Pathological consequences of Darwinism vs ID

_{David L. Hagen

November 9, 2007

Darwinism, Global Warming, Intelligent Design, Philosophy}

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

The global warming debate has striking parallels to the evolution/intelligent design debate. James Lewis explores the pathological consequences when political correctness replaces the search for truth in science: “Trofimko Lysenko is not a household name; but it should be, because he was the model for all the Politically Correct “science” in the last hundred years. Lysenko was Stalin’s favorite agricultural “scientist,” peddling the myth that crops could be just trained into growing bigger and better. . . . Hundreds of thousands of peasants starved during Stalin’s famines, in good part because of fraudulent science. . . . The explosive spread of AIDS occurred when the known evidence about HIV transmission among Gay men was suppressed by the media. . . .” “. . . Rachel Carson’s screed against DDT caused malaria to re-emerge in Africa, killing hundreds of thousands of human beings. . . .”

How and why do we allow theories to control public policies and resource allocation?

Bjorn Lomborg launched the Copenhagen Consensus with the question “How to spend $50 billion to make the World a Better Place” (2006, ISBN-13: 978-0521685719). The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus published “Global Crises, Global Solutions” (2004, ISBN 0 521 60614 4) where eight distinguished economists ranked global challenges by cost effectiveness. The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus results were:

Control of HIV/AIDS
Providing micronutrients
Trade liberalisation
Control of malaria
Develop new agricultural technologies
Community-managed water supply and sanitation
Small-scale water technology for livelihoods
Research on water productivity in food production
Lowering the cost of starting a business
Lowering barriers to migration for skilled workers
Improving infant and child nutrition
Scaled-up basic health services
Reducing the prevalence of LBW
Guest worker programmes for the unskilled
Optimal carbon tax
The Kyoto Protocol
Value-at-risk carbon tax

Why was controlling disease and health the most cost effective, while controlling climate change ranked dead last? Yet high profile global warming advocates dominate the news, research funding and resources – at the expense of far more cost effective applications benefiting millions of lives.

Consider the parallels to the moral and philosophical consequences of Darwinism versus Intelligent Design. What if some randomly “fitter” Homo sapiens dominated others? What if they controlled resources resulting in millions dieing with little consequence. Compare intelligent beings having value as the product of Intelligent Design. In the 20th century, totalitarian regimes appealing to Darwinian evolution caused the deaths of 125 million people. They especially targeted those holding to Intelligent Design and opposing Darwinism. Advocates of both theories claim they are founded on scientific principles. Yet both theories have far reaching consequences and moral implications.

Will Darwinian policies again cause over 100 million deaths by diverting funds from the greatest needs of human suffering to ineffectual efforts to control climate change?

Comments

Some communists were against the purges, too, it doesn't follow that Stalin is a non-communist with non-communist motivations.Bugsy_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm, did you even read what you posted? "During many of the attacks on Jews, local Bishops and Christians made attempts to protect Jews from the mobs that were passing through." "This in a culture which knew only Christian morals and ethics." Local bishops and christians making attempts to protect jews from christian fury. You imply that there was a singular moral and ethical system known by all - but obviously that wasn't the case, hence the differing actions and views. Paying attention to the lessons of history involves more than quoting what you think backs up your view.nullasalus_{November 11, 2007
November
11
Nov
11
11
2007
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

Ha! I should have said "what about all the Darwinists who don't become bloodthirsty nutcases?"!Carl Sachs_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

And, just to beat a dead (or dying) horse: logic is not subjective. This means that whether or not a conclusion follows from a set of premises does not depend on whether someone believes that it follows. So, even if Stalin or whomever believed that it followed, from Darwinism, that mass murder was justified, their believing that it followed does not mean that it really did follow. On this blog, I've noticed in the past that theists have claimed that atheists are unable to account for the objectivity of logic or of morality. (I do not think that is true, of course, but that's another -- related -- matter.) Nevertheless: if one is a theist, or if one accepts that logic is independent of subjective belief, then one must think that Stalin's beliefs about what follows or doesn't follow from Darwinism are irrelevant to assessing Darwinism. If Stalin thought that Newtonian mechanics warranted mass murder, we wouldn't say, "this shows the pernicious social consequences of Newtonian mechanics." Instead we would -- rightly -- say, "this gives us one more good reason for thinking that Stalin was a bloodthirsty nutcase." And besides which, what about all the atheists who don't become bloodthirsty nutcases?Carl Sachs_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

I've never found any reference to Origin of Species converting Stalin in any other biography, and I've read a few. All indications and most histories show that Stalin converted to Marxist atheistic thinking during his time at seminary, due to the surging anti-establishment Marxist and anarchist counterculture in place at the time. My seminary at least isn't quite the same sort of center for counterculture, but I digress. And ... I don't know how to be delicate, but the biography you linked is from dedicated geocentrists, and the book cited is from 1940, during world war two and the politics of the day surrounding Stalin, by a virtual unknown. I am afraid I can't bring myself to take anyone who insists on geocentrism too seriously for their works of biography, especially when studying and really understanding atheistic ideology is so crucial to taking it apart. Stalin was atheistic, but he wasn't Darwinian. It's just not so. He loathed Darwinian theory in favor of Lysenkoism. Social Darwinism was foundational to Hitler, but Stalin was definitely not a fan of Darwin (in part because of how much he hated Hitler, I imagine) and the other dictators mentioned are questionable influenced by Darwinism. The big beast there is, I think, Marxism, which is also atheistic but just isn't Darwinian.Bugsy_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT}

Bugsy and hrun01815 The foundational point is that reading Darwin turned Stalin from Christianity to Atheism, and from a seminarian to tyrant. Darwin was also foundational to the policies of Hitler, Marx, Mao, Ho Chi Min, Pol Pot etc. If you analyze deaths in countries founded on Darwinism vs those with constitutions referring to God, you will see a strong association of atrocities with Darwinism and atheism.DLH_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Stanton: re: When you refer to “African Americans” are you including Americans of, for example, Libyan, Moroccan, and Egyptian descent? Of course not. Admittedly the term is inexact (although no more so than the term "blacks"). But it's clear enough in context, and in light of common usage, exactly who I am talking about. Obviously, the groups you refer to are statistically insignificant. Meanwhile, my point about correlation versus causation -- the former being conflated with the latter in the "drive-by science" cited by ellazimm -- seems lost on you.jstanley01_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

I really don't see how Communism or Socialism can be seen as Darwinian. If one considers the issue, they are actually as anti-Darwinian as they could be. If Darwin is boiled down to 'survival of the fittest', then Capitalism comes immediately to mind. Everybody is responsible for their own luck/well-being. The weak, the lazy, the sick and the stupid are on their own and can languish and die (very Darwinian). On the other hand, Socialism and Communism strive to equalize every person, thus, the strong and the weak, the hard working and the lazy, the smart and the stupid, the healthy and the ill all get exactly the same treatment and are all taken care of the same way (very anti-Darwinian).hrun0815_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

Sorry, no. When it came to his very narrow involvement in science, Stalin worshiped at the altar of Lamarck. This is very clearly represented in the history of Bolshevism and their policies, and your initial post has direct reference to it. Claims that Stalin was promoting Darwinian eugenics or heavily influenced by Darwin just aren't true; Stalin's "eugenics" were Lamarckian, as interpreted by Lysenko. They were still social engineering of a sort, but they weren't Darwinian. Even without questioning that the rest of the list represents Darwin-related massacres, that tips the list down to roughly 100 million, maximum. I'm fine with comparisons of global warming and Darwinism, since the comparison is apt, but passages like this: "Will Darwinian policies again cause over 100 million deaths by diverting funds from the greatest needs of human suffering to ineffectual efforts to control climate change?" are simply incorrect and only damage our case.Bugsy_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

To compare the two issues, see: Bjorn Lomborg's testimony on Perspective on Climate Change, after Al Gore's presentation before the Energy and Commerce Committee, US House of Representatives, on March 21, 2007.DLH_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Stanton In #8 I suggest that the empirical existence of morality can be incorporated as part of ID and by inference, to the Intelligent Designer, based on ID assumptions and limitations. There are common understandings of morality in almost all ethnic groups: "do not steal", "do not murder". For the Designer's intentions, see revealed religion. The challenge in this post is identifying pollitical correctness and its consequences, and raising the consequent issues in public.DLH_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

I think I understand what getawitness is getting at. I, as a believer, have no issues with moral ambiguity because the purpose of my being (the motivations the designer) have been revealed. On the other hand, if we adhere to a strictly scientific (observational) view of ID, we are left without access to the designer's intentions, and thus no foundational moral code. Without knowing something about the identity and motives of the designer, we are rudderless ships. While it may be true that knowledge of the designer's identity is peripheral--or even irrelevant--to the question of biological teleology, it seems to me that there are definite moral implications that must lead us to question the identity and motives.Stanton Rockwell_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Bugsy Please reconsider your logic and facts. Lewis points out the problem of political correctness in science and politics. Both Darwinism and Lysenkoism are examples of political correctness causing millions of deaths, and Stalin supported both. 1) Stalin & Darwin: When Stalin was introduced to Darwin as the "scientific" basis of origins, it turned him from Christianity and studying to be a priest, to atheism and one of the greatest tyrants ever. Search on "Stalin Darwin" e.g., What happened when Stalin read Darwin, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al: The Role of Darwinian Evolutionism in Their Lives etc. 2) Hitler & Darwin: "‘The German Fuhrer … consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution" Sir. Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, Putnam’s, New York, 1949, p. 230. See From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004 ISBN-13: 978-1403965028); Social effects of the theory of Evolution etc. On deaths consequent to Darwinism, the 125 million was from the US Congress on deaths due to communism. E.g., Tyrant Civilians killed or starved

Mao Tse-Tung, China 50-70 million

Stalin, USSR 20-40 million

Hitler, Europe 10-20 million

Lenin, USSR 4 million

Eastern Europe 1 million

Pol Pot, Cambodia ~2 million

Kim Il-sung, N. Korea ~2 million

Mengistu, Ethiopia 1 million

Tito, Yugoslavia 0.5 million

Ho Chi Minh, N. Vietnam ~1 million

Afghanistan ~ 1.5 million etc.

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression Nicolas Werth et al. Harvard University Press, 1999, 858 pages, ISBN 0-674-07608-7 ; Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm The issue of global warming is that it is being enforced by political correctness rather than a search for truth. It elevates the status quo of the earth's present climate to religious levels, ignoring the great needs of humanity today. This mentality is rooted in Darwinism whose "survival of the fittest" justifies ignoring the needs of the poor.DLH_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

getawitness, Yes, I do not think ID has any moral implications of itself. But I can see ID leading to a more positive morality because it suggests the existence of God but then there are it seems an unlimited number of interpretations of God and all sorts of morality that can flow from these interpretations. I personally don't see ID leading to anything bad of itself where I can see very easily the connection of Darwinism to atheism and to negative moral outcomes. It is not a necessity as some have argued here but Darwinism seems to have left a unsavory legacy in its 150 year existence. After all Darwinism made Darwin an atheist, at least according to some who have written biographies of him. And as I pointed out above some of the high priests of atheistic destructive movements were Darwinists. And you cannot deny eugenics which also can be attributed to Darwinian thinking too. I have also seen German militaristic thinking in the late 1800's and early 1900's was based on Darwin and this led to WWI. The defenders of Darwinism really have to be blind to the potential outcomes of this type of thinking even if they themselves can proclaim they are as pure as the driven snow.jerry_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Let me correct what I said in [15] above. ID certainly has moral implications if my argument is accepted that ID science leads to a spiritual conclusion. If not, then either ID has no moral implications or ID is not (only) science.getawitness_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

ellazimm, Do you know who Gregory S. Paul is and his qualification to write the article he did? You should also read more about the crusades. Yes, the Albigensian crusade in France produced a lot of unwarranted killing but the crusades in the Muslim lands did not do much except for possibly the initial taking of Jerusalem. You seem to be susceptible to certain types of misinformation.jerry_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

jerry, "I think morality lies elsewhere than our origins with a spiritual being. It lies with the intent of God, not the fact that He is spiritual or supernatural." If that is the case, ID has no moral implications and the post is based on a false dichotomy.getawitness_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

jstanley01: When you refer to "African Americans" are you including Americans of, for example, Libyan, Moroccan, and Egyptian descent? Just wondering.Stanton Rockwell_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

ellazimm Yeah. Conflating correlation with causation can produce all kinds of nonsense like Paul's, one example being race as a cause of crime. The fact is, when African Americans are factored out in these kind of studies, crime rates between the US and Europe appear identical. So are higher crime rates among African Americans due to race? Not just "no" but "h*ll no!" Rather, they are a cultural legacy of chattel slavery --- which itself was a crime -- the fallout from which American society (and African American culture withing that society) is still sorting out.jstanley01_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Indeed, the U.S. scores the highest in religiosity and the highest (by far) in homicides, STDs, abortions, and teen pregnancies. Oh my! We must get the Bible, prayer and Christmas carols out of our schools immediately!!!!! I'm sure that after a generation or two of stridant secularization, homicides, STDs, abortions and teen pregnancies will drop to what they were in the 1950s.tribune7_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

getawitness, I am not sure what the distinction of spiritual and non spiritual has to do with it. What about the deist supposition of God. He created the universe and us and then took a hike and any plans for an after life based on how we lead our lives is our wishful speculation. I think morality lies elsewhere than our origins with a spiritual being. It lies with the intent of God, not the fact that He is spiritual or supernatural.jerry_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT}

