Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Invitations to Hitler Connections

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One of the worst things about one side making connections to Hitler is it invites return fire of the same kind. This should be filed under the category “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.

How many of you knew that beloved evangelical Christian minister Jerry Falwell shared Adolf Hitler’s views about the importance of maintaining the purity of the white race?

I’m not saying “modern” evangelicals feel this way, any more than “modern” Darwinist are that way, but… as long as we’re dredging up the past of one side it’s only fair to dredge up the other’s too.

Addendum: No one seems to have picked up on the point that Falwell, as an evangelical Christian biblical literalist, did not believe in “Darwinism” yet he still shared his racial thinking with Hitler. Further proof that you don’t need Darwin to be a racist.

From The Nation “Agent of Intolerance”

Decades before the forces that now make up the Christian right declared their culture war, Falwell was a rabid segregationist who railed against the civil rights movement from the pulpit of the abandoned backwater bottling plant he converted into Thomas Road Baptist Church. This opening episode of Falwell’s life, studiously overlooked by his friends, naïvely unacknowledged by many of his chroniclers, and puzzlingly and glaringly omitted in the obituaries of the Washington Post and New York Times, is essential to understanding his historical significance in galvanizing the Christian right. Indeed, it was race–not abortion or the attendant suite of so-called “values” issues–that propelled Falwell and his evangelical allies into political activism.

As with his positions on abortion and homosexuality, the basso profondo preacher’s own words on race stand as vivid documents of his legacy. Falwell launched on the warpath against civil rights four years after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision to desegregate public schools with a sermon titled “Segregation or Integration: Which?”

“If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God’s word and had desired to do the Lord’s will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision would never have been made,” Falwell boomed from above his congregation in Lynchburg. “The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line.”

Falwell’s jeremiad continued: “The true Negro does not want integration…. He realizes his potential is far better among his own race.” Falwell went on to announce that integration “will destroy our race eventually. In one northern city,” he warned, “a pastor friend of mine tells me that a couple of opposite race live next door to his church as man and wife.”

As pressure from the civil rights movement built during the early 1960s, and President Lyndon Johnson introduced sweeping civil rights legislation, Falwell grew increasingly conspiratorial. He enlisted with J. Edgar Hoover to distribute FBI manufactured propaganda against the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and publicly denounced the 1964 Civil Rights Act as “civil wrongs.”

Comments
“…why should one care about the the ethical progress of society?” Allen_MacNeill: "Because, as Kant and Rawls (among many others) pointed out, if one acts in such a way as to undermine the ethical progress of the society of which one is a member, one is undermining the foundation of one’s own existence. This is precisely the point of Kant’s categorical imperative: the only stable system of ethics is one that is universally reciprocal." But why should I care if I'm undermining the foundation of our existence? Why should I care if the system is unstable? Live for the here and now, I say. (Rhetorically.)j
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
04:40 AM
4
04
40
AM
PDT
StephenA The link that was made btween Darwin and Hitler was that Darwin’s theory was ‘necessary but not sufficient’ for Hiter’s policies. Are you claiming that Christianity is ‘necessary but not sufficient’ for racism? No. I'm saying that Darwinism as a necessary condition is utter bullshit an unreasonable conclusion and that in making that unreasonable conclusion you simply invite others to use the same tortured logic to make similarly unreasoned connections in response. Unreasoned connections like linking Christianity to torture, war, rape, pillage, plunder, racism, Nazis, etcetera. It's not like it's hard to do. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. DaveScot
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
WingLess If you are willing to go to hell yourself then it can be logical to kill people in a religious world view. Not at all. It just has to be killing done in God's name. Look at all the wars and all the people who fought in them. What about all the soldiers who killed in order to defeat Hitler? Surely you're not saying they all believed they were going to hell for it, are you?DaveScot
April 24, 2008
April
04
Apr
24
24
2008
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
From Dave's opening post: "One of the worst things about one side making connections to Hitler is it invites return fire of the same kind. This should be filed under the category “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”." The link that was made btween Darwin and Hitler was that Darwin's theory was 'necessary but not sufficient' for Hiter's policies. Are you claiming that Christianity is 'necessary but not sufficient' for racism?StephenA
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
10:44 PM
10
10
44
PM
PDT
"If I read you correctly, then, you are arguing that only if one believes in God and His laws will one act morally." You are not reading him correctly. I could try restating his point for you, but my treatment would probably be less clear than his.StephenA
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
In the same way that killing is a logical conclusion of a religious world view. I mean, if everyone has life everlasting and when the die they go to heaven where everything is all wonderful and beautiful forever, then logically you do someone a favor when you kill them as you’re delivering them to paradise.
If you are willing to go to hell yourself then it can be logical to kill people in a religious world view. By religious I'm sure you mean Judeo-Christian though, since this isn't logical for all religions. On the down side you prevent these people from doing God's work on earth, thus preventing more people from attaining everlasting life. Also assuming that heavenly reward is proportional to work done on earth, you also prevent people from storing treasures in heaven. Eugenics is one possible logical conclusion of the Darwinist worldview if you want to improve the human species in my opinion. Genetic engineering can be another option given this same goal.WinglesS
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Revolutionary thinking, I am sure. And how is this fundamentally different than the thinking that any tyrant of power in the history of Earth has embodied for himself. The Man is in charge. As they hold their daughters down and castrate them, I am certain they feel in charge of something they think should become universal law. I got a better one... "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and 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, 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." -and- "The evidence of natural right, like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson We as a people can envision ourselves lucky that persons such as those that fondle their minds like Allan were not in charge of founding this country.Upright BiPed
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT
Eugenics is the logical conclusion of a Darwinist world view. In the same way that killing is a logical conclusion of a religious world view. I mean, if everyone has life everlasting and when the die they go to heaven where everything is all wonderful and beautiful forever, then logically you do someone a favor when you kill them as you're delivering them to paradise. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. DaveScot
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Re stephenB in #53: If I read you correctly, then, you are arguing that only if one believes in God and His laws will one act morally. To me, this reduces to Rousseau's contention that "if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." In other words, God is a necessary fiction whose existence must be affirmed because otherwise people will inevitably descend into savagery. Do you really believe that people cannot act morally without believing in the Judeo-Christian God? If so, doesn't the fact that at least some non-Jews and non-Christians nevertheless act ethically in their daily lives fatally undermine the positions that you have taken in this post? Or, to harken back at least as far as Socrates, is something right because God says so, or is God constrained to say so because it is right? If you agree with the former, then we're very lucky that God no longer demands that we commit genocide in His name. And if you agree with the latter, then why believe in God at all, except as a convenient (but logically unnecessary) fiction?Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT
j asked (in #52):
"...why should one care about the the ethical progress of society?"
Because, as Kant and Rawls (among many others) pointed out, if one acts in such a way as to undermine the ethical progress of the society of which one is a member, one is undermining the foundation of one's own existence. This is precisely the point of Kant's categorical imperative: the only stable system of ethics is one that is universally reciprocal. One cannot say that lying or breaking promises is wrong and damages the social contract, and then go ahead and lie or break promises for personal gain. And yes, the Nazis perverted Kant's categorical imperative just as they did Darwinian evolutionary theory and Christian theology. Does this mean that Kant's ethical theories or Darwin's evolutionary theories or the tenets of the Christian religion necessarily led to Naziism? Of course not. But if that is the case, then why are we having this discussion at all? If it's just to get all of the players to admit that their own pet theories have been perverted by unscrupulous scoundrels for reasons unrelated to the basic principles of their pet theory, then I'll kick it off by clearly and loudly acknowledging that evolutionary theory has been perverted by unscrupulous scoundrels for reasons unrelated to the basic principles of evolutionary biology. Is anybody else ready to step up and do the same?Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
----Allen: "But, I suppose since none of these people justified their ethics by saying that “it’s right because God says so”, then they’re all as disgustingly amoral as all evolutionary biologists, right?" That would not be the problem. It is indeed possible to build a kind of personal morality on Kant’s ethic, but it is unlikely that the average individual would be motivated to follow it. Very few of us care as much about the common good as we do our own skins. In a perfect world, everyone would follow the golden rule, but the world we live in is quite different. The real problem is at the social level. How does one build a well-ordered society around such a smiley faced doctrine as this? What would be the standards for civil law or jurisprudential wisdom? How do we achieve consensus on these laws if everyone has his own version of morality. If we throw out the Ten Commandments and the “natural moral law,” all you have left is everyone’s subjective notion of a golden rule. We would have nothing to unify us or to rally around. It would be a social, political madhouse ending in the very thing we are tying to avoid—pure democracy, which is a euphemism for the tyranny of the majority. Further, there is always the conflict between the golden rule and survival. We must have laws that protect those who would not follow that noble ethic, and so the problem persists: On what standard do we base those laws. Obviously, it must be, or at least it ought to be, the “natural moral law,” which is written both in nature (objectively) and in the human heart (subjectively). When things get tough, the golden rule can degenerate into the law of the jungle very quickly. Most important, there is the problem of freedom itself. What is to protect the individual from intrusions from the state? Only the Judeo/Christian ethic teaches that we are made in the image and likeness of God and therefore have “inherent dignity.” Thus, God creates the natural moral law and grants natural rights in conjunction with that same law. If the state grants rights, then the state can take them away. Unless God is the final moral authority, the individual has no recourse when the state begins to encroach on individual rights. That is what the Declaration of Independence is all about. Darwinism/materialism denies God’s moral authority and the “inherent dignity” of the human person. For that reason, Darwinism is the enemy of freedom.StephenB
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
Borne, Thanks for the explanation, but what I was getting at is, what did Hitler write or say that makes use of the modifier, polyphyletic, necessary? __________ Allen_MacNeill, quoting T.H. Huxley: "Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it." OK. But why should one care about the the ethical progress of society? (I ask, rhetorically.)j
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Regarding Allen_MacNeill's "universal reciprocity", if there exists a moral standard that applies objectively to all humans equally and without bias, then it would indeed follow that a principle such as "universal reciprocity" would allow one to be able to personally consider one's actions and discern inconsistency and contradictions (provided they desire to do so) -- even without referring to a sacred text. The problem is with the if. Nothing in materialism in general or in evolution specifies that any such requirement exists. Within that framework, why would it? In an excellent post here, you correctly observed that
"If by "Darwinism" you mean the scientific theory of descent with modification and the origin of adaptations by means of natural selection, it has absolutely no moral implications at all."
You also very correctly show that this is true of any list of factual statements, including any from science in general. Notice that this does not prevent any individual, whether materialist or not, from choosing to adopt a policy of universal reciprocity. The problem is that there is simply nothing in that worldview that indicates universal reciprocity is "correct for all humans" or "true for all humans" or that it "ought" to be done by all in general. It is one strategy and it is (in that view) optional. Other strategies include oppression of the masses for the benefit of one's self and one's descendants. So, although I do not wish to dissuade you from universal reciprocity, neither does it rescue materialism from lacking any objective basis for morality. It cannot answer the central question: "What moral obligation does there exist on me to aim for equal treatment of all, especially if I and my descendants are benefiting at the expense of some others? Why assume universal equality, especially if the very nature of the struggle for life itself is based on exploiting the effects of inequalities?" In the United States, we are particularly blind to how historically aberrant the idea of equality has been. We breath the value in from our culture and assume it, without asking much about its logical foundation within our own culture upon inalienable rights granted by a Creator, not by human conventions that can be either made or removed.ericB
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
Alan_MacNeill at 45 You appeal to
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Kant I submit that Hitler understood Darwin's evolution to actually be natural law. Consequently, he believed he was fulfilling natural law in destroying the Jews and other weaker members of society. From Hitler's position, your objection is contrary to natural law and thus he would be justified in over riding it. - Thus, I expect Hitler would believe he was fulfilling Kant's definition by implementing the eugenics program to eliminate the "weaker" members of society, and then the "Final solution." Contrast Jesus "Love your neighbor as yourself". Hitler could not have turned that around as he could have Kant's formulation. Yet you cite Huxley as taking the opposite view.
Laws and moral precepts are directed to the end of curbing the cosmic process and reminding the individual of his duty to the community, . . . that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it.
In his article Huxley states:
Natural knowledge tends more and more to the conclusion that "all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth" are the transitory forms of parcels of cosmic substance wending along the road of evolution, . . . until it attains its highest level in man. ... not in man, in man, the whole or half savage; but only in man, the member of an organized polity. . . .to the full development of his noblest powers.
Huxley directly opposes the consequences of evolution. He appeals to moral law that is outside of this "cosmic process". He rejects "heaven" yet appeals to "nobility." I see no basis in the materialistic Darwinian world for "nobility" any different from Hitler's "final solution" to fulfil "natural law". Similarly in Huxley's view, he appeals to "nobility" yet provides no basis for that moral law having rejected both evolution and heaven. Both view their position as "moral" or incontrovertable natural law. You claim:
"The world would be a better place, I believe, if those who lay claim to Darwin’s heritage could acknowledge the horrible uses to which his ideas have been put."
And
Shame on you, and shame on every person who nodded their head in agreement on reading such unmitigated crap.
What basis is there for making such judgments? Not on evolution for that is what Hitler considered "natural law". Kant's formulation of reciprocity appears to match Hitler's "final solutin". Huxley appeals to a morality of communal progress. But what basis is there for that moral code? Communists who built society on evolution are those who killed some 100 million in the twentieth century, seeking to encourage Huxley's noble communal society. To seriously explore such worldviews, I recommend including in your course the works of Francis Schaefer. He was one of the foremost Christian philosophers of the 20th century, living in Switzerland. He would probe to the logical consequences of each world view. See How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture, 288 pages, Crossway Books (September 1983), ISBN-10: 0891072926 The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview : A Christian View of the Church Crossway Books; 2nd edition (April 1985) ISBN-10: 0891073353 (As I recall, "*Escape From Reason" is pertinent to this discussion) Nancy Pearcey follows on from Schaefer in "Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity " (now in paperback, 2008) ISBN-10: 1433502208 Without thoroughly examining the foundations and consequences of each worldview, how do we evaluate "morality", eugenics, euthanasia, abortion or "the final solution?"DLH
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill (45): "But, I suppose since none of these people justified their ethics by saying that “it’s right because God says so”, then they’re all as disgustingly amoral as all evolutionary biologists, right?" (46): "But, of course, Huxley was “Darwin’s bulldog” and an evolutionary biologist, so he (like all of us deluded atheist scientists) is just another amoral hedonist, right?"
Allen, I and others here have labored to be quite clear about distinguishing the question of whether materialism supports an objective basis for morality from any accusation that materialists are personally and collectively "disgustingly amoral". You come quite close there to painting with a wide brush in your implied accusations. I hope that was unintentional and in the heat of the moment after responding to one person's comment. I trust that in the interest of reasoned inquiry, you are not intending to tar all posters with those jabs, correct? Do you understand the distinction we are making? If you are serious about universal reciprocity then you should desire to represent the distinction with the very same accuracy that you would want for positions of your own, true? Are you then willing to represent the distinction accurately?ericB
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill:
This is precisely the kind of ugly character assassination that makes intellectual discussions at sites like this virtually impossible.
Well, as an observer only, it seems to have been a pretty good discussion so far, so please don't stop now; at least half, perhaps more seems to me fairly civil back-and-forth in general, despite the quite volatile subject. I for one appreciate your input!SCheesman
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Allan McNeil, You said,
And as I have pointed out repeatedly, at the time that Darwin favored eugenics it had virtually none of the negative connotations that it has now. The form of eugenics that Darwin favored was “positive” eugenics; that is, encouraging people with desirable traits to have as many children as possible.
I thought you had said that Darwin never supported eugenics. I must have misunderstood you. However, I don't buy the idea that Darwin only supported "positive eugenics." His cousin Francis Galton certainly supported negative eugenics. Darwin himself in the Descent of Man bemoans the fact that social welfare and small pox vaccines that preserve the "weak members of society" and are therefore "highly injurious to the race of man." That is negative eugenics in all its glory. But why should we be surprised? Eugenics is the logical conclusion of a Darwinist world view. That doesn't mean all Darwinists are Nazis, it means there is no logical or moral reason for them not to be Nazis unless they soften their Darwinist world view with a layer of religion or philosophy that does not logically extend from Darwinism itself.Jehu
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
steveB (in #39) asked about the E. O. Wilson's statements vis-a-vis ethics. I completely disagree with Wilson's ideas, and have said so on many occasions. Indeed, I am leading a seminar on precisely this subject this summer at Cornell: "Evolution and Ethics: Is Morality Natural?" See: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/04/evolution-and-ethics-is-morality.html My answer to that question is most definitely NO. Morality isn't "natural", if by "natural" one means something that does not require both rational judgment and contradicts what "natural" processes (such as natural selection) produce as a result of their action. T. H. Huxley's essay, "Evolution and Ethics", is one of the required readings for the seminar. Let me quote what is perhaps the central assertion that Huxley makes in this essay:
"...the practice of that which is ethically best–what we call goodness or virtue–involves a course of conduct which, in all respects, is opposed to that which leads to success in the cosmic struggle for existence. In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside, or treading down, all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive. It repudiates the gladiatorial theory of existence. It demands that each man who enters into the enjoyment of the advantages of a polity shall be mindful of his debt to those who have laboriously constructed it; and shall take heed that no act of his weakens the fabric in which he has been permitted to live. Laws and moral precepts are directed to the end of curbing the cosmic process and reminding the individual of his duty to the community, to the protection and influence of which he owes, if not existence itself, at least the life of something better than a brutal savage.....Let us understand, once for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it. [emphasis added]
The entire essay is available here: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE9/E-E.html But, of course, Huxley was "Darwin's bulldog" and an evolutionary biologist, so he (like all of us deluded atheist scientists) is just another amoral hedonist, right?Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
DLH wrote (in #42):
"I submit that you are basing this on the Judeo-Christian world view, not on Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” (”law of the jungle”)."
Not exactly. I am basing it on an ethical world view that parallels the Judeo-Christian world view in many ways, but does not ground its ultimate justification in the idea that "it's right because God says so." In particular, I submit that not only the Judeo-Christian world view, but also most other systems of ethics (most of which I have studied pretty intensively for many years, hence my qualifications to teach a course on the subject at Cornell) are based upon a concept known as "universal reciprocity." This idea, perhaps most clearly and forcefully asserted by Emmanuel Kant, states: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Kant's ethics have been further elucidated by ethical philosophers, most notably John Rawls, in his magnum opus A Theory of Justice. Neither Kant's ethics nor Rawls make any direct reference to Judeo-Christian morals at all. Indeed, they reference no existing moral or ethic system for justification. Rather, they justify their moral prescriptions on the basis of pure logical reasoning, much as did Socrates, Aristotle, and Siddhartha Gautama. But, I suppose since none of these people justified their ethics by saying that "it's right because God says so", then they're all as disgustingly amoral as all evolutionary biologists, right?Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT
pannenbergomega wrote (in #25):
"It’s not that distressing to the average American, the notion that Darwinists or Neo Darwinists have no morals. The reason you are getting such irrational responses on behalf of their community regarding ‘morality’ is because they know deep down they don’t posses Judeo-Christian morals."
This is precisely the kind of ugly character assassination that makes intellectual discussions at sites like this virtually impossible. What if I had written "It’s not that distressing to the average German, the notion that Jews or Christians have no morals. The reason you are getting such irrational responses on behalf of their community regarding ‘morality’ is because they know deep down they don’t posses our morals." Almost every commentator on this thread would be outraged, and for good reason. This is pure ad hominem garbage, and illustrates more than anything I could possibly say of the complete moral bankruptcy of your position. Shame on you, and shame on every person who nodded their head in agreement on reading such unmitigated crap.Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
05:50 PM
5
05
50
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill at 30 You noted:
Darwin’s prediction about the eventual extinction of the “primitive races” was exactly that: a prediction (which, BTW, was mostly correct). It was not a prescription, nor was it in any way advocating that this should.
You claim I
. . . continue to misunderstand the basic difference between empirical description and ethical prescription.
Your post exhibits what I am exploring: From a descriptive basis Darwin clearly understood the implications of his theory could involve some "races" of humans destroying other "races". Darwin then took the predictive step of expecting this to happen in the future. Darwin himself did not explicitly take the prescriptive step, though he hinted at it in his example of comparing smart breeding of animals with how we treat the weak out of "nobility". Galton and the eugenics societies easily took the next step that eugenics should be prescriptive. . From that common early 20th century advocacy of eugenics based on Darwin's work, Hitler and the Nazi's built their program in the 1920s to make this prescriptive. In Expelled Stein exposes this connection with the gas chambers for the "less fit" at Hademyer. Then a simple next step to consider Jews as an inferior race and the final solution as Stein shows at Dachau. Richard Weikart documents these steps in "From Darwin to Hitler". There are similar connections to Communism. Stalin explicitly cites Darwin's writings are turning him from the priesthood to atheism, and he recommended Darwin to his friends for that reason. This raises the challenge that the world view we choose for society has profound impacts and consequences. The greater challenge is not the ideas themselves, but their being imposed by totalitarian groups. This totalitarian imposition of evolution by the Darwinian oligarchy is the key issue Stein is raising in Expelled. .DLH
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill at 29
DLH asked (in #15): “Are you thus holding that eugenics and euthenasia are wrong?” Absolutely, unless they are completely voluntary (which would be imnpossible in the case of eugenics that involved the abortion of an unborn child).
Thank you for that strong affirmation. Darwin's cousin Francis Galton (1822-1911) coined "eugenics" and advocated it.
Galton defined his new word this way: "Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, whether physically or mentally."
Darwin's theories provided his inspiration.
In strength, agility, and other physical qualities, Darwin's law of natural selection acts with unimpassioned, merciless severity. The weakly die in the battle for life; the stronger and more capable individuals are alone permitted to survive, and to bequeath their constitutional vigour to future generations.
I submit that you are basing this on the Judeo-Christian world view, not on Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ("law of the jungle").DLH
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT
What what I said must have really got to the point. Look how many comments Alan MacNeil entered.PannenbergOmega
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
Horace, nobody's posts are going through it seems. (Mine haven't shown up the past couple of days...)Atom
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill: I generally like your posts and appreciate your input into this forum—both in its content and its tone. I wonder though if you'd be willing to follow up on what you said in post #29, namely that "...all forms of negative eugenics are morally wrong." Why? I’m particularly interested in your views in light of the following:
As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will.... In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. (Wilson and Ruse, “The Evolution of Ethics,” 1991)
If W&R are correct, the ethic that supports the argument you made earlier has no basis in reality at all. Sorry--but I see no other way to interpret their statement. If they’re not correct, what other basis is there in the evolutionary framework to make the kind of absolute argument you made above--namely that all forms of xyz are morally wrong?SteveB
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Is there any reason why my previous posts, made over 24 hours ago have yet to show up? {DLH possibly accidently thrown out with the spam water. Save posts off line & try again.}Horace_Worblehat
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Addendum: No one seems to have picked up on the point that Falwell, as an evangelical Christian biblical literalist, did not believe in “Darwinism” yet he still shared his racial thinking with Hitler. Further proof that you don’t need Darwin to be a racist.
Of course you don't. You just need Darwin to justify the mass genocide part.Phinehas
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill, You keep forgetting that, while noting the difference between prescriptive and descriptive, we can also note that Darwin wasn't only making a prediction. He also drew a qualitative conclusion. The genocide he predicted would increase man's average evolutionary level.Charlie
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
sal wrote (in #16):
"In Eugenic theory, inbreeding is practiced in order to bring out killer recessive traits, and presumably offspring with such traits would be prevented from reproducing."
Change "killer" to "lethal and deleterious" and you've got it about right. This is precisely what genetic counselors do today. to be specific, it is the underlying rationalization for the Shidduch, which is a Jewish matchmaking service that specifically screens prospective mates for the presence of the alleles for Tay Sachs syndrome and other recessive lethal alleles. In this program, people voluntarily agree to be matched with mates who do not share these lethal alleles, thereby eliminating the possibility of having a child with the recessive lethal condition. Are such programs morally responsible? Of course they are; they are a form of positive eugenics. Interestingly, such programs also guarantee that the frequency of the recessive lethal alleles will slowly increase in frequency in the human gene pool, as they are not eliminated via the formation of lethal homozygotes. Hence, a program of deliberate positive eugenics has the effect of increasing the genetic load in the human gene pool. Ergo, the moral justification for genetic counseling that decreases individual suffering carries with it the overall increase in the underlying genetic cause for the condition being ameliorated. This is precisely as it should be; a moral calculus that weighs individual rights and responsibilities against a slight social negative (i.e. the increase in frequency of the lethal alleles), and in so doing increases both individual justice and social utility. BTW, precisely the same thing happens when people are prevented from dying from diabetes (or being nearsighted, like me).Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
Sal wrote (in #16):
"As far as her being deformed, she [Anne] was actually sickly and died at the early age of 10. I was mistaken. She was sickly not birth defected, but Darwin regarded such illnesses related to his inbreeding activities."
And he was wrong: Anne had tuberculosis, complicated by a severe gastrointestinal infection. Neither of these was or is the result of inbreeding. Hence, Darwin's concerns were based on faulty information, and therefore had no basis in fact.Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply