account in Genesis is how it really happened. Even when I don't agree with the arguments at all, which is most of the time, it's still at least an attempt to keep the focus on science and I can respect that. This Darwin/Nazi stuff is pure politics and exceedingly bad politics at that. It's turning off those who might otherwise have given us a serious hearing like nothing else I've seen. Words fail me in describing how ill-conceived it is to associate this with intelligent design.DaveScot_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

(See Friar Bartholomew De Las Casas’ firsthand accounts, for example. Again, this isn’t just my opinion, it is doecumented history.) Researchers today doubt Las Casas's figures for the pre-contact levels of the Taíno population, considering them an exaggeration. . .Scholars now believe that, among the various contributing factors, epidemic disease was the overwhelming cause of the population decline of the American natives. To get to the point, there are those who claim Christianity not just fails to mitigate evil but encourages it. Do you agree with them? If you ever get a chance see the movie The End of the Spear I suspect that pre-Columbian life was pretty much like that.tribune7_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

So what are Schloss' views now on evolution? Is he a theistic evolutionist? I ask this because I noticed that he taught (or now teaches?) at Westmont College, which is a very conservative Christian College in Santa Barbara California. Or has he reverted back to Creationism? JJCassidy stated: "The complaint often comes in the form that Eugenics and racism weren’t necessary fallout from Darwinism. To some degree this would be fine, were Science kept restrained to what it directly evidences." It seems to me that science (as it is generally practiced today) doesn't start with science, and neither does it end with it. It begins with the human (frailty?) of either wanting to know something more precisely, or from wanting to seem as though one wants to know something more precisely. It may be different from person to person. But the point is that methodological naturalism seems to be more philosophy than science, and yet, this is what most scientists today seem to believe is the basic foundation of doing science. I've heard it said that scientists make poor philosophers. It appears that many scientists see themselves as practicing something that comes purely from the scientific method. Yet if that is true, and they are still founded upon methodological naturalism, then apparently they either don't know how to separate the science from the philosophy, or they willfully ignore their own philosophical assumptions when doing "science." It's no wonder then, that when they apply "science" to make a more perfect world (such as in eugenics), any moral implication is seen as not a part of what they do as scientists. Someone mentioned Global Warming (now more popularly known as Climate Change, and formerly known as global cooling - and on and on we go). Well isn't the issue of climate change a moral one for even the scientist? What then gives the scientist the "moral" grounds to dismiss philosophical questions when doing science, if the reasons for doing science in the first place is to know something more precisely in order to more perfect conditions in the world? It is no surprise to me then, that we have philosophers who know a lot about science, becoming believers in a God - seeing the limits of methodological naturalism, and going where the evidence leads (as in Antony Flew). The theist understands that not only does belief in God hold a moral key to who we are and what our purpose is, but it also apparently holds the key for the intricacies we see in the natural universe. Dismiss it if you will on "scientific" grounds, but understand that such dismissal comes from misguided philosophical assumptions. Anyone, therefore, is capable of misusing science to further philosophical agendas, and deny that they are doing so.CannuckianYankee_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

tribune7 wrote:
It’s just pointing out that as bad as they were they did not come close to what occurred post-Darwin
So 500 years of Holocaust isn't as bad as 50 years?Atom_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

tribune7, Please don't just guess at who you think they'd have a bigger grudge against...while you may think you're being cute, you're talking about my ancestors and it is actually very offensive. It would be like me telling a person who had family murdered in the Holocaust: "I bet they held a bigger grudge against the Castilians..." These aren't characters in some history book, this is my family. Your comment that the Carib didn't have smallpox only holds relevance on one end (population reduction)...smallpox doesn't destory culture and language, so it doesn't affect my point that the Carib never eliminated the Taino as a whole or their way of life. The Spanish wanted the wealth, the slaves were only a means to getting the wealth of the Americas. They cared nothing about the slaves or the indians. Do a quick wikipedia search on spanish colonization or the conquest of the americas. I'm not making this stuff up. They would mutilate or murder those who couldn't produce enough gold to ransom themselves, as they expected each Native to produce a set amount of gold. According to eyewitness accounts of the time, hundreds of thousands (low estimate) to millions were killed in the mines, plantations and haciendas. Those who weren't killed were raped and tortured. (See Friar Bartholomew De Las Casas' firsthand accounts, for example. Again, this isn't just my opinion, it is doecumented history.) You should read some books on the topic: "1491", "The Open Veins of Latin America", etc. You'll learn about what you're so glibly dicussing. The First Nations peoples will tell you themselves who they hold the bigger grudge against. And I'll give you a hint, it ain't other Amerindian groups.Atom_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Try Taino They'd hold a bigger grudge against the Caribs too. And by the way, the Caribs didn’t destroy the Arawak peoples or the Taino group… They didn't have smallpox I do agree that disease was the main killer of the Amerindians (the studies on the epidemics that followed European contact are saddening and incredible), but the hacienda/plantation/encomienda systems of the Spanish took a toll that is every bit as disgusting as the Holocaust. If the Spanish wanted the Indians as slaves, and if it was not their desire to wipe them out via disease or other means, how could you compare what happened to them to the Holocaust or the Ukraine famine which were premeditated attempts to wipe out whole peoples as in seem them all die? BTW, this is not a defense of the Spaniards. It's just pointing out that as bad as they were they did not come close to what occurred post-Darwin, or even among contemporaneous pagans such as the Caribs & the Aztecs.tribune7_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

And by the way, the Caribs didn't destroy the Arawak peoples or the Taino group...they made war with them, yes, but didn't annihilate them or their culture. So I doubt you are the person to judge who they'd hold a bigger grudge against.Atom_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Try Taino...nearly annihilated every last one of them from my island. Not to mention the West Africans that were thrown in the ocean or murdered in the plantations who were brought in to replace the Taino once they had been killed off (for the most part.) I do agree that disease was the main killer of the Amerindians (the studies on the epidemics that followed European contact are saddening and incredible), but the hacienda/plantation/encomienda systems of the Spanish took a toll that is every bit as disgusting as the Holocaust. Again, ask the Taino...or the Carib...or the Arawak...or the Mexica...or the Maya...or take your pick.Atom_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

but I think my slaughtered West Indian ancestors might feel differently about your last point… I dunno. If your slaughtered West Indian ancestors were Arawaks they'd probably hold a bigger grudge against the Caribs. Or smallpox if they understood what it was. If Caribs, well take comfort in that their legacy lives with the word "cannibal".tribune7_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT}

tribune7 wrote:
And when slaughter not seen since the end of the pagan era occurs after the widespread adoption of Darwinism
I'm with you that Darwinism is no good in what it does to ethics, but I think my slaughtered West Indian ancestors might feel differently about your last point... Unless you want to consider the Conquistador Spanish kingdoms pagan, which I'm fine with.Atom_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

You have Christianity which tells you to love your neighbor and pray for your enemies and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And still people have used this rather clear-cut system of values to justify oppression and cruelty. And then you have Darwinism that teaches we are not intrinsically different than animals (and plants) and that it is proper for the strong to survive at the expense of the weak. And when slaughter not seen since the end of the pagan era occurs after the widespread adoption of Darwinism, why do some insist that Darwinism has nothing to do with it?tribune7_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

I think that in the end the safest thing to say is that if Darwinism does not lead to racism, it at least provides an excuse for it. Religion may have been used to justify ethnocentrism as well, but the essential lesson is that Darwinists are every bit as fallible as anyone else- a reality people like Dawkins seem to reject.Zakrzewski_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Also, don't we have this new principle that Science is whatever scientists do? So if scientists are racist eugenicists, that's Science. It's hard to imagine all that Darwinism would be under the same model, except it's what Darwinists do. If Darwinist practice racist eugenics, then I guess that's what Darwinism is. Or is it only recently that Science is what scientists do? In that case it doesn't have very long coattails. While they argue that methodological materialism goes back to Newton, they can't possibly argue the same thing for the self-definition idea, because it doesn't extend to past the 1920s. Accepting both makes for a baroque rationale.jjcassidy_{August 7, 2008
August
08
Aug
7
07
2008
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply