Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What do Design Detection and Nazis Have in Common?

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: "Perhaps someone can explain to me whatthe science of design detection has to do with Nazis, the Holocaust, or Hitler" The answer is not much at all. The question is a bit strange though. Darwinism has a LOT to do with Nazi ideology - not ID.Borne
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Ooooohhhhh Weeeeee! Good points there, allanius. You tell 'em. Dave's right in the sense that these discussions only feed the fire of discomfort and fury, but it's absolutely true that science crosses the threshold of many other disciplines.FtK
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
No one has ever claimed that pointing out the connection between Darwinism/materialism and Nazism is a scientific (i.e. biological) argument, just as the evos have never claimed that their rants against God and religion are scientific arguments. But it doesn't seem to have hurt the evos much to engage in their ranting, except insofar as they have exaggerated and lied and discredited themselves in the process. The Nazism argument is neither an exaggeration nor a lie, however, so there is no parallel danger on the other side. The reason the argument is brought is that it points up the Dostoyevskian consequence of an amoral universe: if there is no God, all is permitted. This is, whether you like it or not, a scientific argument--not scientific in the restricted modern sense, but in the broader Aristotelian sense of rational demonstration. I understand your desire, from a tactical standpoint, to suppress such arguments. But the fact is, ID is an argument in favor of teleology, and teleology necessarily involves the assertion of objective order in the world, where objective order both demands an orderer and establishes an objective good as the ground of the moral order. So while ID itself is not concerned with moral arguments, indicating to people the consequences of positing a world in which nothing is intended beyond the strong surviving is a powerful argument in favor of ID, inasmuch as the world, as a matter of fact, is ordered to a further purpose, and people know this intuitively.jnewl
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Oy veh! Dembski is not just a scientist but a theologian as well. And this is his site! The list of scientists who were not just scientists but also theologians or philosophers includes all of the most famous scientists of the past five hundred years. Now why is that? Gosh, let’s all put our thinking caps on and see if we can figure this really, really hard question out. Then let’s tackle another really tough question; like, why is there so much sex on TV? Or why do people like Diet Coke? In case we hadn’t noticed, famous scientists are not content to be mere scientists. If they were, they would have toiled in Mere Anonymity. No, famous scientists become famous specifically by bursting the narrow confines of pure science and seeking a voice in the public square; in the arena of culture that includes philosophy and religion. The most famous scientist of the 19th century was Charles Darwin. Why? Because his theory of evolution was highly congenial to the cultural elite of the day and their eagerness to do away with God; for example, to Marx and Nietzsche. Anyone who thinks Darwin was not aware of this had better go back and reread him. He knew full well that he was not merely doing science. The most famous scientist of the 20th century was Einstein because the notion of relativity had connotations that had nothing to do with science. Einstein was used in a culture war against Transcendental Idealism and its universals of Time and Space. And anyone who thinks that Einstein didn’t see himself as a philosopher knows nothing about Einstein. Now it is true, on the one hand, that experimental science points to a designer. An easy argument to win is the mousetrap argument. Science does indeed show that nature is irreducibly complex and is highly unlikely to have come into being through purely natural causes, as Darwin’s tall tale would have us believe; and picking the low-hanging fruit is a good strategy. It is also true, however, that the wedge strategy goes beyond science per se. Breaking the stranglehold of Darwinism on modern culture requires making arguments that are not likely to endear one to the Darwinists. But if it is legitimate to use the Crusades and the Inquisition to critique Christianity, then it is also legitimate to use the Holocaust to critique Darwinism. Or if the Holocaust example makes some of our nicer spirits uncomfortable, what about the mass murder committed in the name of Marxism? Are we going to ignore the fact that Marx and Darwin had a mutual admiration society? That Marx stated that the Origin provided the natural history for his own work? That Lenin, Stalin and Mao were all Darwinists? Why? Because it’s inconvenient? Because it isn’t nice? Are PZ, Richard and Sam playing nice? Ideas have consequences. Forget “follow the money.” Follow the idea. http://www.jaytrott.com/allanius
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
jerry: I think it would nice to turn some of that around -- maybe have hard science people stop dabbling in philosophy and epistemology; or rather educate them to some nominal level of epistemological self consciousness. Believing in evolution is one thing, but turning around and then dogmatically stating what may or may not exist, is another -- and an inane "other" at that. But then admitting that no one has [de]constructed a Knight's tour of any organism's development, and then putting the belief in evolution into some -- going out on a limb here -- context, might do in a pinch, too. Or wouldn't that be the same thing?wnelson
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
Kudos to you, Dave, for your clear and right-on statement.Jack Krebs
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Dave, It is like tilting at windmills to do what you want to do. Look at the preponderance of comments on this site that are non scientifically oriented vs. those that are. People here in general are not interested in science. They want to vent or discuss theology or social issues, not science. To the people here the science is settled or there exist a consensus that there is no issue. Besides the main science involved with ID is not pro ID but anti naturalistic evolution. And that is anti Darwin and if you are in the anti Darwin mode, why not talk about its other shortcomings which is really what is driving most of the people here, not its scientific shortcomings. If Darwin had nothing to do with social or religious problems, the whole movement would disappear. There are no movements for the other areas of science that are not settled but for which a dominant model has been put forward. It is only evolution that generates this fervor. An exception is SETI which has fanatical adherents from the other end of the spectrum of belief. I love the science and the mystery that surrounds evolution and that is what drives me personally but people like myself are a very small minority here or elsewhere in the ID whatever you want to call it. And I too have moral concerns about Darwinian evolution.jerry
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
The big problem is that the opposition won't address the science, or allow the science to be addressed, no matter what. Check out this recent article at LGF: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30596_Creationist_Propaganda_at_National_ReviewGilDodgen
July 12, 2008
July
07
Jul
12
12
2008
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply