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
DLH asked (in #15):
"Did the Nazi’s misinterpret Darwin in building on these foundations?"
Yes. To be specific, the Nazis used Darwin's ideas (which were descriptive, NOT prescriptive) to justify a system of totalitarian repression, mass theft, and genocide, which they pursued for economic, political, and social reasons. Again, you seem determined to deliberately misunderstand the difference between description and prescription. Why?Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Re jehu (#19): 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. That eugenics would eventually be used in a much more negative way (and especially as a rationale for mass murder) was the furthest thing from Darwin's (or his contemporary's minds). Knowing what we know now about the evil uses to which eugenics has been put (by people who used it to justify a program of totalitarian genocide which was motivated by political and social factors, not science), would any right-thinking person favor anything like "negative" eugenics? The answer is, of course, no. However, the continued inability of many of the posters in this thread to distinguish between positive and negative eugenics, and the tendency to demonize Darwin and his contemporaries for events that occurred half a century after their deaths, indicates to me that their motives are NOT to elucidate the historical connections between Darwinian evolutionary theory, eugenics, and Nazi race policies. Rather, the motivation behind such continued (and therefore apparently deliberate) misunderstanding is, as far as I can tell, motivated by a desire to undermine the credibility of evolutionary biologists today. This despite the fact that virtually no evolutionary biologist that I am aware of advocates anything like "negative" eugenics.Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT
j : "why the modifier polyphyletic?" It's the only term I can find that describes older Darwinism - being that human races evolved from many ancestors and branches - thus some are more evolutionarily advanced than others. Monophyletic better describes neo-Darwinism (depending on who you read! some still adhere to poly and still make the superior/inferior race conclusions) and describes the more present view that all humans descend from one original branch rather than many - and thus all races are equally evolved.Borne
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
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 have asked this question repeatedly, and been given this same answer repeatedly, yet resolutely (and therefore apparently deliberately) continue to misunderstand the basic difference between empirical description and ethical prescription. Why do you do this?Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
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). IN other words, all forms of negative eugenics are morally wrong. "Positive" eugenics (such as that involved in genetic counseling) can be morally neutral (or even morally right), but only if they do not involve the abrogation of individual rights.Allen_MacNeill
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
scordova, you're hilarious. In your first comment you say:
Darwin himself had a deformed daughter. I suppose he could not bring himself to advocate Eugenics lest he sacrifice his own. One can also speculate that Darwin wished Eugenics were practiced, and thus he would not have supposedly been in the predicament of having a deforemed child….who knows…..
In other words, the only thing stopping him from carrying out some evil plan was his "deformed" daughter -- who was, as has been pointed out, not deformed (she probably died from TB). You defend this by citing Wikipedia. As a graduate student, you should have higher standards: many colleges do not allow Wikipedia as a source. In any event, my understanding from several biographies is that Darwin mainly blamed his own sickly constitution for his daughter's sickliness. His interest in inbreeding arose much later in his life, and he considered that as well, but it wasn't his main thought. But wait: it gets better. So far you've suggested that the only thing stopping Darwin from carrying out some eugenics program was his love for his daughter. Of course, you "did not mean to imply Darwin had no morals." No, no. But you say:
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. I suppose Darwin could only bring himself to execute only the first part of the Eugenic program, namely the inbreeding step.
In other words, you're saying that Darwin courted, proposed to, and married his wife (in 1939, 19 years before the publication of the Origin) and had children with her as the first step in a Eugenics program. What kind of sick person are you?evo_materialist
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
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.
Actually, "they" may possess Judeo-Christian morals while rejecting theism. But they have no obligation to do so (if atheists). If they practice Judeo-Christian morality, it is merely their personal preference or convenience, not a binding obligation. So, if it suits their purposes, they may exchange that moral system for another whenever it suits them, without fear of violating their worldview.russ
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Jason Rennie, you wrote:
Luther thought it was reasonable they would reject the papist perversion of the Gospel but not in its pure form. However they did [not], and this embittered Luther against them.
This is correct. Luther’s most celebrated biographer, Roland Bainton (a Quaker), writes:
Luther was sanguine that his own reform, by eliminating the abuses of the papacy, would accomplish the conversion of the Jews. But the converts were few, and unstable. When he endeavored to proselytize some rabbis, they undertook in return to make a Jew of him. The rumor that a Jew had been suborned by the papists to murder him was not received with complete incredulity. In Luther’s latter days, when he was often sorely frayed...he came out with a vulgar blast in which he recommended that all Jews be deported to Palestine. Failing that, they should be forbidden to practice usury, should be compelled to earn their living on the land, their synagogues should be burned, and their books including the Bible should be taken away from them. One might wish that Luther had died before ever this tract was written. Yet one must be clear as to what he was recommending and why. His position was entirely religious, and in no respect racial. (Here I Stand, p. 297)
Luther’s position could more accurately be described as “anti-Judaism” than as “anti-Semitism.” Anti-Judaism, it goes without saying, is disrespectful of the integrity of Judaism, and contains the seeds of disrespect for the Jewish people. But Luther’s goal would have been the baptism of every Jew, not their incineration. The biological rationale undergirding “racial cleansing” was nowhere in his world view. The position he took toward the end of his life, and the tract he wrote, left a permanent stain on his reputation. And contemporary Lutherans have acknowledged and deplored Luther’s words and their role in shaping modern anti-Semitism.
The Lutheran communion of faith is linked by name and heritage to the memory of Martin Luther, teacher and reformer... Luther proclaimed a gospel for people as we really are, bidding us to trust a grace sufficient to reach our deepest shames and address the most tragic truths. In the spirit of that truth-telling, we who bear his name and heritage must with pain acknowledge also Luther's anti-Judaic diatribes and the violent recommendations of his later writings against the Jews. As did many of Luther's own companions in the sixteenth century, we reject this violent invective, and yet more do we express our deep and abiding sorrow over its tragic effects on subsequent generations. In concert with the Lutheran World Federation, we particularly deplore the appropriation of Luther's words by modern anti-Semites for the teaching of hatred toward Judaism or toward the Jewish people in our day. Grieving the complicity of our own tradition within this history of hatred, moreover, we express our urgent desire to live out our faith in Jesus Christ with love and respect for the Jewish people. We recognize in anti-Semitism a contradiction and an affront to the Gospel, a violation of our hope and calling, and we pledge this church to oppose the deadly working of such bigotry, both within our own circles and in the society around us. Finally, we pray for the continued blessing of the Blessed One upon the increasing cooperation and understanding between Lutheran Christians and the Jewish community.
http://www.elca.org/ecumenical/interreligious/jewish/declaration.html 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.Lutepisc
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Heavy Petting by Peter Singer. Compassionate Cannibalism by Beth Conklin. Haha, where do you find this stuff Salvador? Anyway. 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. As Ben Stein puts it, the Darwinist/Secular Establishment would love to get Americans to stop believing in God. That would allow them to have a free hand when it comes to abortions, euthanasia, genetic engineering, all that stuff. It should come as no suprise that Dawkins, if you really scrutinize what he says, ends up sounding like a Wellsian Socialist.PannenbergOmega
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
P.S. Borne, why the modifier polyphyletic?j
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
scordova, Can you provide quotations/citations for the Provine, Buss, Thorhill, or Palmer references in #2, above? Thnx, -sb
A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion by Thornhill and Palmer. Regarding David Buss see Science Made Easy by Mike Gene
Murderers' genes won the evolutionary battle over those of their victims
The movie expelled has scence of Will Provine commenting on morality. Off topic, but related: see Singer's advocacy of human-animal sex in Heavy Petting by Peter Singer. Just for grins, see: Compassionate Cannibalism by Beth Conklin.scordova
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
I find it very distressing that anyone would stoop to ad hominem arguments of this type, especially in support of the assertion that Darwin and other evolutionary biologists essentially have no morals.
I did not mean to imply Darwin had no morals. I expected he would not sacrifice his own children despite the fact he suspected he either passed on or induced defects which made his kids prone to illness. Darwin might have been influential in making Eugenics fashionable, but he himself had many things preventing him from partaking: 1. he himself was sickly yet he reproduced 2. he loved his children We see that in the Eugenecists of today like Peter Singer. They are hard pressed to follow the standards they set for everyone else. Singer said elderly invalids ought to be euthanized and people should not earn more than $30,000 a year. Singer is hard pressed to follow his own advice. Enlightenment Comes by Mike Genescordova
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
Did Hitler justify his racism with polyphyletic Darwinism? Yes. Does it work? Yes! Did Hitler devaluate human life based on Darwinian ’science’? Yes. Does it work logically? Yes again! Indeed. Quotes from Hitler's Table Talk, a compendium of "the official, authentic record of Hitler's [private, mealtime] conversations":
[W]e shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress. As for the why of these laws, we shall never know anything about it. A thing is so, and our understanding cannot conceive of other schemes. Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that almighty being whose law he worships. Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling of this almighty being, which we call God (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe). . . . If anyone asks us where we obtain the right to [conquer], we reply that, for a nation, her awareness of what she represents carries this right with it. It's success that justifies everything... We...confine ourselves to asking man to fashion his life worthily. For this, it is sufficient for him to conform to the laws of nature. Let's seek inspiration in these principles, and in the long run we'll triumph over religion... Men dispossess one another, and one perceives that, at the end of it all, it is always the stronger who triumphs. Is that not the most reasonable order of things? If it were otherwise, nothing good would ever have existed. If we did not respect the laws of nature, imposing our will by the right of the stronger, a day would come when wild animals would once again devour us -- then the insects would eat the animals, and finally nothing would exist on earth but the microbes. . . . [I]s it we who created nature, established its laws? Things are as they are and we can do nothing to change them. Providence ["(or the unknown, or Nature, or whatever name one chooses)," as Hitler writes elsewhere] has endowed living creatures with a limitless fecundity; but she has not put in their reach, without the need for effort on their part, all the food they need. All that is very right and proper, for it is the struggle for existence that produces the selection of the fittest. . . . According to the laws of nature, the soil belongs to him who conquers it... Overpopulation compels a people to look out for itself. There is no risk of our remaining fixed at our present level. Necessity will force us to be always at the head of progress. All life is paid for with blood. If a man doesn't like this notion of life, I advise him to renounce life altogether -- for it proves he is not suited for the struggle... . . . As in everything, nature is the best instructor, even as regards selection. One couldn't imagine a better activity on nature's part than that which consists in deciding the supremacy of one creature over another by means of a constant struggle.
j
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Falwell's university supported the anti-racist book One Blood: One Blood: The Biblical Answer to Racism, and has hosted black evangelical speaker Dr Charles Ware. Note that the MMM (Mendacious Mainstream Media) give a free pass to the Democrats, the party of slavery, the KKK, Kim Crow Laws, and which still has an ex-Kleagle as a senator (Robert C. Byrd). Racism is simply contrary to the Bible. But churchian racists, just like churchian evolutionists, can read their doctrine into a book that clearly contradicts it. Churchian racism is mainly an American phenomenon, as a way of reconciling two contradictory teachings in its foundings: all men are created equal, and slavery is allowed. So slavery can be allowed only if schemes are invented that class slaves as less than human. This culminated in the Dred Scot SCOTUS case. Thomas Sowell points out in Economic Facts and Fallacies that there was far less racism in Brazil, even though it had slavery. This is because they never had a constitutional guarantee that all people were created equal, so they had no need to invent ways of pretending that they were unequal.Jonathan Sarfati
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Allan McNeill, Your claim that Darwin did not subscribe to eugenics is completely false. As we all know, Darwin's own son became President of the British Eugenics Society and claimed that Darwin believed that eugenics was the most important application of his theory of evolution. Darwin's own cousin, Francis Galton, is considered the founder of Eugenics. Darwin cites approvingly to Galton's work in the Descent of Man in passages that are indistinguishable from eugenic thought. Galton in turn claimed Darwin's Origin of Species as his inspiration. Darwin and the Darwin family fingerprints are all over the birth of the eugenics movement.Jehu
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
"It is rather amazing that Luther could be antisemitic at all in that light while claiming to believe the NT scriptures." Actually it stemmed from (Well this is my guess anyway) the way the Jew's rejected the Gospel when Luther presented it to them. Luther thought it was reasonable they would reject the papist perversion of the Gospel but not in its pure form. However they did, and this embittered Luther against them. It was unfortunate that he wrote "On the Jews and their Lies", but given the sort of fiery bull headed man Luther was, the reaction is not that surprising. In many ways it mirrors how he reacted to the Popes denunciation of him.Jason Rennie
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Dave : It seems you've gone on an illogical tangent here, imo. Did Falwell derive his racism from new testament Christianity? No. Does he try to justify his racism with Xian principles? Yes. Does it work? No. Did Hitler justify his racism with polyphyletic Darwinism? Yes. Does it work? Yes! Did Hitler devaluate human life based on Darwinian 'science'? Yes. Does it work logically? Yes again! Did Darwin? No. Happily there are contradictions between the actions and real-life beliefs of materialists and the logical implications of their materialist dogma. Ideas have consequences. That's the whole gist of the Darwinism/Hitler discussions. Not what dirty laundry can we dig up on all sides. You will find plenty! But the root here is not the dirty laundry itself but how the laundry got dirty! Imo, you may as well have cited the crusades or Martin Luther's antisemitism in this thread. Can Luther's antisemitism be justified based on the Xian scriptures? No. Did he try to justify it with those scriptures? Yes! But it clearly cannot work! The whole of it was written by Jews! Clearly no logical justification can be made. It is rather amazing that Luther could be antisemitic at all in that light while claiming to believe the NT scriptures. Not so with the whole Darwinism to Hitler link. No one in ID equates Hitler to Darwin. This basic mistake is committed over and over again by Darwinists. So bringing up a racist link between Falwell and Hitler is strawmanish The links are in the underlying philosophies. Anyone can be a racist - "why?" is the question here. The question in this whole Darwin to Hitler thing is not mere similarities of thought. It is about real, logical connections through the underlying world views. You will find nothing in the Christian scriptures that can be logically linked to racism or slaughtering your neighbor because of his race or color. Nothing, anywhere in the entire bible, for example, can be logically interpreted to encourage racism based on skin color. (Darwin clearly considered blacks, 'savages' and women to be inferior species.) But on the contrary what we read in the NT scripture is
And he has made of one blood all the nations of men living on all the face of the earth
Has Falwell preached the creation of a eugenics program to kill off the non white races? Has he suggested death camps for blacks? Violence? Has he even come close to backing up his own racism with references to the underlying principles of Christianity by it's scriptures? No to all the above. In the case of Darwinism (not Darwin himself) and Hitler, the links are both historically factual and logical - especially under the old polyphyletic evolution paradigm - which, btw, is no longer accepted by at least 90% of neo-Darwinists. No such link can be made between New Test. Christianity & Falwell. The N.T. is anything but racist both in it's principles and it's implications as the above quote shows.Borne
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
a piece with creationist literature that attacks him for “inbreeding” by marrying his first cousin. Isn’t scordova supposed to be a graduate student somewhere? Don’t graduate students practice standards of decency
I'm no less decent than wiki (which we all know is controlled by creationists, NOT) which highlights the fact Darwin made kids with his cousin, and his kids illnesses he felt was the result of his inbreeding.
The Darwins had ten children: two died in infancy, and Annie's death at the age of ten had a devastating effect on her parents. ...Whenever they fell ill he feared that they might have inherited weaknesses from inbreeding due to the close family ties he shared with his wife and cousin, Emma Wedgwood.
As far as her being deformed, she 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. 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. I suppose Darwin could only bring himself to execute only the first part of the Eugenic program, namely the inbreeding step. Genetics and Eugenics: A Textbook for Biology Students
Inbreeding, also, by its tendency to secure homozygous combinations, tends to bring to the surface latent or hidden recessive characters…..Existing legislation against the marriage of near-of-kin is, therefore, on the whole, biologically justified. On the other hand, continual crossing only tends to hide inherent defects, not to exterminate them; and inbreeding only tends to bring them to the surface, not create them. We may not, therefore, lightly ascribe to inbreeding or intermarriage the creation of bad racial traits, but only their manifestation. Further, any racial stock which maintains a high standard of excellence under inbreeding is certainly one of great vigor, and free form inherent defects. The animal breeder is therefore amply justified in doing what human society at present is probably not warranted in doing, — viz., practicing close inbreeding in building up families of superior excellence and then keeping these pure
scordova
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Allan_MacNeill at 12
"I find it very distressing that anyone would stoop to ad hominem arguments of this type, especially in support of the assertion that Darwin and other evolutionary biologists essentially have no morals. This isn’t “intellectual debate”, and it certainly isn’t science; it’s ill-spirited and vile character assassination that demeans only the people making such absurd and unsupported claims."
Thanks for the information. scordova said
"Darwin himself had a deformed daughter. I suppose he could not bring himself to advocate Eugenics lest he sacrifice his own. One can also speculate that Darwin wished Eugenics were practiced, and thus he would not have supposedly been in the predicament of having a deforemed child….who knows….."
By your information, scordova was misinformed. In his comment he is speculating on areas that are commonly associated with Darwinism. How is that ad hominem? You assert:
"However, he never considered anything like eugenics (nor euthenasia), "
Are you thus holding that eugenics and euthenasia are wrong? Perhaps you can explain to us Darwin's prediction:
"[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."
[Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] Similarly, what did Darwin mean when he wrote:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."
[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168)] Howe is this any different from Brutus honoring Caesar with faint praise? Did the Nazi's misinterpret Darwin in building on these foundations? What do you say about the numerous Darwinists/evolutionists today who advocate eugenics and euthenasia? Such arguments appear to be what both Nazi's and Communists built many of their policies on. The critical issue is that oligarchies or tyrants imposing their totalitarian views have caused the deaths of some 125 million people in the 20th century - compared to some 39 million in all wars. Both Nazi's and Communists considered themselves "moral". Ideas have consequences - regardless of the whether their authors considered themselves "moral".DLH
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
scordova's myth about Darwin's "deformed" daughter is of a piece with creationist literature that attacks him for "inbreeding" by marrying his first cousin. Isn't scordova supposed to be a graduate student somewhere? Don't graduate students practice standards of decency?evo_materialist
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
“What is the central tenet of Darwinism and what are the social (and other) implications?”
A simplified version of the central tenet of Darwin's theory of evolution is that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through the interaction of inherited variation and natural selection. It is a statement of how the world is, not a prescription for how the world ought to be. Now you can ask the same question regarding Christianity and see what the difference is. Well the central tenet of Christianity is that God exists, and if you don't please him in some way (there is a disagreement on exactly how to do that), you will be horribly punished for eternity. And this God works in mysterious ways, and sometimes He talks to people and nobody else can hear him. Given the prevalence of mentally ill and unscrupulous human beings, that sounds like a prescription for trouble.congregate
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
Indeed, Darwin didn't have any "deformed" children. He had ten children with his first cousin, Emma (neé Wedgwood, of the pottery clan): William, Anne, Mary, Henrietta, George, Elizabeth, Leonard, Francis, Horace, and Charles. Of these, three died in childhood: Anne (died age 10), Mary (died 23 days), and Charles (died age 2). None had any physical deformity (beyond the classic "Darwin 'pug' nose") that was mentioned in biographical or historical records. Darwin worried that his youngest son, Charles, might be "slow", but the child died so young that it would be difficult to say if he had a genuine defect. Darwin himself was plagued by ill health for all of his adult life, and worried that his marriage to his first cousin would have "unfortunate" effects. He speculated that the death of Anne (and perhaps Mary and Charles as well) might have been a consequence of some "inherited defect". However, he never considered anything like eugenics (nor euthenasia), and indeed was by all accounts an unusually loving and doting father. Indeed, the death of his daughter, Anne (and not his study of evolution) was the chief cause of his abandonment of Christianity, as is abundantly supported in the book Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution, by Randal Keynes (not to mention his own autobiography). I find it very distressing that anyone would stoop to ad hominem arguments of this type, especially in support of the assertion that Darwin and other evolutionary biologists essentially have no morals. This isn't "intellectual debate", and it certainly isn't science; it's ill-spirited and vile character assassination that demeans only the people making such absurd and unsupported claims.Allen_MacNeill
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Graceout says:
It is important to realize that the source of such thinking — that there is a clear line of demarcation between the races — is due to evolutionary thinking.
Not to detract from your post, but the "Curse of Ham" goes back many centuries prior to Darwin even being born, so I am not sure you are correct.soplo caseosa
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Sal Cordova: Darwin himself had a deformed daughter. I suppose he could not bring himself to advocate Eugenics lest he sacrifice his own. One can also speculate that Darwin wished Eugenics were practiced, and thus he would not have supposedly been in the predicament of having a deforemed child….who knows…..
Which daughter would that be? Anne Elizabeth, Mary Eleanor, Henrietta Emma, or Elizabeth? What deformity did she suffer from? Your speculation about eugenics is just a rather nasty vicious slander about a man who by all accounts dearly loved his children and was heartbroken when his daughter Anne died from tuberculosis. Your mean spirited speculations reflect very poorly on you. I could speculate about your character, but you have made its defects clear.Horace_Worblehat
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Dave, I think you are missing the point. No one in the right mind can point finger at Darwin or at any of his modern proponents, and call them Nazis just because they believe or are convinced that Darwinism is true. However, I think it is legitimate to test the idea, any idea, by taking it to its logical conclusion(s), or to its extreme. You only need to ask question like "What is the central tenet of Darwinism and what are the social (and other) implications?" Now you can ask the same question regarding Christianity and see what the difference is.inunison
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
This so-called parallel analysis is brought up all the time by the other side, and it simply doesn’t make any sense. Falwell, whose bigotry mirrored the bigotry of the American culture as a whole, finally changed his views because he did NOT believe in the Darwinist formula. As an intellectually honest man, he, like many of his contemporaries was forced to come face to face with the principles of his religion and the Constitution of the United States, both of which insist on the “inherent dignity” of the human person.” It is this same principle that is responsible for all advances in human rights, and it is its absence(Atheism/Darwinism /Islam) that is responsible for most violations of human rights. We still have a residual of racism in the United States, but, for the most part, it is no longer institutionalized nor is it acceptable in mainstream thought. That is why a black man has good chance of becoming our next president, even though his views are quite radical. Indeed, if he doesn't win, it will probably be his anti-mainstream views and not his race that does him in.StephenB
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Hi Graceout, Darwin was unconvinced, at least as of DoM, about the polyphyletic origin of man. He leaned toward a common ancestor and a single species - IIR. He did, however, stress the different states of advancement with all races being lower and closer to apes than Caucasians. He differentiated savages from civilised and modern man and identified the differences as being heritable and natural.Charlie
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
scordova, Can you provide quotations/citations for the Provine, Buss, Thorhill, or Palmer references in #2, above? Thnx, -sbSteveB
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Graceout, Good point.Atom
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
It is true that many southern 'evangelicals' shared views that demanded racial separation (Bob Jones Sr., etc.) but all recanted of them later in life. It is important to realize that the source of such thinking -- that there is a clear line of demarcation between the races -- is due to evolutionary thinking. Huxley and Darwin both believed that the races (Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid) were separate species who (miraculously) could inter-breed. Strangely, all but the Caucasoid had direct ancestry to apes, orangs, or other lower life forms. Many churches of the time (as they do today) acquiesced to the social science of their day – much to their detriment. Biblically, there is NO demarcation between the races. All are direct descendants of Adam (or Noah), and all are of one blood.Graceout
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply