Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What’s wrong with uttering “Darwin” and “Hitler” in the same breath?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The post below appeared at UD 23Aug06, at which time it updated a still earlier post. I’m moving it to the top of the queue because of all the fuss about Ben Stein’s EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED connecting Darwin to Hitler. Get over it — there was a clear connection!

———————–

I posted these quotes (see below the fold) in May 2005 and am moving them to the top of the queue now because of the recent hubbub over D. James Kennedy’s upcoming program connecting Darwin and Nazi racism:

ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin for Hitler

NEW YORK, Aug. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ — The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.”

After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy’s project, Dr. Collins said he is “absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy’s program utterly misguided and inflammatory,” he told ADL.

ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement: “This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.

It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to “reclaim America for Christ” and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.”

The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book “Evolution’s Fatal Fruit: How Darwin’s Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions.”

A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program “features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler’s ovens.”

Source: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71089

To be sure, there were many other streams of thought that played into Nazi racism and the holocaust, but to say that Darwinism played no role, or even an insignificant role, is absurd. Read Richard Weikart’s FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY (go here).

The Nazi emphasis on proper breeding, racial purity, and weeding out defectives come from taking Darwin’s theory seriously and applying it at the level of society. Yes, Darwin himself did not take these such steps, but Galton and Haeckel, his contemporaries, saw where this was going and did.

The outrage which says that the Nazi racial theory is a vulgarization of Darwinism is simply unmerited. The Nazis took Darwinian theory and ran with it, much as Peter Singer does these days, though Singer and his disciples are careful not to bring race into the picture — they take an equal opportunity approach in advocating the elimination of human lives they deem defective or inconvenient.

By the way, the American Eugenics Society was started in 1922 and dissolved not until 1994. Richard Lewontin, quoted below, belonged to it. Theodosius Dobzhansky was its chairman of the board in 1956. J.B.S. Haldane was a member. You think maybe their Darwinism had something to do with them being members?

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. [Just so there is no doubt, the author in particular is claiming that whites will exterminate blacks.]
— Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 6.

Evolution teaches that “we are animals so that “sex across the species barrier ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. [Just so there is no doubt, “sex across the species barrier is a euphemism for bestiality.]
— Peter Singer, “Heavy Petting, 2001

Rape is “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage, akin to “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.
— Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, “Why Men Rape,” 2000

“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.
— E. O. Wilson and Michael Ruse, “The Evolution of Ethics,” 1991

According to Darwin, religious belief arises from ignorance of natural causes: “The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a full-grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory. The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods.
— Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 3

According to Richard Dawkins “the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. Moreover, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
— Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science to free people from superstition. Lest there be any doubt about what Steven Weinberg here means by “superstition, he adds, “this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make. [Weinberg, a Nobel laureate physicist, is well-known as an ardent evolutionist. He has debated Phillip Johnson on a number of occasions on this topic. Note that the demise of religion is for Weinberg the most important contribution of science.]
— Steven Weinberg, “Free People from Superstition, 2000

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door…. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, than miracles may happen.
— Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, 1997

Comments
Bill, You wrote: By the way, the American Eugenics Society was started in 1922 and dissolved not until 1994. Richard Lewontin, quoted below, belonged to it. Theodosius Dobzhansky was its chairman of the board in 1956. J.B.S. Haldane was a member. You think maybe their Darwinism had something to do with them being members? If by that you mean to say that evil men twist the ideas of others to justify evil actions then yes, I agree. The Origin of Species and/or The Descent of Man was used by those people to justify their actions in the same way the Spanish Inquisition used the New Testament of Jesus Christ to justify theirs.DaveScot
April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT
The Anti-Defamation League has apparently deleted Abraham Foxman's post denouncing the Darwin-to-Hitler "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" TV documentary of the Christian fundy Coral Ridge Ministries. Does anyone know why? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?Larry Fafarman
April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
Obviously, Darwin isn't responsible for the existence of mass-murdering megalomaniacs. All Darwin made possible was to be an intellectually fulfilled mass-murdering megalomaniac.jstanley01
April 20, 2008
April
04
Apr
20
20
2008
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Bill, I just wanted to tell you, that I just got back from seeing Expelled and that movie was so powerful. The moral importance of the ID movement is greater than I ever appreciated. There were times during the movie where I wanted to leave because it was becoming too overwhelming for me emotionally. What I got out of the movie is that one can become lost in the philosophy and physical debates regarding the legitimacy of ID but it is the moral quality of ID that makes it infinitely greater then the DE scientific and world view. Our side offers hope and a grounded belief that more can be done and their side takes the spirit prisoner. The moral thrust of that movie was so significant for me. It was difficult at times but the message of freedom and hope that shined through at the end really helped me see what the movement is really about. This movie will do more for ID Bill then you will ever know. ID has now entered the mainstream for the first time as it actually is and in the context in which it actually exists as an alternative to the bankrupt theory of DE. I want to thank you Bill for all that you have done. While God has been under great attack in this country for some time now we have managed to let them know that there truly aren't any atheists in foxholes.Frost122585
April 19, 2008
April
04
Apr
19
19
2008
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
The link is a very important one because the lack of morality of the Darwinian view of life leaves science hopeless and bankrupt. DE makes no claims about the value and intrinsic dignity of human life. If on the other hand we dare to look at science from the possibility that the world and things in it are not part of a hopeless materialistic process and are in fact part of a purposive one, then science because the beacon of hope and morality. The connection between DE and immorality is an inextricably essential one.Frost122585
April 19, 2008
April
04
Apr
19
19
2008
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
The Thinking Christianhas an excellent editorial post citing this topic: Why the Darwin-Hitler Link Is So SensitiveDLH
April 19, 2008
April
04
Apr
19
19
2008
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Fross --In the US the only people who still believe in some ladder of races (usually the white supremists) use the Bible to support their stance. Hardly. How can educated persons be so mind-numbingly ignorant of history: The Passing of the Great Race which Hitler called "my Bible" I'll refrain from linking to works by Margaret Sanger and Lothrop Stoddard to avoid the spam filter. You think the racists in the country are more influence by the Bible than Mrs. Sanger? Why is Planned Parenthood happily accepting donations targeted specifically at promoting abortions among blacks?tribune7
April 19, 2008
April
04
Apr
19
19
2008
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
See also the recent thread: Darwin and the Nazis on Richard Wiekart's article showing the Darwinian foundations used by the Nazis.DLH
April 18, 2008
April
04
Apr
18
18
2008
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
[...] My own view is that the reason for the controversy around films like the Coral Ridge special is precisely the fact that Darwinists have never really dealt with the implications of social Darwinism, so it keeps coming back to them like a bad penny. [...]What did Hitler believe about evolution?: Lines from a faroff Comments box | Uncommon Descent
May 23, 2007
May
05
May
23
23
2007
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Hi Poul, I don't think I will finish reading your blog pages at this moment. I started to read the one on Weikart but as I glanced it over decided it was too long for the time I have right now. In your comment here you've just said:
You are worried about the sentence “Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end.” What is meant here obviously is that, everyone, that aids towards making the laws of inheritance thoroughly known, does good service.
Of course that's what Darwin said. And when the laws are thoroughly known then what? According to Darwin, this:
Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man; he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities; all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; (man) must remain subject to a severe struggle; our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means; Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted; There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.
You:
Ask any YEC about the problems of recessive alleles that cause diseases. Isn’t ir ok to figure out the laws of inheritance, so some diseases might be avoided or at least known beforehand? Yes, I am aware that today, in many countries, a woman pregnant with a child with a hereditary disease will be offered an abortion. It’s a valid question, whether the woman is given sufficient advice, and whether the offer is given in too many cases. I have heard claims that you can get an abortion if you don’t like the gender of the embryo. But to me this is a VERY different issue than whether Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. And I can’t see how you are required to embrace an Intelligent Designer, because you may be skeptical about abortion policies.
None of this touches upon the question we are discussing. It is not whether or not this or that is okay, what our positions are on abortion, ID or the structure of the e. coli flagellum.
Darwin mentions consanguineous marriages, so we must assume that’s what he meant.
Good, yes, let's assume that Darwin meant what he said, but not just in the single sentence, but in the entire paragraph which houses that sentence. See above. Me:
What Darwin thought, like Galton to follow, was that laws should encourage the fit to have more offspring than the unfit so that man might continue to improve genetically.
You
Not so sure about that. Darwin and Galton merely wanted to avoid a lowering of public health - not necessarily a genetical improvement, and certainly no master race.
Darwin:
Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. ... but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end.... On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.
Let's once again assume Darwin meant what he said. You said:
I will have to look closer at this, since it doesn’t fit with, what else I have read from DoM - and I have been reading it yesterday.
You'll forgive me if I'm unable to feign surprise that Darwin appears self-contradicting and diffuses his points.
Ahh; but I have read Weikart now and can say that it misrepresents him as an absolute conclusion, but not as a tentative conclusion. Read my post linked to ad the beginning of this post.
Perhaps you can quote me your relevant points. The ones that demonstrate that Weikart says "No Darwin,No Hitler". Here's Weikart's response to someone else who made that accusation:
I think it's silly to claim that Darwin is personally responsible for the Holocaust, and I overtly reject this position in the conclusion of my book: "It would be foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust, as though Darwinism leads logically to the Holocaust. No, Darwinism by itself did not produce Hitler's worldview, and many Darwinists drew quite different conclusions from Darwinism for ethics and social thought than did Hitler." (p. 232) My arguments are not as simplistic as Richards seems to think. ... My book--despite the title--is not the simplistic Darwin to Hitler story that Richards implies it is. Richards may not like the fact that many leading Darwinists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries promoted infanticide, involuntary euthanasia, and racial extermination, but they did. Richards is certainly free to argue that these Darwinists were wrong to apply Darwinism in this way, but then he should be criticizing these Darwinists, not me.
You:
If a person is not a product of society, it must be a product of biology, which is ‘Darwinism’, isn’t it? Are you a Darwinist? Or do you think some intelligent designer has made us? That’s a possibility; but of little relevance - whether made by an intelligent designer or determined by genes we are born into an already existing society that simply doesn’t care. We are ‘raised’ (I’d rather say ‘lowered’) into that society by mechanisms existing before our birth.
Of little relevance indeed.
I doubt that Darwin’s book had a huge influence on the social background of the time; ptobably Charles Dickens’ novels had much more.
Opinion noted.
I am not so sure about this - again I will suggest that you read my two posts linked to at the beginning.
Perhaps if I have time later. Your inability thus far to critically read passages before you, as demonstrated yet again in this comment, doesn't make me think I will get much from your reviews.Charlie
September 5, 2006
September
09
Sep
5
05
2006
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Hi Charlie, First I will point you to a post on my blog: Some of Dembski's Favorite Quotes by Darwinists. I had posted it here as well; but apparently it didn't make it through the Explanatory Filter. I have also done a bit reading of Weikart, and my impression can be seen at: Richard Weikart and Darwinism. Ok, back to your post(s). You quote Darwin:
Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.
You are worried about the sentence "Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end." What is meant here obviously is that, everyone, that aids towards making the laws of inheritance thoroughly known, does good service. Ask any YEC about the problems of recessive alleles that cause diseases. Isn't ir ok to figure out the laws of inheritance, so some diseases might be avoided or at least known beforehand? Yes, I am aware that today, in many countries, a woman pregnant with a child with a hereditary disease will be offered an abortion. It's a valid question, whether the woman is given sufficient advice, and whether the offer is given in too many cases. I have heard claims that you can get an abortion if you don't like the gender of the embryo. But to me this is a VERY different issue than whether Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient for the evolution of the bacterial flagellum. And I can't see how you are required to embrace an Intelligent Designer, because you may be skeptical about abortion policies. You write:
Yes indeed. Evidence that even you and Darwin realize, as is obvious, that he is not talking only about consanguineous marriages, in the pursuit of Utopia.
Was Darwin pursuing Utopia? Does such a word make any sense to an atheist materialist? I doubt he was. Darwin mentions consanguineous marriages, so we must assume that's what he meant. Today some people might go further; but you might know: even the Bible have restrictions on marriages, so why blame the darwinists in particular? You write:
What Darwin thought, like Galton to follow, was that laws should encourage the fit to have more offspring than the unfit so that man might continue to improve genetically.
Not so sure about that. Darwin and Galton merely wanted to avoid a lowering of public health - not necessarily a genetical improvement, and certainly no master race. You quote Darwin:
Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.
I will have to look closer at this, since it doesn't fit with, what else I have read from DoM - and I have been reading it yesterday. You write:
It is sufficient that I inform you, the person with whom I am discussing the matter, that this misrepresents Weikart.
Ahh; but I have read Weikart now and can say that it misrepresents him as an absolute conclusion, but not as a tentative conclusion. Read my post linked to ad the beginning of this post. You write:
This is a very good point. Darwin was a product of his social background, and Hitler his (in so far as a person is a product of society in the first place).
If a person is not a product of society, it must be a product of biology, which is 'Darwinism', isn't it? Are you a Darwinist? Or do you think some intelligent designer has made us? That's a possibility; but of little relevance - whether made by an intelligent designer or determined by genes we are born into an already existing society that simply doesn't care. We are 'raised' (I'd rather say 'lowered') into that society by mechanisms existing before our birth. You write:
And, if you look into the era, Darwin’s book was a huge influence on the social background of the time - why, its principles were even taught Hitler in school.* As Weikart said, neither Hitler’s attitudes nor the holocaust had a monocausal history.
I doubt that Darwin's book had a huge influence on the social background of the time; ptobably Charles Dickens' novels had much more. And yes, its principle might have been taught Hitler in school. But I have been taught those principles in school as well, and I have no plans of killing any Jews, believe me! You write:
One need not be a US citizen (I’m not either) to be impressed by facts.
You are of course right here; but do we have facts here?
The connection from Darwin to Hitler is as clear as can be in that post.
I am not so sure about this - again I will suggest that you read my two posts linked to at the beginning. I have to wait till tomorrow answering your second post. I hope that's ok. have a nice day - pwe
Poul Willy Eriksen
September 5, 2006
September
09
Sep
5
05
2006
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Hi Poul,
As Wilkins mentions, Galton is not concerned with racial differences that are due to natural selection, but only those due to “some form or another of high civilisation”; that is, to culture.
Galton, in the quote provided, emphatically did not say that he is not concerned with racial differences which are due to natural selection. What he said is that he is not concerned at present with the greater part of those aptitudes which are surely owing to Darwin's natural selection but only with those among them which are available in higher civilization. By this quote, all traits are due to natural selection, and the ones interesting Galton are those "available in some form or another of high civilization". Your very next quote tells us what Galton did believe:
"Galton explicitly rejected the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism), and was an early proponent of “hard heredity” through selection alone."
This can hardly be called racism.
1) Point being? 2) Although there is no implication of your point to our discussion I will add that surely you aren't using this quote, which you misread, as refuting the fact that Galton promoted racist measures. Galton's racism is quite beside the point, but since you weren't interested in my post above I will highlight part of it that you might note:
In proposing the term eugenics, Galton had written, “We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving the stock to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had.” Galton believed that black people were entirely inferior to the white races and that Jews were capable only of “parasitism” upon the civilized nations. Karl Pearson, Galton’s chief disciple, shared his racial and anti-Semitic beliefs. For example, in 1925, Pearson wrote “The Problem of Alien Immigration into Great Britain, Illustrated by an Examination of Russian and Polish Jewish Children,” which argued against the admission of Jewish immigrants into England. http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:quhD9IK_EisJ:www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n1/eugenics.html+american+eugenics+based+evolution+social+darwinism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=safari
lso Galton rejected inheritance of acquired traits.
As a eugenicist would. Races aren't so inherently different if they can be made to acquire the same characteristics. As it turns out, selection was their only friend in this regard.
So Galton even went against Darwin!
He also went with Darwin! What have you attempted to demonstrate here? Nothing that refutes the connection, approval, and reciprocal influence as demonstrated in previous comments.Charlie
September 4, 2006
September
09
Sep
4
04
2006
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Hi Charlie: As promised, something about Francis Galton. Check out the article Darwin and the Holocaust - what's the real story? by John Wilkins. Wilkins quotes Galton:
Every long-established race has necessarily its peculiar fitness for the conditions under which it has lived, owing to the sure operation of Darwin's law of natural selection. However, I am not much concerned, for the present, with the greater part of those aptitudes, but only with such as are available in some form or another of high civilisation.
As Wilkins mentions, Galton is not concerned with racial differences that are due to natural selection, but only those due to "some form or another of high civilisation"; that is, to culture. This can hardly be called racism. Also Galton rejected inheritance of acquired traits. According to the Wikipedia article about him:
Galton conducted wide-ranging inquiries into heredity. In the process he was able to refute Darwin's theory of pangenesis. Darwin had proposed as part of this theory that certain particles, which he called 'gemmules' moved throughout the body and were also responsible for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Galton, in consultation with Darwin, set out to see if they were transported in the blood. In a long series of experiments in 1869 to 1871, he transfused the blood between dissimilar breeds of rabbits, and examined the features of their offspring. He found no evidence of characters transmitted in the transfused blood. Galton explicitly rejected the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism), and was an early proponent of "hard heredity" through selection alone.
So Galton even went against Darwin! All in all, I am still unsure about, what "Darwinism" is, and whether ot is anything at all. have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
September 4, 2006
September
09
Sep
4
04
2006
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Good Morning, Poul. You say:
I am not sure you are reading Darwin correct, I am afraid.
For a scientist he sure left his writing open to an amazing degree of interpretation. I'm happy with my reading, however.
Darwin does claim that social instincts exist (such as sympathy); but he certainly doesn’t claim that culture is of no importance.
Which is interesting, because nowhere have I said, nor has anyone that I can recall, that Darwin claimed that culture was of no importance. Whatever the degree of importance Darwin supposed for culture doesn't seem very significant to me. On that issue, I'll quote me:
Darwin obscures his message a little at the end ((as is his customary wont)), saying that more important than the struggle for existence is the effect of reason, religion, habit etc. But, the final salvo, these very results are, themselves, subject to natural selection - the struggle for existence.
Please notice that Darwin is here merely mentioning consanguineous marriages, which even the Old Testament forbids.
Yes, that is all he specifically mentions in this one sentence, but it shouldn't be snatched too far from its context. The preceding sentences:
Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.
And the very next one:
The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage.
Darwin was clearly not discussing only consanguineous marriages, although I will admit he was a very careful assembler of words. You quoted me next, and I shall like to as well:
The disingenuous reader will pretend to have forgotten the sentences before this and claim that Darwin is merely suggesting that lawmakers will “ascertain”, but will not act. But Darwin has already told us what the result of such searchers will be - we will find out that the unfit should not breed. It will be the job of these lawmakers, in doing, as Darwin just said, “good service” to aid toward this end, this Utopia.
And your response:
Making laws concerning consagineous marriages - I think most countries had such laws even before Charles Darwin (royalty usually excepted).
Yes indeed. Evidence that even you and Darwin realize, as is obvious, that he is not talking only about consanguineous marriages, in the pursuit of Utopia.
Sure, Darwin goes wrong here. He suggests that poor people should abstain from marriage rather than suggest social reforms improving life for the poor. But as far as I know this wasn’t what the Nazis thought
What Darwin thought, like Galton to follow, was that laws should encourage the fit to have more offspring than the unfit so that man might continue to improve genetically. You say:
Not as simple as that. Galton was of the opinion that natural selection wasn’t sufficiebt for the improvement of popular health. Just as Darwin he thought that culture - e.g. education - were better means.
No, from DoM, we see that this is what Darwin thought to be the better means toward improvement:
Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.
Which, of course, also deals with your next thought:
A struggle for survival will result. Contrary to how you read Darwin, this is actually not something that he found ideal, and that’s why he is concerned with eugenics.
You say:
Yes, it has - but if that wasn’t, what Darwin suggested, why is Darwin to blame? Why not search the causes, where the effects are?
My third post gives a very concise rundown as to why the connection is obvious. You:
Wasn’t there a very short line from Blyth to Darwin? So I’ll still claim that if we are to accept that Darwin stole all his ideas from Blyth, then social Darwinism must be the same as social Blythism.
Me, quoting me:
And I’m satisfied that my prior statement still applies: "When Hitler learned evolution in school in Austria and chose it over Biblical creation he was learning Darwin’s theory, promoted to the scientific community and popularized by Haeckel. It wasn’t Paley’s or Blyth’s nor even Deuteronomy’s version of inheritance that caught the attention of evolutionists, but Darwin’s. It was Darwin’s that caught on with popularizers like Haeckel because of the metaphysical implications and the support it lent a world view. Darwinism is/was different, and it was in those differences that it is/was wrong."
You:
You write: You haven’t read Weikart. Completely correct. But the phase “No Darwin, no Hitler!” is the quote that’s being thrown around, so if it misrepresents Weikart, please protest against those who came up with this quote.
It is sufficient that I inform you, the person with whom I am discussing the matter, that this misrepresents Weikart. You:
Because focusing on a line from Darwin to Hitler distorts things - as if history is made up of people reading and writing books. We need to look at the social backround - books are little more than epiphenomena.
This is a very good point. Darwin was a product of his social background, and Hitler his (in so far as a person is a product of society in the first place). And, if you look into the era, Darwin's book was a huge influence on the social background of the time - why, its principles were even taught Hitler in school.* As Weikart said, neither Hitler's attitudes nor the holocaust had a monocausal history. But, as Dembski said:
To be sure, there were many other streams of thought that played into Nazi racism and the holocaust, but to say that Darwinism played no role, or even an insignificant role, is absurd. Read Richard Weikart’s FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY.
not insignificant. * From Harvard historian, Steven Ozment’s A Mighty Fortress: A New History Of The German People.
In the New Age envisioned by National Socialism, biblical Christianity was politically subversive, even a “rebellion … against nature”91 . It’s perceived absurdity had been impressed on Hitler during his Austrian schooldays, when, as he mockingly recalled, students attended a catechism class at ten A.M. to hear the biblical story of Creation, only then to listen, at eleven A.M., to Darwin’s version of it in a natural science class - the latter winning hands down. 92 During the war years Hitler recommended a slow “natural death” for Christianity by exposing its dogmas to the light of science. 93
(all notes Adolf Hitler, Table Talk) You quote me and respond:
The point was that, for whatever reason you decided to inform me that Darwinian evolution did not allow for traits acquired by the adult form to be inherited, you were mistaken. No, “Darwinian evolution” means that aquired traits are not inherited - independent of, what darwin himself thought. It’s just like that the word “Darwinism” doesn’t necessarily reflect, what Darwin thought or wrote, and that’s my point: “Darwinism” apparently has little to do with Darwin.
Of course, you are right; Darwinian evolution did come to mean that acquired traits are not heritable. I apologize for losing context. I've veered well off my original thought on this point which came up here:
Poul: but “Darwinian evolution” has come to mean no aquired characteristics are inherited. Me: First, I don’t know what you want to debate this point for and how it has anything to do with whether or not a significant line can be drawn from Darwin to Hitler. But even though I am sure you are very well informed on evolution, you seem to have missed a little on the point of acquired traits; Darwin never was able to get away from Lamarckian concepts and they are, in a modified version, on the comeback trail today.
You:
Because anti-Darwinists claim that if you accept the theory of evolution, you either already are an atheist or you will evolve into one, and that everything bad comes from atheism, while everything good comes from theism.
I guess some say this, and some people misrepresent Weikart, but let's us try to keep to the discussion. You:
As for your third post, please notice that I am not a US citizen, so it doesn’t really impress me
One need not be a US citizen (I'm not either) to be impressed by facts. The connection from Darwin to Hitler is as clear as can be in that post.Charlie
September 4, 2006
September
09
Sep
4
04
2006
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Hi Charlie,
Now, if we continue to discuss this it appears as though I may only have to quote myself for many of my responses, as you are repeating your protests but not offering any reason to accept them.
Well, maybe we simply have different viewing angles and not really seeing the same things? You quote "The Descent of Man":
... For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.
and write:
From the beginning Darwin places man as a breeding animal, different in degree but not in kind. He discusses with favour selectively breeding for improved traits, first in man’s animals and then with man himself. He adds the imperative that man ought not breed, in an Utopia (the ideal situation) when possessing qualities in any way inferior, but laments that such will not be the case (thus a negative) until biology is better understood. Again, a demonstration that biology ought to be applied to human culture.
I am not sure you are reading Darwin correct, I am afraid. Please notice the part from DoM quoted above. Darwin does claim that social instincts exist (such as sympathy); but he certainly doesn't claim that culture is of no importance. You proceed:
Again, “everyone does good service, who aids toward this end”, demonstrates that Darwin knows fully that the situation which will result in the unfit not breeding will be to the positive. Next he moves his application of biology (such as it was) to lawmaking and beyond merely culture -”When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. “
Please notice that Darwin is here merely mentioning consanguineous marriages, which even the Old Testament forbids. You proceed:
The disingenuous reader will pretend to have forgotten the sentences before this and claim that Darwin is merely suggesting that lawmakers will “ascertain”, but will not act. But Darwin has already told us what the result of such searchers will be - we will find out that the unfit should not breed. It will be the job of these lawmakers, in doing, as Darwin just said, “good service” to aid toward this end, this Utopia.
Making laws concerning consagineous marriages - I think most countries had such laws even before Charles Darwin (royalty usually excepted). You continue:
He further stresses this idea when he says “The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. “ It is a problem, and of course, problems are those things which we ought solve. To advance mankind toward this Utopia the unfit must refrain from breeding children into poverty, with the additional admonition that those in poverty will then exasperate the problem by continuing marrying and breeding.
Sure, Darwin goes wrong here. He suggests that poor people should abstain from marriage rather than suggest social reforms improving life for the poor. But as far as I know this wasn't what the Nazis thought - they sold out of German gold reserves to finance building projects that reduced the high unemployment (well, that was in the beginning). You proceed:
Next Darwin moves reflecting on what his cousin, Francis Galton, one of those inspired by Darwin and one of the eugenics leaders and promoter of the idea of racial superiority, had to say on the subject. His concern being that the superior will actually reproduce at a lesser rate and be supplanted by the over breeding inferior members of society. This, of course, is to be avoided by those doing good service to aid the advancement of man’s welfare by applying the laws of inheritance. Man achieved his development through the struggle for survival and “and if he is to advance still higher ((which Darwin has said he should)), it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle”. Without such a struggle the gifted will not advance in numbers over the unfit ((which would be detrimental to man’s welfare)).
Not as simple as that. Galton was of the opinion that natural selection wasn't sufficiebt for the improvement of popular health. Just as Darwin he thought that culture - e.g. education - were better means. As for the rest of your post, please remember Darwin's dependency on Malthus. Say we have a rapidly increasing population, but not an equivalently rapid increase in food production, what then? A struggle for survival will result. Contrary to how you read Darwin, this is actually not something that he found ideal, and that's why he is concerned with eugenics. In your second post you write:
By the way, although the particular word “eugenics” has come to mean the killing of the less fit in the popular vernacular, and although Huxley rejected the term and selected his own ((which term I’ve forgotten at the moment, I believe it is somehting like “eubiology”)) all it means is to ensure proper breeding. In most applications this has meant forced sterilizations and segregation ((the preferred method in both America and NAzi Germany)) of the undesirables.
Yes, it has - but if that wasn't, what Darwin suggested, why is Darwin to blame? Why not search the causes, where the effects are? You ask:
The fascination of Darwin-defenders with religion and the Bible is evident. Why is it always a religious issue?
Because anti-Darwinists claim that if you accept the theory of evolution, you either already are an atheist or you will evolve into one, and that everything bad comes from atheism, while everything good comes from theism. You write:
A brick house is a house and natural selection is selection. It follows that calling something Social Darwinism does not make it different from Darwinism. Social Darwinism was/is the theory that society was structured in such a way as to impede the proper Darwinian evolution of man and that measures should be taken to correct this. As seen from Descent of Man this was exactly Darwin’s position, and was exactly Darwinism.
I beg to disagree :-) You write:
So not only do we now know that social Blythism is not the proper term for social Darwinism, but we also see that you admit the line from Darwin to Hitler. It’s a little hard now to see what your complaints in this thread involve, and what end your participation has been toward.
Wasn't there a very short line from Blyth to Darwin? So I'll still claim that if we are to accept that Darwin stole all his ideas from Blyth, then social Darwinism must be the same as social Blythism. You write:
You haven’t read Weikart.
Completely correct. But the phase "No Darwin, no Hitler!" is the quote that's being thrown around, so if it misrepresents Weikart, please protest against those who came up with this quote. You ask:
Why this fascination with ‘blame’?
Because focusing on a line from Darwin to Hitler distorts things - as if history is made up of people reading and writing books. We need to look at the social backround - books are little more than epiphenomena. Uou write:
The point was that, for whatever reason you decided to inform me that Darwinian evolution did not allow for traits acquired by the adult form to be inherited, you were mistaken.
No, "Darwinian evolution" means that aquired traits are not inherited - independent of, what darwin himself thought. It's just like that the word "Darwinism" doesn't necessarily reflect, what Darwin thought or wrote, and that's my point: "Darwinism" apparently has little to do with Darwin. You write:
Darwinism’ is very much understandable to the general public.
Is it? And even if it is, is the general public understanding of "Darwinism" denoting anything that really exists? As for your third post, please notice that I am not a US citizen, so it doesn't really impress me :-) From what I know about Francis Galton, he claimed that some psychological traits could be inherited in families; but just as Charles Darwin he claimed that culture was the main factor. I can provide evidence for this tomorrow, if you are interested. have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
September 4, 2006
September
09
Sep
4
04
2006
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
This is part three of this response. It appears the filter is mulling over lart two. By the way, if you are not satisifed with the connection between Darwin and the Nazi eugenics movement through Huxley and Haeckel, you can trace it this way, through America. The American eugenics movement
came into being primarily through the efforts of Charles Benedict Davenport, a biologist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University. While at Harvard as an instructor in the 1890s, Davenport became familiar with the early eugenicist writings of two Englishmen, the independently wealthy Francis Galton and his protégé Karl Pearson. ... In proposing the term eugenics, Galton had written, “We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving the stock to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had.” Galton believed that black people were entirely inferior to the white races and that Jews were capable only of “parasitism” upon the civilized nations. Karl Pearson, Galton’s chief disciple, shared his racial and anti-Semitic beliefs. For example, in 1925, Pearson wrote “The Problem of Alien Immigration into Great Britain, Illustrated by an Examination of Russian and Polish Jewish Children,” which argued against the admission of Jewish immigrants into England.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:quhD9IK_EisJ:www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n1/eugenics.html+american+eugenics+based+evolution+social+darwinism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=safari We know who Galton’s main influence was, his cousin Charles Darwin, and that Galton likewise influenced Darwin. But what does this have to do with the Nazi movement?
Hitler's debt to America The Nazis' extermination programme was carried out in the name of eugenics - but they were by no means the only advocates of racial purification. In this extract from his extraordinary new book, Edwin Black describes how Adolf Hitler's race hatred was underpinned by the work of American eugenicists ... Hitler proudly told his comrades how closely he followed American eugenic legislation. "Now that we know the laws of heredity," he told a fellow Nazi, "it is possible to a large extent to prevent unhealthy and severely handicapped beings from coming into the world. I have studied with interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:7j9j4w2IKDYJ:www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1142027,00.html+hitler+approved+inspired+American+eugenics&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=safari Cheers.Charlie
September 1, 2006
September
09
Sep
1
01
2006
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Continuing on:
So you agree that neither Darwin nor Huxley would have approved of Nazi methods to improve the German race? If you do agree, then the line from Darwin to Hitler shouldn’t seem to be all that straight to you, should it?
Nobody said the line was straight. Dr. Dembski said “to say that Darwinism played no role, or even an insignificant role, is absurd.” PWE:
No, no, again Darwin did not extent natural selection to human culture.
As demonstrated, yes he did.
If he had done that, no eugenics would be needed.
Again, your refutation of Darwin’s theory. Do read Stove. By the way, although the particular word “eugenics” has come to mean the killing of the less fit in the popular vernacular, and although Huxley rejected the term and selected his own ((which term I’ve forgotten at the moment, I believe it is somehting like “eubiology”)) all it means is to ensure proper breeding. In most applications this has meant forced sterilizations and segregation ((the preferred method in both America and NAzi Germany)) of the undesirables. PWE:
The popularization and acceptance of the idea of heritability of traits is to be found as far back as we have records, so nothing new there. What might have been new with Darwin was that it wasn’t necessary to kill the “unfit” or use severe punishments or anything else Old Testament-like. Simply suggesting that people with heritable diseases refrain from marrying until more was known about how inheritance worked.
See my first quote of myself in this comment. Me:
It was Darwin’s that caught on with popularizers like Haeckel because of the metaphysical implications and the support it lent a world view. Darwinism is/was different, and it was in those differences that it is/was wrong.
PWE:
Different by saying that you didn’t have to kill people?
This is an egregious and flagrant out-of-context quotation. Simply bad form. PWE:
Think about the Bible - it’s a book about punishments for bad behavior.
The fascination of Darwin-defenders with religion and the Bible is evident. Why is it always a religious issue? Me:
I don’t know. Is a ‘brick’ house different from a house? Is natural selection different from selection?
PWE:
A brick house is certainly somewhat different from a block house, and natural selection is certainly different from artificial selection.
A brick house is a house and natural selection is selection. It follows that calling something Social Darwinism does not make it different from Darwinism. Social Darwinism was/is the theory that society was structured in such a way as to impede the proper Darwinian evolution of man and that measures should be taken to correct this. As seen from Descent of Man this was exactly Darwin’s position, and was exactly Darwinism.
Sure there is a line between Darwin and Hitler. But there is also a line between Martin Luther and Hitler; but for some reason that line is less emphasized. There is even a much shorter line from the Austrian Christian Socialists to Hitler. We need not go all that far to find inspiration.
So not only do we now know that social Blythism is not the proper term for social Darwinism, but we also see that you admit the line from Darwin to Hitler. It’s a little hard now to see what your complaints in this thread involve, and what end your participation has been toward.
Weikart’s claim is that “No Darwin, No Hitler” as if Darwin somehow managed to completely change politics in central Europe. Shouldn’t we look for the causes somewhat closer to where things happened?
You haven’t read Weikart.
Darwin here writes “I think there can be no doubt”. Does that sound as a statement of a person that is fully convinced?
Nor, apparently, Darwin. This is all you get from Darwin “perhaps”, “maybe”, “I can well imagine”. Yes “I think there can be no doubt” is Darwin convinced. “There can be no doubt”=”it is absolutely true”. “I think” = “I am convinced”.
It’s true that Darwin never was able to get away from Lamarckian concepts; but shouldn’t that encourage us to be even more Darwinian than Darwin? And, yes, Lamarckian concepts appear to be on the comeback trail for some reason today. Is Darwin to blame for that?
Why this fascination with ‘blame’? The point was that, for whatever reason you decided to inform me that Darwinian evolution did not allow for traits acquired by the adult form to be inherited, you were mistaken. Throughout both Origins... and Descent ... he referred to and relied upon this concept. It was in subsequent years that Darwin’s defenders tried to purge the record as Lamarckism became so discredited. That there is a theory building that somatic changes may, in fact, be heritable after all, is not a comment on Darwin or Lamarck ((although the establishment self-consciously blinks at calling it neo-Lamarckism)), nor is it a blight on the theory.
Quite correct; but then maybe the se people should only use it in private conversations? This blog is public, so it would be advised to use words that are understandable to the general public, or at least clearly define, what a certain keyword means. I am not so sure “Darwinism” really means anything else than “Whatever we for some reason don’t like”.
‘Darwinism’ is very much understandable to the general public. It is only those ‘science defenders’ who want to pretend that anyone who uses it is so ignorant as to warrant their outright dismissal. If you want to comment on its use but don’t know what it means on this blog you should acquaint yourself. A short exchange: Me:
Natural selection’s ever vigilant weeding out of every trait the least bit deleterious and the progressive influence on the population toward improvement is Darwinism. PWE:Hurray!!! Here we get something approaching a definition. Now, how many people believe in this theory? It’s anyway easy to prove false (think about sicle cells). Also, if natural selection can do it, why bother with eugenics? That’s intelligent design, isn’t it? Me:Again, you are echoing Stove. This is exactly his point in challenging the theory and its acceptance, and yet, has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I am loathe to get into Darwin’s and Huxley’s rationalizations on this subject as it is really a distraction to the thread which you have chosen to debate. PWE:Why not? How come that “Darwinism” has come to mean “artificial selection”? Doesn’t that appear odd to you?
Your thoughts do not follow the line of reasoning. You said that “weeding out the defectives” is Blythism pure and simple, isn’t it?” I demonstrated how, in this regard, Darwinism is different. You attempted to refute Darwin by demonstrating that not all deleterious traits are effectively removed, but of course, he covered his own bases on that issue as well. Then you moved to eugenics and demonstrated how Darwinism is refuted by those who believe natural selection has been thwarted - Stove’s point once again ((or at least one of them)). As I said, you have to venture more deeply into Huxley to find where the theory stood on man as a natural force thwarting the cosmic force. It is not so clear a line between ‘natural and ‘artificial’. And finally, artificial selection and natural selection are analogous anyway, otherwise there is no Origins... and no Darwinism.
My point, as I am sure you know, was that, if we are to slander Darwin and Darwinists, why stop with them? Who is so clean as to throw the first stone?
The list of quotes you’ve strung together do not make a sensible thread to me. I can’t follow what you are demonstrating nor where you think there has been a slander. You have done nothing yet to demonstrate that any stones have been thrown unjustly, and I have repeatedly demonstrated that the OP was correct, including here
The outrage which says that the Nazi racial theory is a vulgarization of Darwinism is simply unmerited.
Charlie
September 1, 2006
September
09
Sep
1
01
2006
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
Hi Poul, Looks like we’re not getting as far as I’d previously estimated. Now, if we continue to discuss this it appears as though I may only have to quote myself for many of my responses, as you are repeating your protests but not offering any reason to accept them. You’ve most recently said:
My suggestion “let’s call it Blythism” was due to claims that Darwin stole his ideas from the creationist Blyth, and that the creationists that make this claim don’t realize that, if they are right, there is no reason for creationists to be anti-Darwinists.
And I’m satisfied that my prior statement still applies:
When Hitler learned evolution in school in Austria and chose it over Biblical creation he was learning Darwin’s theory, promoted to the scientific community and popularized by Haeckel. It wasn’t Paley’s or Blyth’s nor even Deuteronomy’s version of inheritance that caught the attention of evolutionists, but Darwin’s. It was Darwin’s that caught on with popularizers like Haeckel because of the metaphysical implications and the support it lent a world view. Darwinism is/was different, and it was in those differences that it is/was wrong.
PWE:
Because Darwin suggests that people voluntarily refrain from having children; there is nothing about the strong killing the weak or anything. Darwin’s concern is how to improve society, and he doesn’t suggest laissez fair capitalism or anything like that. That is; Darwin does not claim that “struggle for survival” should be the law in society - he rather wants to avoid that.
Here’s Darwin on the subject from the conclusion toDescent...:
Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.
Having picked up on your style since your first comment I don't expect you to conclude with me on this, so this reading is primarily for those more apt to consider it, but I think it is worth making here. From the beginning Darwin places man as a breeding animal, different in degree but not in kind. He discusses with favour selectively breeding for improved traits, first in man’s animals and then with man himself. He adds the imperative that man ought not breed, in an Utopia (the ideal situation) when possessing qualities in any way inferior, but laments that such will not be the case (thus a negative) until biology is better understood. Again, a demonstration that biology ought to be applied to human culture. Again, “everyone does good service, who aids toward this end”, demonstrates that Darwin knows fully that the situation which will result in the unfit not breeding will be to the positive. Next he moves his application of biology (such as it was) to lawmaking and beyond merely culture -”When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man. “ The disingenuous reader will pretend to have forgotten the sentences before this and claim that Darwin is merely suggesting that lawmakers will “ascertain”, but will not act. But Darwin has already told us what the result of such searchers will be - we will find out that the unfit should not breed. It will be the job of these lawmakers, in doing, as Darwin just said, “good service” to aid toward this end, this Utopia. He further stresses this idea when he says “The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. “ It is a problem, and of course, problems are those things which we ought solve. To advance mankind toward this Utopia the unfit must refrain from breeding children into poverty, with the additional admonition that those in poverty will then exasperate the problem by continuing marrying and breeding. Next Darwin moves reflecting on what his cousin, Francis Galton, one of those inspired by Darwin and one of the eugenics leaders and promoter of the idea of racial superiority, had to say on the subject. His concern being that the superior will actually reproduce at a lesser rate and be supplanted by the over breeding inferior members of society. This, of course, is to be avoided by those doing good service to aid the advancement of man’s welfare by applying the laws of inheritance. Man achieved his development through the struggle for survival and “and if he is to advance still higher ((which Darwin has said he should)), it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle”. Without such a struggle the gifted will not advance in numbers over the unfit ((which would be detrimental to man’s welfare)). And this struggle, “though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.” No laws, or customs, should exist which favour the breeding of the unfit over the more fit. Society should be set up in such a way ((read Huxley as well on his cosmic power principles and the gardener analogy)) that its laws and customs ensure the propagation of the gifted over those less so. “Our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means” as this ensures that society be “subject to a severe struggle” which will, in turn demand that “the more gifted men would ... be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted.” Darwin obscures his message a little at the end ((as is his customary wont)), saying that more important than the struggle for existence is the effect of reason, religion, habit etc. But, the final salvo, these very results are, themselves, subject to natural selection - the struggle for existence. This is, of course, a direct refutation of your claim, Poul, that ((although your first seven words are correct))
Darwin’s concern is how to improve society, and he doesn’t suggest laissez fair capitalism or anything like that. That is; Darwin does not claim that “struggle for survival” should be the law in society - he rather wants to avoid that.
I’m going to break this response here for length considerations.Charlie
September 1, 2006
September
09
Sep
1
01
2006
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Hi Charlie,
Now as well as coming off your initial point - “let’s call it Blythism” - I see you’ve also come around here, from saying:
Now, now, not so fast :-) My suggestion "let's call it Blythism" was due to claims that Darwin stole his ideas from the creationist Blyth, and that the creationists that make this claim don't realize that, if they are right, there is no reason for creationists to be anti-Darwinists.
My case is that we cannot in particular blame Charles Darwin for something such as “social Darwinism”. Even to the extent that Darwin extended biological evolution to human culture (which I fail to see that he did) to admitting From this he concludes that it be better for people not to marry (and we all know that you cannot beget children outside marriage ), if they are “in any marked degree inferior in body or mind”. This is eugenics, but it doesn’t imply any killing of of the “unfit”, only that some people for the common good should refrain from having children.
No, no. Because Darwin suggests that people voluntarily refrain from having children; there is nothing about the strong killing the weak or anything. Darwin's concern is how to improve society, and he doesn't suggest laissez fair capitalism or anything like that. That is; Darwin does not claim that "struggle for survival" should be the law in society - he rather wants to avoid that. You write:
I will stop here and join you in saying that Darwin never advocated killing people to further reflect evolutionary principles. I know for a fact that Huxley was against it (for the reason that man is not yet smart enough to determine who is ‘fittest’).
So you agree that neither Darwin nor Huxley would have approved of Nazi methods to improve the German race? If you do agree, then the line from Darwin to Hitler shouldn't seem to be all that straight to you, should it?
As I’ve said before, very little about Darwin’s offering was new, and I’ll go with the quote I presented before stating that that which was new was wrong.
According to prof. Haughton, remember? Anyway, what exactly was new in Darwin's (and Wallace's) theory? Bits and pieces could be fould elsewhere, so it would be the composition, wouldn't it? The gathering together and combining the results of others.
But now that we’re now agreed that Darwin did, in fact, extend his ideas of biology to human culture and suggest that man breed accordingly you want to move your defence of Darwin to “the Old Testament said it first”.
No, no, again :-) Darwin did not extent natural selection to human culture. If he had done that, no eugenics would be needed. My reference to the OT was to point out that eugenics there was a lot more like, what the Nazis did.
As I’ve said repeatedly, the idea of heritability of traits did not originate with Darwin, but the popularization and acceptance of it centered around him and the implications of his version. Once again, it was not called Social Darwinism for nothing.
The popularization and acceptance of the idea of heritability of traits is to be found as far back as we have records, so nothing new there. What might have been new with Darwin was that it wasn't necessary to kill the "unfit" or use severe punishments or anything else Old Testament-like. Simply suggesting that people with heritable diseases refrain from marrying until more was known about how inheritance worked.
It was Darwin’s that caught on with popularizers like Haeckel because of the metaphysical implications and the support it lent a worldview. Darwinism is/was different, and it was in those differences that it is/was wrong.
Different by saying that you didn't have to kill people? Think about the Bible - it's a book about punishments for bad behavior. Everything we humans do is for some reason wrong, and we have to be punished for it, even killed.
I don’t know. Is a ‘brick’ house different from a house? Is natural selection different from selection?
A brick house is certainly somewhat different from a block house, and natural selection is certainly different from artificial selction.
Please reread the thread and the OP, the point is not that social Darwinism, nor, Darwinism, nor Darwin himself, shoulder the blame, but that there is a line which connects them, and that it is not insignificant.
I have reread the OP, and possibly I will comment on it more directly next week. Sure there is a line between Darwin and Hitler. But there is also a line between Martin Luther and Hitler; but for some reason that line is less emphasized. There is even a much shorter line from the Austrian Christian Socialists to Hitler. We need not go all that far to find inspiration.
Note as well that this was not your complaint, nor the point I defended against. Your complaint is that that line suggests that we should refer to Blyth rather than Darwin. Now you want us to refer all the way back to Moses as well. Whichever deeper connection you’d like to make (and which we could then argue on its merits) , why not admit that one vital connection is the one pointed to by Dembski and BarryA, ie. ‘Darwin’?
As said, I agree there is a connection; but Darwin himself appears to actually have played very little role, and that's why I find Weikart's title "From Darwin to Hitler" misleading. Weikart's claim is that "No Darwin, No Hitler" as if Darwin somehow managed to completely change politics in central Europe. Shouldn't we look for the causes somewhat closer to where things happened? You quote Darwin:
From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications are inherited.
Darwin here writes "I think there can be no doubt". Does that sound as a statement of a person that is fully convinced?
First, I don’t know what you want to debate this point for and how it has anything to do with whether or not a significant line can be drawn from Darwin to Hitler.
My point is to say that the word "Darwinism" may mean different things to different people.
But even though I am sure you are very well informed on evolution, you seem to have missed a little on the point of acquired traits; Darwin never was able to get away from Lamarckian concepts and they are, in a modified version, on the comeback trail today.
It's true that Darwin never was able to get away from Lamarckian concepts; but shouldn't that encourage us to be even more Darwinian than Darwin? And, yes, Lamarckian concepts appear to be on the comeback trail for some reason today. Is Darwin to blame for that?
If the word means nothing to you I would wonder why you are arguing about its use. If it means something to the people who are (or were) using it and to whom they are communicating then it serves its purpose.
Quite correct; but then maybe the se people should only use it in private conversations? This blog is public, so it would be advised to use words that are understandable to the general public, or at least clearly define, what a certain keyword means. I am not so sure "Darwinism" really means anything else than "Whatever we for some reason don't like".
Again, you are echoing Stove. This is exactly his point in challenging the theory and its acceptance, and yet, has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Why not? How come that "Darwinism" has come to mean "artificial selection"? Doesn't that appear odd to you?
You say “let’s not draw the line to Darwin, but let’s draw it through him to everything that preceded him”. I say “go ahead, but don’t forget to stop and admit, on your way through, that the OP and BarryA’s points then are proven valid by your tour”.
Sorry Charlie; but I am still looking for exactly, where Darwin fits into this. The OP lists selected quotes from evolutionists, including Charles Darwin. I suppose that you know that quote-mining can be used to prove just about anything, and of course that statements of individuals only tell us, what those individuals might have thought. Let's just have a look at this bit from the OP:
According to Richard Dawkins “the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design.” Moreover, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” —Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986
This is, what Richard Dawkins means, and what's actually wrong with it? For Dawkins "the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design"; how does that relate to the holocaust, which was designed? For Dawkins "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist". How does that relate to the holocaust considering that many German intellectuals were Jews? I fail to see those connections. Sure, I cannot claim that you, BarryA, William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary and many more cannot see the connections; but that puts these people into some kind of esoteric cult that manages to see things that no-one else can see, a cult that induces certain words with magic properties. Is the ID movement a cabbalistic cult?
in a thread where Darwin’s supporters have made sure to point out that a person’s characteristics or opinions don’t impact the validity of his work.
My point, as I am sure you know, was that, if we are to slander Darwin and Darwinists, why stop with them? Who is so clean as to throw the first stone?
However, since you also warned us about arguing against a position a person never took ( or words he never wrote) I would suggest you read Stove in context before worrying about whether or not such claims are valid.
That's sound advice, and I have actually started reading some of his material. However, from what I know by now, I'd say that he appears to be somewhat overestimated by some people :-)
I’m sorry that Denyse’s review didn’t sell you on the book - but then, maybe I was wrong and it isn’t up your alley.
Don't worry :-) I agree with Stove that we cannot reduce sociology and psychology to biology. have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
September 1, 2006
September
09
Sep
1
01
2006
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
This one was my fault. I made a formatting error and lost part of my reference to Darwin on acquired traits. From Origins:
Chapter V. Laws of Variation Effects of the increased use and disuse of parts, as controlled by Natural Selection From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications are inherited.
Charlie
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT
I don't think it's my error all the time here - I think the formatting is weird. In my first quote of you, PWE, the words "to admitting" belong outside of the quoted sections as a link. Later.Charlie
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Hi Poul, So at least we're getting somewhere. Now as well as coming off your initial point - "let's call it Blythism" - I see you've also come around here, from saying:
My case is that we cannot in particular blame Charles Darwin for something such as “social Darwinism”. Even to the extent that Darwin extended biological evolution to human culture (which I fail to see that he did) to admitting
From this he concludes that it be better for people not to marry (and we all know that you cannot beget children outside marriage ), if they are “in any marked degree inferior in body or mind”. This is eugenics, but it doesn’t imply any killing of of the “unfit”, only that some people for the common good should refrain from having children.
I will stop here and join you in saying that Darwin never advocated killing people to further reflect evolutionary principles. I know for a fact that Huxley was against it (for the reason that man is not yet smart enough to determine who is 'fittest'). Even though you are surrendering the points you had chosen previously to argue, you also continue to try to argue against a point I'm not making:
It may be debated to what extent intellectual and moral qualities are biologically inherited, and even which standard should be used. But was this at all anything new?
As I've said before, very little about Darwin's offering was new, and I'll go with the quote I presented before stating that that which was new was wrong. But now that we're now agreed that Darwin did, in fact, extend his ideas of biology to human culture and suggest that man breed accordingly you want to move your defence of Darwin to "the Old Testament said it first". However, I'm going to save myself the time of reading and interpreting the Biblical passages you've supplied as that is a red herring. As I've said repeatedly, the idea of heritability of traits did not originate with Darwin, but the popularization andacceptance of it centered around him and the implications of his version. Once again, it was not called Social Darwinism for nothing. When Hitler learned evolution in school in Austria and chose it over Biblical creation he was learning Darwin's theory, promoted to the scientific community and popularized by Haeckel. It wasn't Paley's or Blyth's nor even Deuteronomy's version of inheritance that caught the attention of evolutionists, but Darwin's. It was Darwin's that caught on with popularizers like Haeckel because of the metaphysical implications and the support it lent a worldview. Darwinism is/was different, and it was in those differences that it is/was wrong.
Few would deny there was something that was termed “social Darwinism” - but by its very name, it must have been something different from Darwinism, right?
I don't know. Is a 'brick' house different from a house? Is natural selection different from selection? What we do know is that Darwin advocated for the application of his principles as social policy, as did his supporters, with whom he agreed, as did his cousin, whom he quoted favourably on the issue, as did his son, who felt he was doing what his father would have wanted him to do with the theory - I bet he had a pretty good idea what that was. Don't forget that when Haeckel wrote about his application of biology to human society Darwin and Huxley said he was merely going boldly where the theory logically demanded.
As for the rest of the quote, it’s too simplistic to blame it on social Darwinism, unless that term be very broadly defined.
Please reread the thread and the OP, the point is not that social Darwinism, nor, Darwinism, nor Darwin himself, shoulder the blame, but that there is a line which connects them, and that it is not insignificant. Note as well that this was not your complaint, nor the point I defended against. Your complaint is that that line suggests that we should refer to Blyth rather than Darwin. Now you want us to refer all the way back to Moses as well. Whichever deeper connection you'd like to make (and which we could then argue on its merits) , why not admit that one vital connection is the one pointed to by Dembski and BarryA, ie. 'Darwin'?
Yes, but what is this thing called ‘Darwinism’? Isn’t it an invention of David Stove?
I think not. As I mentioned earlier, the first person I've read who referred to Darwinism was Haeckel. And we know what he made of the theory, and we know that Darwin approved of, learned from, and agreed with Haeckel.
As for your point 1: yes, it’s true that Darwin drew upon ideas that already existed, but he had a few twists to things. Unlike Lamarck, Darwin was skeptical about inheritance of aquired characteristics - though as you notice, he wasn’t completely clear about this
If by "not clear" you mean purposefully vague and broad, yes, Darwin was very often not clear. He was certainly clear enough, however, to write a chapter on it in his seminal work:
From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications are inherited.
Then you say:
but “Darwinian evolution” has come to mean no aquired characteristics are inherited.
First, I don't know what you want to debate this point for and how it has anything to do with whether or not a significant line can be drawn from Darwin to Hitler. But even though I am sure you are very well informed on evolution, you seem to have missed a little on the point of acquired traits; Darwin never was able to get away from Lamarckian concepts and they are, in a modified version, on the comeback trail today.
Charlie, what is this here thing called “Darwinism”? Is it sociobiology, biological reductionism, evolutionary psychology, or what? To me, the word “Darwinism” doesn’t really mean anything.
If the word means nothing to you I would wonder why you are arguing about its use. If it means something to the people who are (or were) using it and to whom they are communicating then it serves its purpose. I said:
Natural selection’s ever vigilant weeding out of every trait the least bit deleterious and the progressive influence on the population toward improvement is Darwinism.
And you replied:
Hurray!!! Here we get something approaching a definition. Now, how many people believe in this theory? It’s anyway easy to prove false (think about sicle cells). Also, if natural selection can do it, why bother with eugenics? That’s intelligent design, isn’t it?
Again, you are echoing Stove. This is exactly his point in challenging the theory and its acceptance, and yet, has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I am loathe to get into Darwin's and Huxley's rationalizations on this subject as it is really a distraction to the thread which you have chosen to debate.
As for your point 2: what’s in a name? What is it these people want to prove? That’s where I am confused. If we prove that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved by natural means, how does that relate to e.g. the holocaust? I’m simply trying to figure out, what it’s all about. This is an ID site, so I suppose that threads have some relation to ID. An intelligent designer could easily have designed us to kill each other, so how does ID fare better than social Darwinism?
You ask big questions, but they relate very little to what we have discussed. You said "let's call it Blythism" - I showed you that it wasn't Blythism. You said "I haven't seen where Darwin suggested we apply biology to human culture" - I showed you where he did. You said "perhaps Haeckel and Huxley read him wrong" - I showed you where he approved of their reading and their conclusions. You say "let's not draw the line to Darwin, but let's draw it through him to everything that preceded him". I say "go ahead, but don't forget to stop and admit, on your way through, that the OP and BarryA's points then are proven valid by your tour". On your final point I am amused at the, let's call it "irony", of your making this statement:
Anyway, I did some research about David Stove, and apparently he was an evolutionist, and not only that: he accepted racism and that women are intellectually inferior to men. No, that’s really to guy to have as your role model, isn’t he?
in a thread where Darwin's supporters have made sure to point out that a person's characteristics or opinions don't impact the validity of his work. For instance, not so very long ago you had said
What I am targetting is that many people attack Darwin’s person to discredit the theory of evolution.
I never said anyone should take Stove as a role model, just like I never accused people who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution of taking him for a role model. Funny how they claim that to attack Darwin as though he is the deity of evolution is to commit the genetic fallacy or ad hominem, and yet they spend so much time defending his character. I haven't researched Stove's background or personality but have read the book that I mentioned and have weighed the ideas he presents on their merits. However, since you also warned us about arguing against a position a person never took ( or words he never wrote) I would suggest you read Stove in context before worrying about whether or not such claims are valid.I'm sorry that Denyse's review didn't sell you on the book - but then, maybe I was wrong and it isn't up your alley.Charlie
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Hi Charlie, You quote Darwin saying:
Yet he (man) might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities.Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known.
Now, here Darwin suggests that biological inheritance might not only apply to physical characteristics but also to intellectual and moral qualities. From this he concludes that it be better for people not to marry (and we all know that you cannot beget children outside marriage ;-)), if they are "in any marked degree inferior in body or mind". This is eugenics, but it doesn't imply any killing of of the "unfit", only that some people for the common good should refrain from having children. It may be debated to what extent intellectual and moral qualities are biologically inherited, and even which standard should be used. But was this at all anything new? In Genesis 38 we have the story about Judah, his three sons and Tamar. Judah finds a wife, Tamar, for his eldest son, Er. However, Er is wicked in the eyes of God, so God kills Er. This brings the levirate marriage into play; but notice the idea here: wicked people should not marry - because they'll beget wicked children. The idea of everything being inheritable wasn't Darwin's invention, but a very old idea. Also notice that the OT is very much against mixed marriages, and for the same reason. Even religion is inheritable! Notice Deuteronomy 23, which list the number of generations it takes before people of different etnicities can appear in the assembly. For Ammonites and Moabites the number is ten generations, for Edomites and Egyptians it is three generations. To appear in the assembly means also means to have civil rights, not to be counted as a foreigner. Among the civil rights would be the right to marry a native. Mentioning the word 'native', it is derived from a lation word meaning '(to) be born'; that is, nationality is something you are born with. Therefore you are also born with the culture of your nationality. That's simply the way things were seen back then - and to some extent today by many people. Eugenics have existed as far back as we have historical records, it's not something invented in the mid 19th century. You quote BarryA:
The evidence is overwhelming that the moral and intellectual climate of the early to mid 20th Century was heavily influenced by Darwin and his intellectual progeny. There is even a name for the phenomenon: Social Darwinism. It is utterly absurd to suggest that Social Darwinism did not exist, and it is just as absurd to suggest that there is no connection between that phenomenon and the holocaust, the gulag, the cultural revolution, and the killing fields.
Few would deny there was something that was termed "social Darwinism" - but by its very name, it must have been something different from Darwinism, right? The term was applied to Herbert Spencer's theory, which predated Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. As for the rest of the quote, it's too simplistic to blame it on social Darwinism, unless that term be very broadly defined. And even if we do, what is BarryA actually implying? Spencer's theory was a defense for capitalism, Stalin was a Marxist. How can laissez faire capitalism and forced collectivization be brought to mean the same thing? As for the holocaust, yes, it did rely on the idea that Jews, who had no nation on their own, couldn't be nationalists and therefore (assuming views towards nationalism to be inheritable) not good for German nationalism. It has nothing dorectly to do with social Darwinism, but with the idea that everything is inheritable, and that'a an age-old idea. Also, some of the fiercest proponents of that idea are conservative Christians! You quote the OP
To be sure, there were many other streams of thought that played into Nazi racism and the holocaust, but to say that Darwinism played no role, or even an insignificant role, is absurd. Read Richard Weikart’s FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY (go here).
Yes, but what is this thing called 'Darwinism'? Isn't it an invention of David Stove? You write:
You are still concerned that the theory was somehow unique to Darwin. My points have been twofold: 1) the empirical, observed, scientific theories of variation and selection, even radiation of species, did not originate with Darwin. He was not original in this. 2) The OP talks about the line going from Darwin to Hitler. The very fact that it was called Social Darwinism and not Blythism or Wallacism, that its proponents cited Darwin, that it was Darwin’s version (even as it separated from Wallace’s) that was promoted and sold to the scientific mainstream, backs up that claim.
As for your point 1: yes, it's true that Darwin drew upon ideas that already existed, but he had a few twists to things. Unlike Lamarck, Darwin was skeptical about inheritance of aquired characteristics - though as you notice, he wasn't completely clear about this; but "Darwinian evolution" has come to mean no aquired characteristics are inherited. As for your point 2: what's in a name? What is it these people want to prove? That's where I am confused. If we prove that the bacterial flagellum could have evolved by natural means, how does that relate to e.g. the holocaust? I'm simply trying to figure out, what it's all about. This is an ID site, so I suppose that threads have some relation to ID. An intelligent designer could easily have designed us to kill each other, so how does ID fare better than social Darwinism?
Again, whatever may or may not be true of Darwin has no effect on the truthfulness of any thjeories of evolution.
Fully agreed - and I wish more people would realize this.
As I’ve shown, however, the ideas that were key were known by even those closest supporters as entailing Darwinism, and it was with Darwin as the key figure that it was promoted to the scientific community as well as the public.
Charlie, what is this here thing called "Darwinism"? Is it sociobiology, biological reductionism, evolutionary psychology, or what? To me, the word "Darwinism" doesn't really mean anything. You write:
Natural selection’s ever vigilant weeding out of every trait the least bit deleterious and the progressive influence on the population toward improvement is Darwinism.
Hurray!!! Here we get something approaching a definition. Now, how many people believe in this theory? It's anyway easy to prove false (think about sicle cells). Also, if natural selection can do it, why bother with eugenics? That's intelligent design, isn't it? You write (about Stove's Fairytales):
I think you’d get much more out of the book than you seem to have from Denyse’s review.
You might be right here :-) But then maybe Denyse should have written a review, that would have made me more interested in David Stove? Anyway, I did some research about David Stove, and apparently he was an evolutionist, and not only that: he accepted racism and that women are intellectually inferior to men. No, that's really to guy to have as your role model, isn't he? have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
August 31, 2006
August
08
Aug
31
31
2006
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Hi Poul,
"Similarly, without Einstein, there would still have been something like the theory of relativity; without Darwin, something close to the theory of evolution. But they wouldn't have been the same theories. They wouldn't have been formulated in the same way or presented with the same vigor, the same force of persuasion. They wouldn't have had the same influence or the same consequences." (Jacob F., "Of Flies, Mice, and Men," [1997], Weiss G., transl., Harvard University Press: Cambridge MA, 1998, pp.140-141).
