Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What do Design Detection and Nazis Have in Common?

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
"I think Expelled is dishonest because 99.99% of all the people who accept evolutionary theory are just as appalled as those who have an “ID framework” about the beliefs and actions of the Nazis, and I think it is dishonest to ignore this fact."Wow, that's an interesting take on the flick. The film is dishonest because it doesn't mention something that is obvious? Where in the movie did it present modern scientists as Nazi sympathizers? Obviously, the point was that Darwinism has social implications, and it has been used to justify heinous acts that virtually no one in these debate discussions would ever consider as morally sound. But, that doesn't mean that the concept of natural selection hasn't been abused in the past, nor does it mean that it will never be abused again. It's something to be cautious of. I don't really get why we have to go around and around and around and around about this issue. Fr' crap's sake, people...both Darwinism and religion can be used to try to justify heinous acts! Everybody knows that, so why keep arguing about it? Sheesh. Maybe we need an 12 step program to get past this. I'll go first... [Hi. I'm FtK, and I realize that religion can and has been used to justify horrific acts in the past. I am personally blessed to be part of a Christian environment where killing, torture, and other abuses are not done in the name of my God.] There...Jack, you're next.FtK
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
My 2 cents is that if natural law rules above purpose and accountability (which can only be even implied within an ID framework) then nature will take its course in society. If society is part of nature, why would not Darwin’s theorizing of survival of the fittest and natural selection apply to society? If humans are a part of nature than human selection is ultimately natural selection. Enter “natural” eugenics …CJYman
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Further, Jack Krebs, a materialist can be appalled at how the materialist/anti-ID framework has effected the application of science in history and in the present, but that doesn't make the facts of how the materialist/anti-ID framework mixed into science leads to specific horrible applications of science any less real. Again, in light of the logical consistency of what I have briefly mentioned above, does he have any basis for being appalled? Is the materialist/anti-IDer being consistent when he is appalled at the logical reach of his framework?CJYman
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
People did atrocious things to other people for centuries before Darwin, and always with some type of institutional rationale. Blaming the tendency of human beings to band together in violence against others who are seen as different on Darwin is absurd - the ugly motivations that drove Hitler have surfaced in human societies time and time again since the dawn of recorded history.Jack Krebs
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
I think Expelled is dishonest because 99.99% of all the people who accept evolutionary theory are just as appalled as those who have an “ID framework” about the beliefs and actions of the Nazis, and I think it is dishonest to ignore this fact.Jack, you totally miss the point. The question to ask is would the Holocaust have happened without Darwin. It is more reasonable to believe that it would not have. Expelled (and others) explain why.tribune7
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
Sure they are appalled, but in light of what I have said above, are they being logically consistent? Is there any basis for being appalled?CJYman
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
The case of Expelled's "dishonesty" is laughable and bogus -- they showed what happened and nothing more -- even had the tour guide on record making their point for them. Flattening spirituality -- denying humans have souls -- then processing them, meat-grinder style, to fit the needs of the State is not arguable as to the outcome. That's what happened -- over, and over and over and over again. Maybe this isn't about the information, but the paradigm.wnelson
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
I think Expelled is dishonest because 99.99% of all the people who accept evolutionary theory are just as appalled as those who have an "ID framework" about the beliefs and actions of the Nazis, and I think it is dishonest to ignore this fact.Jack Krebs
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Jack Krebs, thanks for the 2 cents. Now, just hold that thought for 2 seconds. Is Expelled "dishonest" because it made a claim that you disagree with or because it did not satisfactorily back up the claim in your eyes? Can you define "dishonesty" or is this more of the same "they lied because they don't agree with me" intellectual dishonesty? Expelled *did* show how a leader took a scientific idea and applied it to society. Now, would that leader have made the same application from within a non-materialist/pro-ID framework or would he have had the tendency to have a higher regard for life? What does history show? Sure, people who claimed to represent Jesus made up some pathetic and horribly selfish excuses to "Crusade." However, they went completely against the foundational teaching of the One with who's name they identified themselves. They represented Jesus' teaching in no way, shape, or form! From which framework was Hitler approaching the science and application of evolution? Was it from a pro-ID/anti-materialist or an anti-ID/materialist framework? Does Expelled discuss this at all? Which framework is more likely to hold itself accountable for its applications of science? What does the past and present unfolding of scientific applications show? BTW: I'm coming from a viewpoint that has no problem with a completely natural evolution of life consisting of variation, selection, cooperation, and law [which definitely contains yet is not restricted to Darwinian elements and is open to ID concepts]. PS. It seems to me that "Darwinism" as it is defined and used in Expelled is explicitly materialistic. Since materialism is a philosophy, Expelled is showing what evolution combined with the materialistic philosophy [of lack of purpose and accountability] has accomplished as evidenced in Hitler's application of Darwin's materialistic hypothesis to society. My 2 cents is that if natural law rules above purpose and accountability (which can only be even implied within an ID framework) then nature will take its course in society. If society is part of nature, why would not Darwin's theorizing of survival of the fittest and natural selection apply to society? If humans are a part of nature than human selection is ultimately natural selection. Enter "natural" eugenics ...CJYman
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Ah, messed up again. The link to the Churchill quote was http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/ww2/churchill122641.html.Rude
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
What do Design Detection and Nazis Have in Common? Maybe that’s not how to ask the question. Better would be, What does Design Detection have to do with history? Winston Churchill, as no doubt I’ve quoted him here before, said “that he must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants. It is not given to us to peer into the mysteries of the future.” But is it given to us to detect design in the flow of history that has passed? And how might we do that? ID proposes to detect design in biological history. Someday, as design detection matures, I suggest we will learn to see the hand of God in human history. But as for the Nazis—is it wrong for historians to chronicle the ideas that gelled in that evil movement just because it might offend a lot of folks today who might in one way or another have entertained those very same ideas?Rude
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
The answer to the last question is, "No, that is not what Expelled shows." It makes the claim, but it does not "show" that the claim is true - in fact, the claim is not true. That it is why it is dishonest. My 2 cents.Jack Krebs
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Patrick: "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'm not sure exactly where I stand on the issue discussed in this post, however I do know that people's feelings [of emotional manipulation] do not negate the veracity of an argument or connection. Sometimes people need a little shock to wake them up or at least make them think. Problem is, too many people rely on their feelings first, so they completely ignore the arguments made. As to the statement that "it was dishonest," how do they know this? Have they done any research on the topic themselves? If so, how much? It at least seems that some research has been done on the flip side of the coin as briefly shown above in comment 22. Doesn't the Expelled movie merely show what happens when scientific ideas are applied in a materialistic/anti-ID framework?CJYman
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
This may be more of a case of not being forthright with each context -- evolution "typically" put forth within a framework of nonbelief expressed in various Enlightenment motifs -- and theism "typically" put forth within some form of Christianity. In terms of a "what have you done for me lately" argument, those Enlightenment motifs were of hideously little restraint for the cultures that applied them consistently: millions dead pursuing messianic Statist dreams. In term of that then, yes, the context that led to strident Darwinism -- denying that God may exist, is the same base of motivation that put the State in God's place. (Salvation not through Christ, but through political organization.) Wherever that was pursued consistently, it led to one bloodbath after another. There's a classic line Berlinki's last book: In the early days of the German advance into Eastern Europe, before the possibility of Soviet retribution even entered their untroubled imagination, Nazi extermination squads would sweep into villages, and after forcing villagers to dig their own graves, murder their victims with machine guns. On one such occasion somewhere in Eastern Europe, an SS officer watched languidly, his machine gun cradled, as an elderly and bearded Hasidic Jew laboriously dug what he knew to be his grave. Standing up straight, he addressed his executioner. "God is watching what you are doing," he said. And then he was shot dead. What Hitler did not believe and what Stalin did not believe and what Mao did not believe and what the SS did not believe and what the Gestapo did not believe and what the NKVD did not believe and what the commissars, functionaries, swaggering executioners, Nazi doctors, Communist Party, theoreticians, intellectuals, Brown Shirts, Black Shirts, gauleiters, and a thousand party hacks did not believe was that God was watching what they were doing.wnelson
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
I still continue to hold that we are not making the necessary distinctions. There are two issues here, not one. RE: The proposition that Darwinism lead to Nazism [A] Is it true? [B] If true, does dramatizing the point help our cause? Most here who say yes to [A] also say yes to [B] and most who say no to [A] also say no to [B]. Is there anyone here who says yes to [A] but says no to [B]? That is the person I want to hear from.StephenB
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
I'd agree with Dave. Whether or not it's true is another matter, and has already been discussed in detail. It's just an unwise strategy based upon my experience. 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.Patrick
July 13, 2008
July
07
Jul
13
13
2008
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
From Discovery.org Dawkins Flip-Flops on Link between Darwinism and Fascism According The New York Times, arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins is now asserting that the new film Expelled perpetrates a "major outrage" because the film suggests there is a link between Darwinian ideology and ideas like Nazism. Say what? In 2005, Dawkins himself declared that such a link existed, responding to an Austrian interviewer that "a Darwinian State would be a Fascist state," which is why he says he opposes trying to run a society "according to Darwinian laws": No self respecting person would want to live in a Society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian State would be a Fascist state. What is interesting in the above comment is not that Dawkins rejects fascism, but that he apparently believes that Darwinism logically applied to government would lead to fascism. This is a far stronger claim, by the way, than the one made in the preliminary cut of Expelled that I’ve seen. The experts interviewed for the film—including historian Richard Weikart and mathematician David Berlinski—are careful to point out that there is no inevitable connection between Darwinism and what happened in Nazi Germany. But that does not cancel out the fact that Darwinian ideology provided the Nazis with one of their key justifications for sterilizing the "unfit" and killing the handicapped. Darwinism similarly provided a rationale for eugenics crusaders in America, which I write about in my recent book Darwin Day in America.dgosse
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT
Why blame just Darwin for Naziism's trespasses? How about the founders of modern chemistry, metallurgy, aeronautics, and psychology, Certainly their sciences bear as much responsibility for Nazi crimes as does Darwin's. All scientific ideas have the potential for abuse, independent of their veracity. MichaelMichael Tuite
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
I brought a group of friends to watch "Expelled". They weren't that interested in the science. But I think the notion that destructive philosophy was being packaged as science got their attention. Everyone has a stake in the ID/Darwin debate, because its about how we all got here, and whether there is any point to it all. Non-scientists shouldn't be expected to sit quietly in the lobby while science wonks decide their fate in some lecture hall or university lab.russ
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
tragicmishap "I think he’s saying the horse has been beaten to death and maybe it’s time to move on. " Probably true, but then why does he bring it up again himself?Borne
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Sorry for one more post, but another dynamic occured to me. There is more than one target audience for ID. There are of course Darwinists, who won't listen to Philosophical or Morel level arguments. But there are also those who are not Darwinists, and yet do not understand ID. YECers, etc. For them, Philosophical and Moral arguments for ID are legitimate. One needs to ask the question "what was the target audience for the movie 'Expelled' (for example)?" If the target audience was one sympathetic to ID, then the use of the Nazi / Darwin connection sequence may have been legitimate. If however the goal of the movie was to convince Darwinists that that they are being discriminatory, then the premise of the entire movie becomes a moral argument to which the Darwinists will not pay attention anyway. I think it's clear that ID theorists and symmpathizers have target audiences, and depending on that audience, the use of less empirical levels of argument may be legitimate. An example is Dr. Dembski's "Design Inference," a highly technical entreaty directed towards perhaps a wide audience of Darwinists and non-Darwinists, but since Darwinists are included in that audience, there's no moral level argumentation. Philip Johnson's books, on the other hand seem to be directed towards sympathizers of ID, and therfore employ less empirical level arguments.CannuckianYankee
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
I noticed also another dynamic going on. Darwinists have their own Philosophical and moral levels of argument against ID. I was looking over the customer reviews of Dr. Dembski's new book "Understanding Intelligent Design." One reviewer wrote the following "Understanding Intelligent Design" is intellectual child abuse aimed at the hearts and minds of children who lack ample appreciation and understanding as to what constitutes valid mainstream science; nothing more and nothing less." So one Darwinist's evaluation of ID as "intellectual child abuse" is the same sort of moralizing tactic. It is a tactic that is obviously not working with us, so when we employ the tactic, we cannot expect any fruitful outcome.CannuckianYankee
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
GilDodgen: "The big problem is that the opposition won’t address the science, or allow the science to be addressed." I sense though, that the opposition is even less approving of the "moral arguments" coming from the ID movement. Dave is correct in pointing out that our moralizing over the Darwin Nazi connection is not advancing the cause. I sense also that there are 3 (perhaps more) levels of argument for ID, which register greater or lesser approval by Darwinists: Empirical Level Philosophical Level Moral Level Darwinists might listen to Empirical Level arguments for ID. Darwinists will probably not listen to Philosophical Levels of arguments for ID. Darwinists will most definitely not listen to Moral Levels of arguments for ID. The Nazi / Darwin connection argument therefore fits in the "Darwinists most definitely will not listen" category.CannuckianYankee
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
---Borne: "you guys are missing the point. Dave asks not what Darwinism has to do with Nazis etc. but what design detection has to do with it. You are right in that limited context, but Dave has presented three themes concurrently: [A] ID has nothing to do with Nazism. (Obviously true) [B] Darwinism has nothing to do with Nazism (Debatable) and [C] Frequent violations of Godwins law undermines IDs efforts at public relations. (Debatable) I was responding to [B}and [C] because I don't think [A] matters much.StephenB
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
bravo to Dave, I concur completely. Like him I am sick to death of this Darwin=Hitler conceit, as Dave has pointed out before it has no relevance to the science either for or against both ID and neo-Darwininism. However more to the point (and Dave has mentioned this before as well) the other side has at least as much ammunition to use against theists of all stripes and all denominations when it comes to the abuse of ideas in fuelling racism, fascism and outright genocide, heck if anything they have more ammunition in this regard. It is much worse than the usual oft-repeated litany of Inquisition/Crusades, much much worse if truth be told. As an IDist myself, I find this relatively recent excessive blaring of Hitler=Darwin posture, not only unfortunate and counter-productive but the most negative of anything bearing on ID as a cultural/sociological "phenomenon" (for lack of a better word). In fact I would go so far as saying that future historians of science who may even be sympathetic to ID or at least neutral, will rightly see this "culture war" aspect of ID as a black mark on our side. I know I do, and let me stress, this Darwin leads to Hitler blather wins us no friends among the neutral fence-sitters out there who are undecided as far as the controversy of evolution is concerned, in fact it will only turn many otherwise thoughtful people away from ID, and without them being bothered to look at our actual scientific arguments. In other words it is tremendously counter-productive.zephyr
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
I think he's saying the horse has been beaten to death and maybe it's time to move on. Let's face it: We make the Darwinism/Nazi connection as a repartee to the atheist arguments about the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. Both points have been made. Ideas have power and that power can be abused. IMO it's not worth discussing further.tragicmishap
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
you guys are missing the point. Dave asks not what Darwinism has to do with Nazis etc. but what design detection has to do with it. That is a completely different question. Pay attention now class! ;-) Of course then Dave switches the question to Darwinism and says, "Science has left the building once the Nazi card gets played." That's true in this context. Nevertheless, the whole point of the Darwinism to Nazism discussion is that ideas have consequences - science is ideas just as much a ideology is ideas. Science has no more claim to absolute truth or objectivity than does ideology. Scientists are just as subjective and subjectively influenced & motived as are philosophers or theologians. Personally I fail to see the interest in discussing what either design detection or Darwinism have to do with Nazis as science. ID has nothing to do with Nazis except that some of them very intelligently designed a lot of war machines. Darwinism is related to Nazis by historical and ideological fact. But that isn't science - it's history and morality. But so what? It's still worth discussing under a moral consequences paradigm, since Darwinists blindly continue to deny any relationship between Darwinism and Nazi ideology. What's yer point Dave? You've asked two very questions in one.Borne
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
I agree with DaveScot. This Nazi/Communism/Spanish Inquisition/witch hunts/Crusades back and forth is getting tiresome to me. I say we leave it behind. Besides, getting rid of Darwinism out of guilt for the Holocaust will turn out to be bad for science because it's entirely the wrong reason. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is often just as bad as doing the wrong thing.tragicmishap
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Thanks, StephenB. Epistemology models ontology.wnelson
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Each time this subject comes up, the rudimentary issue is never discussed. In fact, if Darwinism is pure science, then the attempt to link Darwin to Hitler is misguided and unfair. If, on the other hand, Darwinism is part science and part metaphysics posing as science, then the link is reasonable and fair. We do know that “social Darwinism” clearly did play a role in eugenics, and we also know that social Darwinism is not pure science. So the real question is this: is Darwinism pure science and therefore immune from the present charge being made against it. For my part, Darwinism is not pure science. What is important about it is false (mind arose from matter) and what is true about it is trivial (things change and adapt). The former is a metaphysical formulation and the latter is a scientific observation. In fact, Darwinists are peddling metaphysics as science, and that is why they impose so many metaphysical rules on non-Darwinists, including the intrusive and arbitrary rule of methodological naturalism. So, if Darwinists will abandon their philosophical materialism, which, by definition devalues life, then I will suspend my charges concerning their inhumanity to man. By the way, this is one reason why it is important to discuss philosophy as well as science on this blog. Like it or not, ID and Darwinism take us to the intersection of science and theology/philosophy. The idea that the two disciplines ought not to be discussed in the same context is a carry over from the Kantian split from years ago. Those three subjects (theology, philosophy, and science) are distinct, but related. They overlap in important ways. Any attempt to draw a hard line of demarcation reveals a naïve conception of history and ignorance about how one subject relates to another. Indeed, that is the problem. Many among us think of science as the highest form of knowledge, and treat its subject matter as if was a single little bottle on a shelf. Both assumptions are false and naïve. In fact, science is but one part of a hierarchical network of knowable subjects, each of which influences and illuminates the other.StephenB
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5