Intelligent Design

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with my comments

Spread the love

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 1: Evolution’s Glass Ceiling

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 2: Rebutting Methodological Materialism: Interview With Angus Menuge, Part Two

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 3: Agents Under Fire: Part One With Angus Menuge

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 4: Hitler’s Ethic and the Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress in Nazi Policy

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 5: Seeking God in Science: An Atheist
Defends Intelligent Design

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 6: Back to school with real science

13 Replies to “Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with my comments

  1. 1
    IRQ Conflict says:

    Mrs. O’leary, link number six seem to be incomplete.

  2. 2
    camanintx says:

    Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 4: Hitler’s Ethic and the Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress in Nazi Policy
    From Denyse: Personally, I have never understood why Darwin’s fans freak out when anyone tries to talk about the relationship between Darwinism and eugenics, Darwinism and racism, and Darwinism and the Nazis.

    Why do critics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution keep bringing it up when it has no bearing on the validity of the theory? Even if Hitler lifted quotes directly from The Descent of Man, it wouldn’t make the theory any less valid. Hitler drew far more from the works of Martin Luther than he did from Darwin, but you don’t see anyone using that as evidence against ID, do you?

  3. 3
    IRQ Conflict says:

    camanintx

    “Why do critics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution keep bringing it up when it has no bearing on the validity of the theory?”

    Paraphrasing Dr. Hunter iirc.

    Ideas have consequences. And it matters.

  4. 4
    IRQ Conflict says:

    camanintx, Mrs. O’learys comments touch on just that question. Did you read it or listen to the podcast?

  5. 5
    camanintx says:

    IRQ Conflict, #3

    Paraphrasing Dr. Hunter iirc.

    Ideas have consequences. And it matters.

    Darwin is no more responsible for how Hitler misused evolution than Einstein would be responsible if terrorists detonated an atomic bomb in New York City. Implying otherwise in an attempt to promote ID is a logical fallacy.

  6. 6
    SpitfireIXA says:

    Camanintx:

    Explain the logical fallacy. I’m interested.

  7. 7
    camanintx says:

    SpitfireIXA, #6

    Camanintx:

    Explain the logical fallacy. I’m interested.

    You do understand the difference between biology and sociology, don’t you? Just because people have been throwing objects at each other since the dawn of history doesn’t imply that Newton is at fault or that his equations of motion are wrong.

  8. 8

    camanintx @ 2,

    Why do critics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution keep bringing it up when it has no bearing on the validity of the theory? Even if Hitler lifted quotes directly from The Descent of Man, it wouldn’t make the theory any less valid.

    Correct! Now the question is, why do advocates of Darwin’s theory disavow Hitler?

    Was he not following his evolutionary programming?

    How about the people who actually did all the leg work, the Germans? Germany was the most scientifically advanced country in the world at end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Yet all of that intellectual and philosophical prowess did nothing to stop their evolutionary programming. We are animals after all, aren’t we?

    Hitler drew far more from the works of Martin Luther than he did from Darwin, but you don’t see anyone using that as evidence against ID, do you?

    Just because Nick Matzke says it does’t make it true. The story of Pastor Niemöller is prima facie evidence against his assertion.

  9. 9

    camanintx @ 2,

    Why do critics of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution keep bringing it up when it has no bearing on the validity of the theory? Even if Hitler lifted quotes directly from The Descent of Man, it wouldn’t make the theory any less valid.

    Correct! Now the question is, why do advocates of Darwin’s theory disavow Hitler?

    Was he not following his evolutionary programming?

    How about the people who actually did all the leg work, the Germans? Germany was the most scientifically advanced country in the world at end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Yet all of that intellectual and philosophical prowess did nothing to stop their evolutionary programming. We are animals after all, aren’t we?

    Hitler drew far more from the works of Martin Luther than he did from Darwin, but you don’t see anyone using that as evidence against ID, do you?

    Just because Nick Matzke says it does’t make it true. The story of Pastor Niemöller is prima facie evidence against his assertion.

  10. 10

    Oops, sorry for the double post. It got stuck the first time and I hit the submit button.

  11. 11
    camanintx says:

    angryoldfatman, #8

    Correct! Now the question is, why do advocates of Darwin’s theory disavow Hitler?

    Why should biologists accept responsibility for Hitler’s misguided social policies? Like SpitfireIXA, you are confusing biology with sociology.

    Was he not following his evolutionary programming?

    How could Hitler have been inspired by evolution when he obviously didn’t understand it? The Theory of Evolution is about passing along traits to one’s progeny, something which Hitler utterly failed to do.

  12. 12

    camanintx @ 11

    Why should biologists accept responsibility for Hitler’s misguided social policies? Like SpitfireIXA, you are confusing biology with sociology.

    How is sociology separate from biology? Did culture not evolve like everything else?

    Besides, responsibility as you conceive it does not exist. After all, it was Dawkins who told us that “a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not”.

    Me: Was he not following his evolutionary programming?

    You: How could Hitler have been inspired by evolution when he obviously didn’t understand it? The Theory of Evolution is about passing along traits to one’s progeny, something which Hitler utterly failed to do.

    How can one be inspired by one’s programming? Hitler was programmed by evolution, like every other organism on the planet. He didn’t need to survive, his ancestors did, and so they did.

    You seem to think a creature needs to understand evolution before it can be affected by it, which is very strange reasoning.

    Had that been the case, evolution would not exist, since no other creature besides Homo sapiens has the capacity to understand it, and Homo sapiens obviously is the latest creature to have arisen due to evolution.

    An obvious bootstrap problem.

    Do you have a solution for this problem, or will you continue to repeat yourself and thereby show your inability to comprehend it?

  13. 13
    camanintx says:

    angryoldfatman, #12

    How is sociology separate from biology? Did culture not evolve like everything else?

    I’m surprised that someone debating the validity of a scientific theory doesn’t understand the difference between the fields of natural and social sciences.

    Besides, responsibility as you conceive it does not exist.

    If you think that the Theory of Evolution contradicts the concept of free will in any way then you don’t understand it.

    Hitler was programmed by evolution, like every other organism on the planet. He didn’t need to survive, his ancestors did, and so they did.

    You have that backwards. Evolution is about the survival of one’s decendants, not their ancestors. Since Hitler didn’t have any decendants, he was an evolutionary failure.

    You seem to think a creature needs to understand evolution before it can be affected by it, which is very strange reasoning.

    You seem to have a comprehension problem because the word I used was “inspired”, not “affected”.

Leave a Reply