My last comment was not a reply to you, as you were still in the spam filter,I think. Now you've said:
My case is that we cannot in particular blame Charles Darwin for something such as “social Darwinism”.
Good enough,
Even to the extent that Darwin extended biological evolution to human culture (which I fail to see that he did), he wasn’t alone and not in any way the originator of that idea.
I guess you and I will interpret these statements differently then: Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man volume II, pages 438-9.
Yet he (man) might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities.Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguinous marriages are injurious to man. The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand , Mr. Galton (cousin of Charles and father of the eugenics) had remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the most fitted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the les gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.
As you were responding first to BarryA it is worth noting what he said, and it was not that we can "In particular blame Charlse Darwin:
The evidence is overwhelming that the moral and intellectual climate of the early to mid 20th Century was heavily influenced by Darwin and his intellectual progeny. There is even a name for the phenomenon: Social Darwinism. It is utterly absurd to suggest that Social Darwinism did not exist, and it is just as absurd to suggest that there is no connection between that phenomenon and the holocaust, the gulag, the cultural revolution, and the killing fields. Some of the comments on this post remind me of Miracle Max in Princess Bride running around with his hands over his ears yelling “nah nah nah, I’m not listening, nah nah nah.” Comment by BarryA — August 23, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
And, of course, the OP said:
To be sure, there were many other streams of thought that played into Nazi racism and the holocaust, but to say that Darwinism played no role, or even an insignificant role, is absurd. Read Richard Weikart’s FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY (go here).
You said:
Unfortunately it’s unclear to me, who is saying, what here. It’s true that Prof. Haughton said that `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ But notice that Darwin presented his paper together with Wallace, so we are not dealing with something unique to Darwin.
You are still concerned that the theory was somehow unique to Darwin. My points have been twofold: 1) the empirical, observed, scientific theories of variation and selection, even radiation of species, did not originate with Darwin. He was not original in this. 2) The OP talks about the line going from Darwin to Hitler. The very fact that it was called Social Darwinism and not Blythism or Wallacism, that its proponents cited Darwin, that it was Darwin's version (even as it separated from Wallace's) that was promoted and sold to the scientific mainstream, backs up that claim.
What I am targetting is that many people attack Darwin’s person to discredit the theory of evolution.
Again, whatever may or may not be true of Darwin has no effect on the truthfulness of any thjeories of evolution. That has been repeated comment after comment on this thread. As our discussion degenerates we may actually get to why Darwin's character and motives matter historically and in the present, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Darwinsim describes reality.
Huxley and Haeckel were influenced by Darwin, but they certainly had their own ideas as well, and maybe the influence was running the other way as well?
Of course it was. As I said, Darwin was far from original, and very much influenced by his peers, even while taking the credit. As I've shown, however, the ideas that were key were known by even those closest supporters as entailing Darwinism, and it was with Darwin as the key figure that it was promoted to the scientific community as well as the public.
As for the metaphysical application, I am not completely sure. I doubt that Huxley belived that stars are somehow biological. That we can talk about change as a general principle doesn’t render everything organic, does it? Nor does it imply that all kinds of changes are the same. Do you have proof that Huxley went as far as to claim any such thing?
Of course not. However you are choosing to make this rhetorical question relevant (and I have my own ideas) I'll wait until you make a point out of it before I respond.
In Darwinian evolution, the properties inherited are fixed at conception, which is not the case with Goethian and Lamarckian evolution. So it’s all a question about, where you put the focus.
Read my previous post on what mattered to the proponents in terms of what was accepted or rejected. As well, if you look into Darwin further you will find, as usual, he was quite undecided about his theory of pangenesis and spent as much time embracing Lamarckism and acquired traits through use and disuse.
The “weeding out the defectives” is Blythism pure and simple, isn’t it?
Natural selection's ever vigilant weeding out of every trait the least bit deleterious and the progressive influence on the population toward improvement is Darwinism.
Thanks for the suggestion - and I have already read Denyse’s review. My review of her review can be found here: Denyse O’Leary and Darwinian Fairy Tales.
I think you'd get much more out of the book than you seem to have from Denyse's review. We can discuss its points later if we have time and interest.
But I don’t think that the metaphysics was all that important to Darwin.
I think you are entirely mistaken. Have a great day.Charlie
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
To put the final fine point on Darwin's metaphysics I refer to the first commenter on this thread, Bevets, and his website. http://bevets.com/evolution.htm#atheism Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. ~ William Provine   [Darwins's notebooks] include many statements showing that he espoused but feared to expose something he perceived as far more heretical than evolution itself: philosophical materialism -- the postulate that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. ~ Stephen Jay Gould There is indeed one belief that all true original Darwinians held in common, and that was their rejection of creationism, their rejection of special creation. This was the flag around which they assembled and under which they marched. When Hull claimed that “the Darwinians did not totally agree with each other, even over essentials”, he overlooked one essential on which all these Darwinians agreed. Nothing was more essential for them than to decide whether evolution is a natural phenomenon or something controlled by God. The conviction that the diversity of the natural world was the result of natural processes and not the work of God was the idea that brought all the so-called Darwinians together in spite of their disagreements on other of Darwin’s theories. ~ Ernst MayrCharlie
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Hi Charlie, You write:
I must say that you seem to have abandoned trying to make any case for your thesis and moved onto merely doubting my supporting points. This is a valid strategy, in my opinion, and one in which I often engage, if you are actually dismantling the main argument by knocking out it its supports. I don’t see that you are doing that, however.
You are right here :-) My case is that we cannot in particular blame Charles Darwin for something such as "social Darwinism". Even to the extent that Darwin extended biological evolution to human culture (which I fail to see that he did), he wasn't alone and not in any way the originator of that idea.
Recall that although the empirical science marshalled by Darwin was in no way original, it was his take on it that became known almost immediately by his proponents as Darwinism
You back this claim up with the following quote:
“When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism.”
Unfortunately it's unclear to me, who is saying, what here. It's true that Prof. Haughton said that `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.’ But notice that Darwin presented his paper together with Wallace, so we are not dealing with something unique to Darwin. What I am targetting is that many people attack Darwin's person to discredit the theory of evolution. But it's historiocal circumstances that has lead to the misnomer "Darwinism". The adjective "Sarwinian" has some merit - distinguishing between Darwinian evolution and Lamarckian evolution, and between Darwinian inheritance and Mendelian inheritance. But this is only for practical reasons, the person Charles Darwin does not enter the equation on either side. Even if the term "Darwinism" was coined and used early, we still need to figure out, what was really meant by it back then, don't we?
Which are you not sure of, that these supporters were influenced by Darwin, or that they applied a metaphysical consequence to their science? Both points, of course, are supported in my original comment.
Huxley and Haeckel were influenced by Darwin, but they certainly had their own ideas as well, and maybe the influence was running the other way as well? As for the metaphysical application, I am not completely sure. I doubt that Huxley belived that stars are somehow biological. That we can talk about change as a general principle doesn't render everything organic, does it? Nor does it imply that all kinds of changes are the same. Do you have proof that Huxley went as far as to claim any such thing? I am not particular familiar with Haeckel, but apparently his idea of evolution was different in certain ways. Goethe and Lamarck don't have a whole lot in common with Darwin, do they? In Darwinian evolution, the properties inherited are fixed at conception, which is not the case with Goethian and Lamarckian evolution. So it's all a question about, where you put the focus. You give the following quote from a letter from Darwin to Huxley:
People complain of the unequal distribution of wealth, but it is a much greater shame and injustice that any one man should have the power to write so many brilliant essays as you have lately done. There is no one who writes like you…If I were in your shoes, I should tremble for my life. I agree with all you say, except that I must think that you draw too great a distinction between the evolutionists and the uniformitarians.
I haven't read the whole letter (I'll do it later today); but notice that Darwin here disagrees with Huxley concerning evolutionists and uniformitarians. That is, I suppose, that Darwin did not consider himself to be a progressionist. Your second letter quote deals with "the question whether an act done impulsively or instinctively can be called moral". Here, Huxley and Darwin agree, but who influenced who? And Wallace and (John Stuart) Mill are mixed into it. Things are more complicated than to just have Darwin as a hub around which everything else is turning. It's anyway a moral discussion. Is it only moral to do something you wouldn't do, ubless it was defined as moral? You write:
No, neither Hitler’s, nor anyone’s, use or misuse of Darwin’s theory can make it either evil or wrong. I haven’t argued that and it was not the point of this thread. That point has been well-discussed from the beginning and is irrelevant to the game you suggested regarding crediting Blyth with Social Darwinism.
In the OP William Dembski wrote:
The Nazi emphasis on proper breeding, racial purity, and weeding out defectives come from taking Darwin’s theory seriously and applying it at the level of society. Yes, Darwin himself did not take these such steps, but Galton and Haeckel, his contemporaries, saw where this was going and did.
The "weeding out the defectives" is Blythism pure and simple, isn't it? Darwin turned things around and claimed that natural selection can lead to a new species, not simply preserve it as it is. Both Darwin and Blyth drew upon artficial breeding auch as done by cattle breeders, so "proper breeding" could also have been derived from Blyth. As for racial purity, it's only supposed to be a corollary of proper breeding. You write:
I am sure you would like, if you haven’t previously done so, to read David Stove’s Darwinian Fairytales on this subject, or failing that Denyse O’Leary presented a good review of it on her blog, and there are as well Stove articles breaking the ideas down to 10 things Darwinists believe online. I am afraid I am not up to finding the urls right now, but you should have no trouble should you choose to Google them.
Thanks for the suggestion - and I have already read Denyse's review. My review of her review can be found here: Denyse O'Leary and Darwinian Fairy Tales. My problem with all this is that "Darwinism" refers to some sort of biological reductionism, which I doubt many scientists buy into. Some people do, I admit. On a website I once posted some information about social science in a thread about that subject, because I consider there to be sucha thing as a social science. Another poster, however, expected that social science would disappear, because it had nothing to add to natural science. So, sure, these biologists exist out there, but how many are there?
Yes, as you attempt to falsify Darwin’s theory of evolution I would say you definitely would find a kindred spirit in David Stove.
No, I am not attempting to falsify Darwin's theory of evolution, only saying that biological evolution vannot account for everything. I agree with you, Stove, Denyse, and most others about this. Where I disagree is about whether it is required that the bacterial flagellum be impossible to evolve by natural means :-)
Your attempts to refute Darwinism do not go without notice and I wish you well in them.
Thanks for your kind words - but as above, my whole point is that "Darwinism" isn't in particular tied to the person Charles Darwin, and refuting "Darwinism" might mean different things to different people. I refute biological reductionism, but I do not in particular tie that philosophy to Charles Darwin.
Is it your concern that Lyell’s attack was limited only to the flood and not all of religion? If so, that was not the point.
Yes, that was my concern. At the time, Flood geology was as it had been for more than a century the ruling paradigm. You need not be a zelous atheist to refuse Flood geology - think about Glenn Morton, for instance. What Lyell and Darwin agrees upon is that countering Flood geology directly is the wrong approach. And I agree here.
The point is that Darwin was using the same strategy to forward his theory, and the metaphysics that went with it.
But I don't think that the metaphysics was all that important to Darwin. As The Origin of Species itself states, it is a part of the design/evolution debate. In this debate, where the major philosophical contributations had been made by David Hume and William Paley, Charles Darwin presented his evidence for the evolution side. Yes, if Paley was wrong and Hume was right, this would mean that "creation" would have to be redefined; but it doesn't turn everything into biology, and I doubt that Darwin meant that. You write:
Sorry, Poul, for getting your name wrong (among other typos). I think I had Paley on the brain.
I am most flattered over this Freudian slip; but, alas, it is undeserved ;-) have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
August 30, 2006
August
08
Aug
30
30
2006
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Sorry, Poul, for getting your name wrong (among other typos). I think I had Paley on the brain.Charlie
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Hi Pouely, You’ll have to excuse me if this comment is a little light on references as having written it earlier and then lost it in a crash I have less ambition this second time around. To start. I must say that you seem to have abandoned trying to make any case for your thesis and moved onto merely doubting my supporting points. This is a valid strategy, in my opinion, and one in which I often engage, if you are actually dismantling the main argument by knocking out it its supports. I don’t see that you are doing that, however. I will presume that, having offered no further defence of your claim that Darwinism should be renamed Blythism, you have withdrawn that argument. Recall that although the empirical science marshalled by Darwin was in no way original, it was his take on it that became known almost immediately by his proponents as Darwinism
"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."
Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159. Since the initial proposition seems dead, I will take on the points you did choose to make. I said:
However, what makes Darwinsim different from Blythism is that Darwin and his supporters/promoters (notably Haeckel and Huxley) applied to the science a necessary and self-conscious metaphysic. These supporters were particularly influenced by Darwin himself.”
PWE:
I am not so sure here; though I am no expert of course.
Which are you not sure of, that these supporters were influenced by Darwin, or that they applied a metaphysical consequence to their science? Both points, of course, are supported in my original comment. I said:
“It was Haeckel, of course, who quit his practice as a physician to study comparative biology after reading Darwin in 1859.”
I’m not sure what you intend by your reply regarding the bomber pilot and her belief in God so will leave that point unanswered. You did suggest that
”Maybe Haeckel read Darwin in a way that wasn’t Darwin’s intention.”
That is a valid question, and one worth exploring. As it turns out Darwin was very much impressed with both Huxley and Haeckel and discussed their works, their interpretations, and their defences of him at length. http://search.freefind.com/find.html?id=26989411&pageid=r&mode=all&n=0&query=haeckel&s= They quoted and defended Darwin’s work, which he was aware of and for which he thanked them, and he took their ideas and referred to them (albeit giving only mild public credit, as was his habit) as the sources of his ideas. This first excerpt may actually be enough to make the point on its own, but I will include a few others. Remember that Darwin and Haeckel have been in communication during the years since the publication of “Origins...”. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters2_07.html
Francis Darwin: [Professor Haeckel seems to have been one of the first to write to my father about the 'Descent of Man.' I quote from his reply:— Charles Darwin To Haeckel "I must send you a few words to thank you for your interesting, and I may truly say, charming letter. I am delighted that you approve of my book, as far as you have read it. I felt very great difficulty and doubt how often I ought to allude to what you have published; strictly speaking every idea, although occurring independently to me, if published by you previously ought to have appeared as if taken from your works, but this would have made my book very dull reading; and I hoped that a full acknowledgment at the beginning would suffice.* I cannot tell you how glad I am to find that I have expressed my high admiration of your labours with * In the introduction to the 'Descent of Man' the author wrote:— "This last naturalist [Haeckel]...has recently...published his 'Naturliche Schöpfungs-geschichte,' in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived, I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine."
Here is another letter to Haeckel, regarding his reference to Darwin: http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters2_06.html
Down, November 19 [1868]. My dear Haeckel, ... I have been reading a good deal of your last book ('Die Natürliche Schöpfungs-Geschichte,' 1868. It was translated and published in 1876, under the title, 'The History of Creation.'), and the style is beautifully clear and easy to me; but why it should differ so much in this respect from your great work I cannot imagine. I have not yet read the first part, but began with the chapter on Lyell and myself, which you will easily believe pleased me very much . Down, March 19 [1869].
This letter will Darwin to Huxley. If you want more they are available. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters2_06.html
My dear Huxley, Thanks for your 'Address.'* People complain of the unequal distribution of wealth, but it is a much greater shame and injustice that any one man should have the power to write so many brilliant essays as you have lately done. There is no one who writes like you...If I were in your shoes, I should tremble for my life. I agree with all you say, except that I must think that you draw too great a distinction between the evolutionists and the uniformitarians. C. DARWIN.
I’ve changed my mind, here’s another to Huxley http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/letters/letters2_07.html
I did not know what to say in my second edition of my 'Descent.' Now a footnote and reference to you will do the work. But for pleasure, I have been particularly glad that my few words ('Descent of Man,' volume i. page 87. A discussion on the question whether an act done impulsively or instinctively can be called moral.) on the distinction, if it can be so called, between Mivart's two forms of morality, caught your attention. I am so pleased that you take the same view, and give authorities for it; but I searched Mill in vain on this head. How well you argue the whole case. I am mounting climax on climax; for after all there is nothing, I think, better in your whole review than your arguments v. Wallace on the intellect of savages. What a man you are.
So, I am quite confident that it is established that Haeckel and Huxley did not seriously misinterpret Darwin, at least in Darwin’s own estimation. I said:
“They were profoundly influenced by Darwin and believed, with him, that sociology and politics must be informed by our knowledge of biology, and that, as Haeckel said, “politics is applied biology “.”
You replied:
”Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.”
Let’s say we agree that they did then, given the references and the fact that your subsequent point doesn’t rely on our disagreement. You said:
And even if they did, then in what way? Hitler encouraged gymnastics, and there can be given good biological reasons for that. But does that make gymnastics evil?
No, neither Hitler’s, nor anyone’s, use or misuse of Darwin’s theory can make it either evil or wrong. I haven’t argued that and it was not the point of this thread. That point has been well-discussed from the beginning and is irrelevant to the game you suggested regarding crediting Blyth with Social Darwinism. Me:
“In their system man had no choice but to live according to natural law and that natural law was defined by Darwin’s theory- theory which owed nothing to the divine, nothing to transcendent morality, which, through chance and necessity, was determined by the struggle to exist.”
You:
Well, then they were obviously wrong, weren’t they?
Now there is a good point - whether or not Darwin and his promoters were wrong. Very well spotted. I am sure you would like, if you haven’t previously done so, to read David Stove’s Darwinian Fairytales on this subject, or failing that Denyse O’Leary presented a good review of it on her blog, and there are as well Stove articles breaking the ideas down to 10 things Darwinists believe online. I am afraid I am not up to finding the urls right now, but you should have no trouble should you choose to Google them. You contiued:
If we can choose to live according to natural law, we can also choose not to live according to natural law. If there is no choice, there is nothing to inform people about, is there? Since they informed people (by writing books), they must have believed there was a real choice. So apparently something is wrong here.
Yes, as you attempt to falsify Darwin’s theory of evolution I would say you definitely would find a kindred spirit in David Stove. There very much is something wrong here, if the theory, as they propounded pertaains to all living things at all times. We could go into what Huxley felt about the cosmological force, man’s participation in nature, what it meant for him to obey natural law, and how a knowledge of biology should inform our politics, but that really has nothing to do with your subject, has it? I said (or qoted, rather):
“From these early notes , we can see that Darwin eagerly anticipated the day when evolutionary thought would infiltrate other realms of science and even the “whole [of] metaphysics .””
You replied:
Yes, it would appear so; but as the quote saya, it’s speculation, not an established result. Anyway, if metaphysics is founded in biology, then the idea that metaphysics is founded in biology is itself founded in biology, so all humans should have that idea without needing to read Darwin, shouldn’t they?
Speculation, yes. As was Darwin’s entire “one long argument...” an attempt to convince and not a demonstration of an established fact. Your attempts to refute Darwinism do not go without notice and I wish you well in them. I said:
“Darwin, in fact, was following the example of Lyell in doing a “real good” by making a side attack on religion (ie: freeing man’s existence from purpose and transcendent morality, making it only accountable to survival of the fittest.)”
You replied:
Could this be true? The quote you give only mentions shaking the belief in the deluge.
Again, I have a little trouble understanding what it is you are questioning. The reference I included demonstrated that Lyell had made an indirect attack on the religious resistance to his ideas, and had said that this was far more effective than taking it on head-on. Darwin agreed and approved of this strategy, say that “real good” seems to result from such a strategy. Is it your concern that Lyell’s attack was limited only to the flood and not all of religion? If so, that was not the point. The point is that Darwin was using the same strategy to forward his theory, and the metaphysics that went with it.Charlie
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
Hi Charlie, You wrote: "As you’ve read over on the page about Blyth, there is nothing new under the sun, and that certainly applies to Darwin’s contribution to empirical science." Actually I first found out later that there was a page on Blyth. I really thought that I had come up with something that people here didn't already know. That should teach me to check, what else is here, before writing anything :-) I have some comments on Blyth; but I'll enter those on the other page. "Absolutely he was building upon and borrowing from other theories and philosophies popular in his day. However, what makes Darwinsim different from Blythism is that Darwin and his supporters/promoters (notably Haeckel and Huxley) applied to the science a necessary and self-conscious metaphysic. These supporters were particularly influenced by Darwin himself." I am not so sure here; though I am no expert of course. Huxley appears to have used the metaphor evolution to just about anything: everything changes, species, theuniverse, society, and so on. So, yes, we could say that Huxley considered evolution to be a general principle. But that's not biological evolution, and when we talk about Darwin's theory of evolution, we talk about biological evolution, not about e.g. "evolution" of society. We may today live in socities that are different from societies, say, 1,000 years ago; but we are hardly biologically different from people living 1,000 years ago. I doubt that Darwin, even Huxley, would have claimed anything else. "It was Haeckel, of course, who quit his practice as a physician to study comparative biology after reading Darwin in 1859." During the latest war in Iraq I read a CNN interview with a US fighter pilot. She was asked, if she wasn't afraid that her bombs might hit civilians. She answered that she was sure that God would make her bombs only hit the intended targets. I cannot know your opinion towards this; but to me this fighter pilot has things somewhat twisted. I am aware that many US Christians consider the USA to be God's currently chosen nation, and therefore God is actually steering these bombs. But is the USA mentioned in the Bible? Well, some manage to read the Bible that way - I just don't :-) Maybe Haeckel read Darwin in a way that wasn't Darwin's intention. "They were profoundly influenced by Darwin and believed, with him, that sociology and politics must be informed by our knowledge of biology, and that, as Haeckel said, “politics is applied biology “." Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. And even if they did, then in what way? Hitler encouraged gymnastics, and there can be given good biological reasons for that. But does that make gymnastics evil? Things need to be seen more in the proper context. I'd say. "In their system man had no choice but to live according to natural law and that natural law was defined by Darwin’s theory- theory which owed nothing to the divine, nothing to transcendent morality, which, through chance and necessity, was determined by the struggle to exist." Well, then they were obviously wrong, weren't they? If we can choose to live according to natural law, we can also choose not to live according to natural law. If there is no choice, there is nothing to inform people about, is there? Since they informed people (by writing books), they must have believed there was a real choice. So apparently something is wrong here. "From these early notes , we can see that Darwin eagerly anticipated the day when evolutionary thought would infiltrate other realms of science and even the “whole [of] metaphysics .”" Yes, it would appear so; but as the quote saya, it's speculation, not an established result. Anyway, if metaphysics is founded in biology, then the idea that metaphysics is founded in biology is itself founded in biology, so all humans should have that idea without needing to read Darwin, shouldn't they? "Darwin, in fact, was following the example of Lyell in doing a “real good” by making a side attack on religion (ie: freeing man’s existence from purpose and transcendent morality, making it only accountable to survival of the fittest.)" Could this be true? The quote you give only mentions shaking the belief in the deluge. True, the deluge was supposedly God's punishment for the increasing evilness of humans. So it's about survival of the faithfullest. Yet, if we read on from the story, we see that things go wrong again. Cana'an is cursed for something his father Ham did - and with Cana'an all his descendants. Given the choice, I'd prefer survival of the fittest any day - it appears so much more just than being cursed for something that (maybe) happened in the past. Barrett1 wrote: "I think I’m getting the picture. Life after Darwin bad. Life before Darwin good. It took awhile, but I’m getting it now." You might want to read this Ecclesiastes 7:10: "Do not say, "Why were the old days better than these?" For it is not wise to ask such questions." have a nice day! - pwe P.S.: is there some description of how to format posts somewhere? Thanks in advance for any help.Poul Willy Eriksen
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
I think I'm getting the picture. Life after Darwin bad. Life before Darwin good. It took awhile, but I'm getting it now.Barrett1
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply