What do Design Detection and Nazis Have in Common?

_{July 12, 2008

Intelligent Design}

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

Perhaps someone can explain to me what the science of design detection has to do with Nazis, the Holocaust, or Hitler.

I sure can’t think of anything. Help me out here.

It’s things like this that ~~undermine~~ ruin the effort to get ID accepted as good science. It gives our critics the ammunition they need to convince people that ID is nothing more than a tool being used to promote social reform.

Science has left the building once the Nazi card gets played. As far as science is concerned it doesn’t matter if Hitler and Darwin were the same person. The only thing that matters is whether his theories can stand up to scientific scrutiny.

It’s a crying shame that people just can’t seem to drop this obsession with Darwin and Nazis. If we can stick to the science we can win this thing. Evolution solely by unintelligent causes doesn’t have a leg to stand on when put under the microscope of math & physics. The only legs it has are the ones we intelligent design proponents give it when we wander off the reservation of science and reason and start waving our hands in the air shouting that Darwinism is evil, Darwin led to the holocaust, and Darwin is killing God. Those are not scientific arguments, they never will be scientific arguments, and if we keep doing it we’re never going to get ID accepted as scientific argument. Period. End of story. Keep it up at your own peril and don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Comments

Dave, It's not a double standard. Christianity maintains itself as a message. That is, express content over a medium. It can be misinterpreted, but as long as it is arguably content it is not just the downstream effect. Darwinism on the other hand is not express in any form and acts in a world of force and effect only. Look, I appreciate what you're trying to do. I for one would never say that you are trying to praise Darwin, but only maintain the standard of decency that you would like a conversation to have. We both agree that Darwin was overtly sensitive and was distressed at what he saw was a natural trend toward extinction. I also acknowledge that Darwin was expressly optimistic that higher values would trump appetite. But he put into motion the new basis by which the "high" and the "low" would be judged. Ultimately they've been found to be insensible or even a unreasoning bias toward what had been classified as "low". Darwin's exceptions have not been selected for propagation.jjcassidy_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Ummm, I can go away if I'm not wanted, but I'd like some closure, please. Apparently, all of my messages suddenly got deleted, and I don't recall ever using profanity, or attacking people with ad hominems, or doing any of the kinds of things that bad users do. I was conducting fair and decent conversations with people. So please, can I at least be given the exact reason that I got deleted? Thanks! The reason was the blog you were advertising "Fundamentalist Deceit" which I see you have now removed so you must have already guessed the reason and are now trying to hide it. Through your blog(s) it was determined you have a chip on your shoulder which compels you to gratuitously accuse fundamentalist Christians of all kinds of unscrupulous actions. That attitude doesn't fit into our community here so you're gone and so are your previous comments. -UD admim David W. Irishpriscus.forem_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Darwinism was a decidedly necessary component but it should not have made the Holocaust inevitable. That is, contra the materialists, there really is such a thing as free will.Rude_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

Dave, If this debate was merely about science it would be long over. RM+NS -- as the definitive, and lone, explanation for the development of biodiversity -- has more holes in it than the floorboard of a 1973 Ford Maverick left parked in salt marsh since 1974. So why is it fanatically defended? It's because it buttresses a value system that allows for expediency relating to issues involving one's material comfort and other persons. You get a young girl pregnant? You find a Constitutionally protected abortionist. Grandma's not doing so well? You let her starve to death (and say it's for her own good). Your neighbors are struggling to raise a retarded kid? Hey, you have no obligation to help. In fact, you insist they be forced to put that kid to sleep (for his own good) And those who have this approach to life -- and they are not a few -- are 99.99999999. . . percent certain to be Darwinists. And it's not wrong to point this out. And it's also appropriate, and necessary, to point out that atrocities in Nazi Germany -- which are still recognized as examples of obvious evil-- can be shown to be the fruits of Darwinism. Would the 20th Century genocides have happened without Darwinism? That's an interesting thing to ponder. But Darwinism happened and it was followed by genocides and those committing them used ideas flowing from Darwinism as a justification.tribune7_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

I saw Expelled! and saw nothing claiming that Darwinism was a *necessary* component for the evil perpetrated by Hitler. It simply (and honestly) pointed at the fact that it WAS a component. That is indisputable. Whether Hitler could have or would have found a way to achieve his ends without Darwinism is completely irrelevant. The FACT is that he DID use Darwinism and the movie fairly and honestly points that out. The movie was about discrimination and free-speech suppression of those that disagree with a strictly materialistic view of life origins and development. (It wasn't intended to make a scientific case for ID, by the way.) Pointing out the obvious, indisputable link between Darwinism and the evils perpetuated by Hitler, eugenics, etc. is WHY the point of the move matters so much. No idea such be unassailable. Darwinism (as interpreted and applied by Hitler, etc.) unchallenged and unchecked HAS contributed to horrors in the past and CAN lead to horrors in the present and future. It's that simple. Now if you want to say that we should ignore the obvious link between Darwinism and Hitler, eugenics, etc. for tactical reasons, fine -- but let's not commit intellectual suicide as well by siding with those that claim the link doesn't exist. That's just stupid. Me personally? The link IS there and it matters. We are not (and should not) wage a purely scientific battle. We need to do the science while simultaneously explaing why it matters. It's the "why it matters" that gets us into other areas -- Darwinism leading to a complete absence of a moral foundation, for example. Irrespective of which moral foundation you choose, to conclude that there is NO possibility of a moral foundation is important and has indisputable consequences. I say it ALL matters.mtreat@tx.rr.com_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

I haven't read any of the comments, so my apologies if I'm interrupting the flow here in any way. Just wanted to applaud DaveScot for this post. I don't actually agree that ID "can win this thing" based on scientific arguments, but I'm certain that "playing the Nazi card" is a devastating error, especially for a Christian commentator. Design is interesting and worthy as a topic of discussion among thinking Christians. The Holocaust as a polemical tool is not. Thanks, DaveScot. Nicely said.Steve Matheson_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

KF So when Hitler (and I guess you would apply the same logic to Christian eugenicists) uses Christian philosophy to justify their actions they're twisting it but if they use Darwin writings they're not twisting it. I don't suppose there's any chance of you acknowledging the double standard you're employing. Similarly when following the law of the land which may order killing in defense of the realm (or even offense for the benefit of the realm) those orders are okay to follow yet when much less egregious laws like keeping creationism out of public schools that's a law of the land that can be ignored. I don't suppose there's any chance of getting you to acknowledge the relative morals employed in choosing which laws of the land to obey and which to ignore.DaveScot_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Dave I have said nowhere that befel ist befel or the current equivalent. Notice the explicit citation from John and the context of the statement by Paul in Rom 13 on the statesman as swordbearer in defence of justice. Notice the case selected where David abused his power to indirectly murder Uriah. Nor have I said anywhere that human authorities are absolute -- I explicitly pointed you to an extensive discussion on precisely the limits of human authority. [You may wish to look up the reformation concept of interposition by lower mnagistrates in defence of justice and liberty . . .] As for Creation Science and the classroom in the US, my thought is that the current state of US law is utterly absurd and in fact unjust. (The extension of this smear to the smearing of the very different movement, intelligent design, simply multiplies the travesty. And that is before we get to my issues on what is legitimately scientific or legitimately biblical on the part of Creation Science as a movement. I think the CS folks have some points, but I have some concerns, scientific and biblical. I have met Ken ham, and respect him. I corresponded with henry Morris, and respected him. As to what my own position is, it is that on some matters I suspend judgement pending clarification. But also, I accept that we cannot properly simply read the biblical text as scientific raw data, without serious investigation and responsible addressing of major issues on the underlying scientific investigations and results, as well as major hermeneutical concerns. Intelligent Design is a major part of that serious investigation; one that is INDEPENDENT of the Biblical data.] So, then, when people see a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing a tyrannical design, they have a right to act with their representatives [established or newly chosen] to seek redress, or, failing that, to seek reformation, or failing that to restructure the current abusive forms of government, including removing the abusive officials. The ballot box is the first means to that end, thanks to the victories won by earlier generations; who had to resort to the bullet box. My own opinion is that Christians should long since have removed their children from the evolutionary materialist secularism indoctrination centres that are improperly called schools and colleges, and should have long since established an independent education system. Similarly, the cable and similar television and media- entertainment-public education systems should have long since been boycotted, as well as the blatantly biased and deceitful major news and views media. Advertisers who promote immorality and deception by placing ads and sponsorships should have been similarly boycotted. As for the politicians who promote these agendas, they should have long since been voted out. (And, in situations like the US it is criminal irresponsibility for serious Christians to not register to vote in days like these.) Next, if the radical secularists try to further abuse state power to seize control of the independent school system, the people should act in the defence of their liberty, by the ballot box, in the court room and through their chosen representatives. If the tyrants then resort to force in advancing evil, then police and soldiers and their commanding officers are individually servants of justice under God, and should disobey such illegitimate orders however given under claimed colour of law. In the end, if further force is used, then the people and their legitimate representatives may well face the situation so eloquently -- and with biblically based justification -- recorded in the US Declaration of Independence:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Since you asked my opinion, I have given it, again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

KF Your attempt to defend killing human beings as something sanctioned by Christ seems to be the old "I was just following orders" excuse. Forgive me for being less than impressed with your argument. Following through with that tortured logic all the attempts to get creation science back in public school classrooms should be abandoned as legitimate authorities have declared it a violation of the law of the land. Evidently, in your logic, the law of the land takes precedence over individual conscience and new testament teachings. You can't have your cake and eat it too.DaveScot_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Dave Darwin was trying to explain the basis of empathy and compassion, in light of NS. One feels empathy for one's neighbour. [I am deliberately alluding to the parable of the Good Samaritan.] However, the Nazis were in effect saying that Jews and other UNTERMENSCH -- more or less, subhumans -- were NOT their neighbours, but more like pests that had to be eliminated to foster the improvement of the race. Compare that with the already repeatedly cited prediction from the Descent, ch 6. And, I am not saying that the holocaust or something like it [obviously, it itself would not have happend, as lines of influence from Darwin, as a mater of fact were involved] COULD not have happened absent the Darwinist theory and its extensions into eugenics, but like others above I am pointing out what it served to enable historically, through lending the credibility of "Science" to eugenics, thence to attempted extermination of "lesser" races. I am sure you are well aware that the general public support for the former became a context in which a much smaller number of the utterly radicalised were able to act in secret to carry out the latter. [Recall the fate of the White Rose movement for trying to expose the slaughter.] It is ever so with tyranny: warped thinking gains public support or at least passivity, which then serves as the context in which a much smaller number of the deeply radicalised will carry out evil in the name of good. And, in a "Scientific" era, "science says" is a most persuasive claim. So, look again at what prof Provine is telling us "Science says" since Darwin:
There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which DARWIN came quite clearly. (Stanford University Debate with Phil Johnson, April 30, 1994)
Notice the historical anchor for this agenda-laced, deeply question-begging claim: Darwin. Then, ask yourself, what the undermining of morality and of resposible choice as a basic power of human behaviour, portend if unchecked. Then, compare with the behaviour of the party of Darwin in the institutions of science, education, courts of law and public policy in our day, as for instance the controversies and incidents of expulsion surrounding the ID movement exemplify. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Dave: Notes on points: 1] Darwin may have been a racist but that has nothing to do with “Darwinism . . . Please examine chs 5 - 7 of Darwin's Descent of Man. I am confident you will see that in these chapters, he understood himself to be APPLYING natural selection and related ideas to the human species. Galton, his cousin [and a mathematician carrying out early research on achievement of children etc on a family-linked basis], was inspired by the scientific ideas in Darwin's work. Eugenics, the movement he founded [and which was later headed by Darwin's son Leonard] specifically self-identified itself as "self-direction of human EVOLUTION." That is, as applied evolutionary biological science. 2] Darwin’s personal life and prejudices have nothing to do with natural selection acting on heritable variation to produce new species . . . In fact, I am hardly citing things from his personal life and prejudices. Observe again ent, ch 6, but this time the chapter's second paragraph:
Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to NATURAL SELECTION. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . .
That is the underlying theoretic context for the excerpt I have cited. Indeed, the point Darwin is making rests on a continuum between apes down to baboons and the more "advanced" "races." In that context, he is inter alia seeking to explain the gaps that occur in that continuum. He did so by means of induced extinction through competition between races [evidently viewed as sub-species or the near-equivalent; indeed he suggests that the divergence is in reality of different species of man!]. It is in that context, that he then went on to lead up to and state what I have already cited, as a prediction of his scientific theory:
. . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [C Darwin, Descent of Man, ch 6.]
3] Neo-Darwinian theory, that which is being attacked by playing the Nazi card, does not incorporate anything that Darwin contributed except for his theory that natural selection acting on heritable variation is responsible for the orgin of species . . . Kindly observe that I am not playing rhetorical cards, but am laying out lines of ideas and hisoptrical trends, with citations of key sources. I am not making an emotional appeal but am calling on us to look at sobering history and learn from it on pain of reliving its worst chapters. So, please observe above EXACTLY how Darwin envisioned and predicted the onward action of the selection processes he envisioned, for the special case of human races/[sub-] species. 4] If Christ said it was okay for one human to kill another for any reason, justified or not, I must have missed where he said it . . . Now, this argument gains force from a fallacious division of the Biblical basis for the Christian tradition: in effect, if Jesus did not explicitly say it then it does not really count . . . By contrast, the orthodox, historic, Christian view is that the Scriptures were given by the guidance and inspiration of the Spirit of God, sent by Father and Son. This specifically includes the inspiration of ALL of the Apostles as ones specifically given to the church and world by the risen Christ as his special emissaries and Spirit-anointed teachers. So, first of all, to try to dichotomise what Jesus says as reported by one Apostle, from what another writes in an epistle, is a fundamental error of Biblical interpretation. [But one that is quite popular today.] Second, Jesus did not live, teach and work in a theological or historical or cultural vacuum. (there are other fallacies on this one, such as underlie the current buzz of spin over the ink-inscribed stone tablet found in Jordan. Jesus stood explicitly in the Hebraic tradition, cf say Isaiah 53 and 1 Cor 15:1 - 11.] Indeed, in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere he explicitly supported the general framework of the Mosaic Law, which he viewed himself as coming nor to destroy but to fulfill. In that law and associated scriptures and history [including that of the Lawgiver, Moshe], it is very clear that there is justifiable homicide, in defence of the community, in self defence and in the carrying out of justice. This is by sharpest contrast with the abuse of such power, directly or indirectly (such as David and Uriah the Hittite). Next, observe how John, forerunner of Jesus, spoke to soldiers who came to him for guidance:
LK 3:14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay." . . .
We see here a clear C1 Christian [and underlying Jewish] view of the profession of soldiering: it is recognised as legitimate, but prone to certain abuses that should be restrained. The soldiers are not told to leave their profession of arms, but to do justice and avoid greed. The same occurs with other soldiers throughout the NT, and even gaol warders. Indeed, we may even observe the Apostle Paul accepting the protection of a Company sized combined arms force of Romans and auxiliaries when a plot against him in Jerusalem was exposed. This is of course all of a piece with the way Centurions of the Roman army are UNIFORMLY positively reported on in the NT. (True, they were the best of the ranks of the Roman army, but that selection has to be deliberate.) Now, observe therefore how the Apostle Paul, commissioned by Christ and here in scriptures inspired by the Spirit of Christ, speaks on the role of the state in defence of justice -- and here, with pagan officeholders specifically in mind:
RO 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer . . .
Here, the Magistrate is viewed as being God's sword-bearing servant to do us good. This is of course the general principle, and as the Reformers long since highlighted, there is abundant scriptural warrant for showing how rulers who abuse that stewardship are to be responded to, as I discuss here. So, absent a fallacious dichotomising of the scriptures, it is clear that there are occasions where the use of force, even lethal force, is justifiable; in defence of justice. If you wish to, you are free to pick and choose what texts you wish to accept from the Bible, but that choice is not at all representative of the tenor of the whole; such a dichotomising may also expose you to the issue of selective hyperscepticism in your general hermeneutic. 5] I didn’t miss where he said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” . . . This is a passage in which Jesus rebuked hypocrites who were using a woman caught in the act of adultery to trap Jesus. If he said follow Moshe, he would be a rebel against Rome and subject to t6he death penalty. If he said do not stone her, he would be a heretic against the Law and so would be lynched in short order. His breakthrough was to bring up the issues of hypocrisy, by contrast with the mercy and forgiveness of God towards penitent sinners. This has nothing to do with legitimate authorities and their agents defending the basic safety of the citizens of a community against violent -- and most impenitent -- brigands or invaders! Or, for that matter, the right of self-defence, which was established long since in the Law that Jesus said he came not to destroy but to fulfill. I trust these notes are helpful GEM of TKI PS: On a cross-threade point, Acts 17 makes irt clear that the nations are of one blood, so racial discrimination is wrong. And in a context of the hardness of hearts principle, ameliorative regulation of or advice in the face of slavery is not at all to be taken as Biblical warrant for the institution. Kindly, read on to see the underlying Christian attitude to the institution.kairosfocus_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT}

Lest anyone get the wrong idea here a quote from Shakespeare should make it clear:
I come not to praise Ceasar, but to bury him.
Similarly, my intent is not to praise Darwin, but rather to bury him.DaveScot_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

KF Darwin also wrote in the Descent of Man (my emphasis):
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
So the Nazis, if they used Descent of Man for justification, either had to acknowledge they'd let the noblest part of their nature deteriorate or present the "inferior races" as an overwhelming evil. I believe they took the latter course. The term "useless eaters" comes to mind in support of the latter course. Their rationalization of inferior races as an overwhelming evil was not a rationalization that Darwin made in any way.DaveScot_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

"If Christ said it was okay for one human to kill another for any reason, justified or not, I must have missed where he said it" A bit OT, but this very idea is explored in the 1941 Classic movie: Sergeant York. (Played by Gary Cooper). It's the type of movie that would be impossible to make in Hollywood today as the hero is both virtous and Christian. He also rejects the revenge motif that motivates your more typical hollywood hero. He says: "War is killin’, the Book is agin’ killin’." Therefore, "The Book is agin’ war." The movie progresses through his different conversions on his path to becoming a (real-life) decorated war hero. Part of the final conversion was in his believing that "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s." Was in the first part not just referring to coinage.steveO_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Eric The claim is being made that without Darwin there would have been no holocaust. That's what is meant by *necessary factor*. Did the Nazis quote mine Darwin to justify the holocaust? Probably some did and I'm not arguing that they didn't. I'm arguing that evil people do evil things and can twist anything to rationalize their behavior. Did the Nazis model their eugenics laws after laws enacted earlier in the United States by God fearing Christians? You bet. Did those God fearing Christians twist the teachings of Christ to justify their eugenic programs? Absolutely. Singling out Darwin and claiming him a necessary factor while ignoring just as important factors like the Christian-backed eugenics movement in America, Christian-backed anti-miscegenation laws in America, is both counterproducive and misleading in the extreme. DaveScot_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

KF If Christ said it was okay for one human to kill another for any reason, justified or not, I must have missed where he said it. I didn't miss where he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Please provide a reference to where Christ defines justifiable killing. Good luck. DaveScot_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

KF Darwin may have been a racist but that has nothing to do with "Darwinism" as it applies to neo-Darwinian theory. Darwin's personal life and prejudices have nothing to do with natural selection acting on heritable variation to produce new species. Neo-Darwinian theory, that which is being attacked by playing the Nazi card, does not incorporate anything that Darwin contributed except for his theory that natural selection acting on heritable variation is responsible for the orgin of species. What part of that don't you understand?DaveScot_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

PPS: Tags seem to be there, just, not working; and I see a triple bolding imposed, paragraph by paragraph . . .kairosfocus_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

PS: Yet another tag failure . . . sighkairosfocus_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT}

JJCassidy: How about: "ideas have -- often unintended (but almost as often quite predictable) -- consequences"? As in -- and it pains me to have to cite this yet again:
. . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [C Darwin, Descent of Man, ch 6.]
Now, let us compare Nietzsche:
The biblical prohibition "Thou shalt not kill" is a piece of naivete compared with the seriousness of Life's own "Thou shalt not" issued to decadence: "Thou shalt not procreate!" —Life itself recognizes no solidarity, no "equal right," between the healthy and the degenerate parts of an organism… . Sympathy for the decadents, equal rights for the ill-constituted—that would be the profoundest immorality, that would be anti-nature itself as morality! [Will to Power]en, the key notion of that -- after the fact of genocide -- discredited applied science, Eugenics: "eugenics is self-direction of human evolution . . ." And, last but not least, Hitler:
A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called "humaneness" of individuals, in order to make place for the true "humaneness of nature," which destroys the weak to make place for the strong. [Mein Kampf]
Weikart of course gives far more details, but the lines of influence should be clear, and the implications were plainly foreseen by no less a figure than Charles Darwin himself in his second major book. So, when we see the likes of a Provine saying:
. . There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly. (Stanford University Debate with Phil Johnson, April 30, 1994) [NB: Wiki says of him: "Professor William B. Provine is an American historian of science, particularly of evolutionary biology and population genetics. He is the Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor at Cornell University."]
. . . We should be very, very concerned indeed. For, ideas have consequences. So, let us ask and think: 1] What are the consequences of thinking that there is no "ultimate" foundation for ethics? 2] Could this have something to do with how Nietzsche dismissed as "slave morality" the concept that -- even due to endowment by our Creator -- all of us, even the least powerful have fundamental rights, that make binding claims for respect of life, liberty, etc? [How does this relate to the ongoing global abortion holocaust?] 3] What were the practical consequences of the resulting will to power/ might makes right "morality," for Germany and for the world between about 1900 and 1945? 4] What would a practical application of Provine's claims in the hands of charismatic and powerful, politically messianistic statesmen and movements look like? What would its consequences be? 5] Similarly, what are the consequences of thinking and teaching in the name of "knowledge" and "Science" that responsible, real choice is "merely a human myth"? 6] Further to this, what are the existing and likely onward consequences of the attempted redefinition that science may only explain in evolutionary materialistic terms, i.e. the issue of inference to design is subverted once it might challenge the atheistic, evolutionist worldview? 7] In that light, what is the significance of the rise of a new research programme -- namely, Design Theory -- that identifies a question-begging inconsistency in such a redefinition, and instead posits that design is empirically detectable and probably has been detected in several cases that decisively undercut the evolutionary materialist agenda? 8] When we therefore compare the sort of PR, courtroom, education policy and institutional politics campaigns that have been waged to discredit ID and have far too often issued in "Expelling" genuine scientists working on genuine advances, what then should we conclude? 9] And, how, then, should we think, speak and act in light of history and current trends? 10] For, if we fail -- or, refuse -- to learn from history, are we not doomed to repeat it? [How, then should we rethink the way ideas such as the so-called Godwin's Law, are used?] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT}
Here's an idea: An irony. It's as if the proponents of significant-but-unintended change require that we must detect in Darwin a design to cause the holocaust. Incidental causation is not important or enough.jjcassidy_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}
Jack Krebs, I think your principle is dishonest. Most "Creationists" of the ID ilk wouldn't agree to be called "creatonists". So is that dishonest to call them that? Self-identification does not create a fact against which to be "dishonest". It's the "Yes I am" or "No I'm not." that competes with the "No really." Very few Creationists or ID-ist find themselves "anti-science" and very few long for the "Dark Ages" where I understand all our tactics are supposed to land us. I might describe it as horrified--but only the progressive truly knows what is in each man's heart--so I'll let you be the judge.jjcassidy_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}
"All scientific ideas have the potential for abuse, independent of their veracity." Ah, but you cannot ab-use something for which there is no use--or teleological cause. As technology is an extension of man's evolved ability to create it, it is an adapted trait. As such it has no purpose. Without anti-teleology inherent in Darwinism, I can argue that Wernher von Braun's brainchild was an ab-use of technology. Thus if science if the bedrock of confirmation, you can have no confirmation that those things are "abuse". Of course, I know this will fall on deaf ears because it isn't that revolutionary from what any intelligent theist has said before. We understand it, they don't--that doesn't make it like claiming that something that looks nothing like child abuse is child abuse. (There's that word again.)jjcassidy_{July 16, 2008
July
07
Jul
16
16
2008
12:15 AM
12
12
15
AM
PDT}
“I brought friends with me to see Expelled. I asked them what they thought: “It was dishonest.” was their response. I asked what they meant. This reaction was entirely provoked by the section on the Holocaust. They felt like it was an attempt to emotionally manipulate the audience.” I think it is a common rhetorical vehicle to accuse one's opponents of being similar to Nazi's, with the goal of gaining the moral upper-hand. I havent' yet seen "Expelled," (yes, there are a few of us) so I can't really make the judgment as to whether this is the case. But it seems clear that the point of the movie is to show how Intelligent Design theorists are being discriminated against by the Darwinist science establishment. What that has to do with the Nazis, I'm not sure.CannuckianYankee_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT}
Dave, We are going have to disagree. I believe the modern eugenics movement directly flowed from Charles Darwin's writings. From wikipedia "The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[3] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. " The logo used on wikipedia says "eugenics is the self direction of human evolution." Or how to apply animal husbandry to humans. From wiki pedia, "The publication by his cousin Charles Darwin of The Origin of Species in 1859 was an event that changed Galton's life. He came to be gripped by the work, especially the first chapter on "Variation under Domestication" concerning the breeding of domestic animals." So I still believe that Charles Darwin's writings was a major cause of the modern eugenics movement. His son succeeded Galton as head of the British eugenics movement. This does not mean that similar ideas never existed before but they never had the same influence with the enlightened as they did until Darwin published his books and they pushed by his relatives and his followers. I find it kind of hard to deny this.jerry_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}
All I can say, Dave in 69, is that whoever wrote that review didn't read the book.Rude_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}
PPS I try a hack: hope it closes off . . .kairosfocus_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}
PS: Sigh -- The clipout- on- posting problem seems to have caused further problems on formatting above. (The preview certainly did not look like that and there were no unclosed tags as far as I could see!) Apologies.kairosfocus_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}
Dave: I see your:
Darwin’s *theory of evolution* is being indicted as necessary factor in the holocaust for an intended effect of making it appear that modern belief in Darwin’s theory of evolution y lead to bad things.
I think it is fairer comment to respond that Darwinism is being indicted -- by me and by others, including others in this thread -- as an HISTORICAL key factor in the rise of several destructive totalitarianisms, and that in a context where it is strongly associated with and gives "scientific" cover to materialism; as Provine stated in his 1994 debate with Johnson. Indeed, I recall that above some of the other commenters explicitly denied making any claim about necessary or sufficient conditions, but spoke to lines of significant history of ideas and consequences of ideas influences. [One even drew lines of influence further back to the wave of anti-Christian skepticism that swept Germany in the general enlightenment period, naming several key names. look at that 1832 prophecy again, and see if it does not chill your bones . . .] Further to this, it is really unfair of the -- frankly, rather amateurish or even sophomoric -- review at Amazon to say that Weikart in tracing trends in Germany does not spend much time and effort on the American Eugenics movement. That movement, under that name, was of course explicitly Darwinian in its foundation, and INFLUENCED Hitler's rhetorical and legal agenda. Here is Wiki:
Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[3] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[4][5] [6] G. K. Chesterton [a Christian . . .]was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family.[7] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenics' scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany.<[In fact in Hitler's 1923 or so Mein Kampf, eugenics ideas are quite, quite prominent! (That's part of why every married couple in Germany was expected to have a copy . . .) Here we see Wiki's infamous materialistic bias showing up again . . .]] Since the postwar period, both the public and the scientific communities have associated eugenics with Nazi abuses, such as enforced racial hygiene, human experimentation, and the extermination of undesired population groups. However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised many new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era . . .
What I find very interesting is that Wiki adroitly uses the term "philosophy" for eugenics. The founders and practitioners, I am sure, would term it an applied science -- as say the tree diagram on the very Wiki page illustrates -- note the definition as "self-direction of HUMAN EVOLUTION." In short, eugenics was/is the polite form of what Darwin spoke to in Ch 6 of Descent, as already cited:
. . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Indeed, Hitler used the American Eugenics Laws as a start-point for his own. in the4se laws, he by the way primarily targetted RACIAL inferiors, most notoriously Jews -- the cited review distorts the notorious primary focus with its emphasis on homosexuals. (Recall that his mentor Rohm, was homosexual. It is only when the Brownshirts posed a credible threat that Rohm was shot partly on the excuse of that homosexuality, during the infamous night of the long knives.) And, the American cases of Eugenics were ALSO associated with horrors, some of them up to implicating the US Supreme Court. Worse, yet, similar patterns played out in other "advanced" countries; all in the name of "Science" applied to racial hygiene or the near-equivalent. Indeed, as Wiki acknowledges, it is after the Nazi holocaust that Eugenics began to fall out of favour over several decades. So, please, go back again to 43 and look at the lines that run from Darwin to Nietzsche to Hitler. Come back to the excerpt from Darwin's second major work, and look at how cooly and without qualms he predicted the extinction of "inferior" races; as a claimed implication of his theory. (As one of largely negroid ancestry, I find the words I am forced to cite repeatedly, utterly offensive: Darwin means that he expected people like me to be wiped out by our racial superiors . . .) Now, look again at Provine's remarks and see what the implications of denying foundations to ethics and to the power of responsible choice are, and how closely they are connected to the Darwinism-anchored evolutionary materialist worldview:
. . . There is no intelligent design in the natural world. When mammals die, they are really and truly dead. No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly. (Stanford University Debate with Phil Johnson, April 30, 1994)
In short there is clearly a significant moral implication to and/or inference form the rejection of the well-warranted scientific conclusion that certain important empirical entities show traces of design. So, while there is a scientific question on empirical detection of design, one that absent the predominance of evolutionary materialism as an institutionalised worldview would long since have been accepted as "obvious" [cf my always linked], there is a serious issue of moral questions and the like tied to institutionalised science and what such quasi-official science makes seem more or less plausible. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}
Anyone who hasn't seen this review of Darwin to Hitler should see it. It is one of 15 reviews at Amazon and carries a 3-star (middle of the road) rating for the book.
Weikart's "Darwin to Hitler" conveniently glosses over the American eugenics movement. Long before Hitler came to power, eugenicists in the U.S. had enacted laws, promoted a social agenda for "Human Betterment," and waged war against the weak. Gays and "sexual deviants" were the first to be targeted by Hitler, and "Paragraph 175" was the law easily enforced because gays did not have political support. After that, Hitler closed many enlightened hospitals for the mentally and physically handicapped, and then sterilized the patients. Then came the death camps. His policies were influenced by, if not inspired by, American sterilization and commitment to prisons of the "feeble-minded" - the mentally and morally weak. These U.S. laws were struck down at first as "cruel and unusual" punishment, but the eugenicists, through trial and error, soon learned how to get around the Bill of Rights. Harry Laughlin, of the Eugenics Society in Cold Springs Harbor, was most involved. He, along with most eugenicists, believed in a racism that promoted a better, stronger race. They thought weak individuals, the welfare state, and immigration were destroying the good American stock. It was Laughlin that helped craft the bill in Virginia that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Buck v. Bell (1927) the court ruled it was legal to sterilize the unfit for the sake of society - the same reasoning Hitler would use about 10 years later. Carrie Buck, the woman who lost the case and was sterilized, was defended by I.P. Whitehead, one of Laughlin's cronies who supported eugenics and also just happened to be on the Board of the Colony where Carrie was committed. So eugenics promoters wrote the law, charged Carrie Buck, and then defended her all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. They wanted Carrie Buck to lose, so eugenics could win. Other books are more valuable, like "Preaching Eugenics," by Christine Rosen (the documentation of the strong religious support of eugenics during the Progressive Era), "In the Name of Eugenics," by Daniel J. Kevles (documenting the conservative, liberal and radical support of eugenics, and their varying reasons ), and "Creating Born Criminals" (a study on the use of criminology to promote eugenics by claiming some criminals were just born that way). All these books depict America's role in eugenics long before Hitler came to power and crafted some of his laws based on ours. Weikart doesn't gloss over this, he ignores it. Reading about eugenics closer to home may be more painful, but it is more honest. What the logical conclusion of the Holocaust is and how it came about in Nazi Germany is indeed worthwhile information, but so is how it almost happened here in the United States. We cannot, as American citizens, become too overly self-righteous over Hitler. "There but for the grace of God..."
DaveScot_{July 15, 2008
July
07
Jul
15
15
2008
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.