I think there is a basis to connect Darwin with communism and there is much truth in this connection especially with Marx and Trotsky but Stalin apparently rejected anything to do with genetics after he got control mainly for political reasons. So bringing up Lysenko might be a dodge because the god figure of communism was certainly in the Darwinian camp. Thus, there can be some justification of the 125 million number because the two atheistic "isms" of communism and nazism chalked up those numbers between them and each of their founding fathers were worshipers at the altar of Darwin.jerry_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

DLH (and Bob O'H), It seems to me that design has moral implications only if, as I have been arguing in other threads, the designer is non-physical (i.e., spiritual). Design of life on earth has no moral implications if the designer is embodied (i.e., material). So it has no moral implications for someone holding the panspermia hypothesis. Should we be morally beholden to a material designer who seeded life on Earth? Design has moral implications only if we take the spiritual consequences of the design inference seriously.getawitness_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Ellazimm It seems you have cited a notoriously questionable article [apparently based on bad statistical methods], by an even more questionable, highly biased and agenda-driven underqualified author, appearing in a source of the same ilk. Cf the discussion here. The bottomline comment on the article there [after taking a look at a broader range of statistical factors and data than Mr Paul evidently did] is telling:
. . . it appears to us that Mr. Paul has selected data, both in terms of countries considered and specific crimes looked at, in such a way as to paint the picture that was already on his mind. As demonstrated above, a broader look at available data presents a far more nuanced picture . . . . In the mind of Gregory S. Paul, nothing good can come out of Christianity and religious faith. He has believed this for many years and has done his best to make his ideas available for public consumption. In this regard, bloggers who contacted The Journal of Religion and Society where Mr. Paul’s opus was published learned that the original draft made even greater claims for the data and had to be toned down.
On moral consequences of evolutionary materialism, I think DLH has raised a core question: on such premises, whence morality as anything beyond in the end might makes right? [Onlookers needing a bit of a tutorial may wish to cf. my own introductory level remarks on this and related issues here.] GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H Good question on moral consequences of ID vs revealed religion. I suggest that the empirical observation of universal use of right/wrong and fair/unfair indicate human beings have innate morality. By inference, this is a design feature. Consequently, I infer that the Intelligent Designer has moral attributes. By contrast, random combinations of the four forces of nature have no obvious moral implications. Consequently whatever can be interpreted as benefiting one person or group over another to survive can be deemed to be useful. The holocaust is justifiable for Darwinism as giving fewer mouths to feed and for providing slave labor that benefited the majority etc. PS Thanks getawitness for pointing out consensus.DLH_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H, You could start a really long debate about moral implications of ID beginning what is the meaning of moral. ID has the obvious implications in that someone designed what we see around us and this can send people in lots of directions. There are several thousand years of this because nearly everyone in the past thought the world was designed. So Bob, do your homework and read about the past and you will find a thousand ways people thought life should be lived based on what they believed were the intentions of the designers. Belief in no design is a recent phenomena and one that defies reason.jerry_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

BTW, there are several misspellings: "Pathological" in the post title and "Consensus" in the body.getawitness_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

The order of items in the list mainly illustrates the thinking of economists, who were the ones asked. They are not asked what's most important but what's most cost-effective. The position of global warming might just as well reflect an attitude of despair ("it's unstoppable, we're doomed") as indifference. This is, after all, a list that puts "trade liberalization" several places above increasing infant nutrition. The dismal science indeed: talk about your moral implications.getawitness_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

You do realize Lysenkoism was specifically formed because Stalin and company didn't like the implications of Darwinian evolution for ideological reasons? Lysenkoism is the archetypal form of anti-Darwinian biology, if anything its consequences seem to support Darwinism. Accusing Darwinism of behaving like Lysenkoism is like accusing relativity of being aether theory. Also, the 125 million figure is just wrong. Are you including Stalin? I think you must be, because any estimate that high probably does and he's the leading culprit for atheist atrocities. Stalin wasn't Darwinian, he was Lysenkoin, as you just said. He thought you could create heritable mutations to break the population of their bourgeois tendencies, which was part (okay, all) of the motivation behind the bolshevic Revolution. As for the actual science, you do realize that Darwinism and global warming are not related at all, yes? Many global warming activists are religiously motivated. I mean, the bad science might be similar, but global warming is basically about physics, it's not even remotely the same science as biology. Also, global warming isn't killing anyone today, it's a future problem, it's natural people would want to spend money on problems that are killing people today. I've come to expect much better than this from ID, if we're just going to randomly throw incorrect rhetoric around without fact-checking we're no better than the materialists supporting Darwinism.Bugsy_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT}

I'm curious - what are the moral implications of ID? I assume you accept the distinction between ID and creationism, so I find it difficult to see what you're getting at. BobBob O'H_{November 10, 2007
November
11
Nov
10
10
2007
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply