Comments on: The Road to the Holocaust — Darwin or the Pope? http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/ Serving The Intelligent Design Community Mon, 13 Feb 2012 15:02:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: Darwin holocaust | Aiacompany http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-407728 Darwin holocaust | Aiacompany Sat, 05 Nov 2011 14:07:05 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-407728 [...] Uncommon Descent | The Road to the Holocaust — Darwin or the …Apr 20, 2008 … it is noteworthy that even if Charles Darwin had killed all six million Jews in the Holocaust himself because of the conclusions he drew from his … [...] [...] Uncommon Descent | The Road to the Holocaust — Darwin or the …Apr 20, 2008 … it is noteworthy that even if Charles Darwin had killed all six million Jews in the Holocaust himself because of the conclusions he drew from his … [...]

]]> By: Compton http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-259548 Compton Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:55:24 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-259548 Spartans killed their own children that were considered weak either physically or mentally. I presume they guessed with their physic powers what the Darwinian theory will be. Referring to the nazis is just a cheap way for creationists to symbolize evil to the general public. Grow up. Spartans killed their own children that were considered weak either physically or mentally. I presume they guessed with their physic powers what the Darwinian theory will be.

Referring to the nazis is just a cheap way for creationists to symbolize evil to the general public.

Grow up.

]]> By: ericB http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-257434 ericB Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:27:49 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-257434 The Nazi holocaust was only a culmination of a far more pervasive growing trend that was embraced in the United States as well. The law in question in the famous <strong>Scopes monkey trial</strong> was <strong>not about forbidding instruction in evolution but rather exclusively about the treatment of man in evolutionary terms. Understood in context, we can see exactly why people were concerned and what they were trying to avoid. Here is an excerpt from the site <a href="http://www.TheMonkeyTrial.com" rel="nofollow">www.TheMonkeyTrial.com</a> -- an extremely eye opening site and highly recommended if you don't mind letting go of the "Inherit the Wind" mythology. <blockquote>Bryan did <em>not</em> oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools. For a number of reasons noted below he <em>did</em> oppose teaching the evolution of <em>mankind</em> (one species) as <em>scientific fact</em> and especially in the manner in which evolutionary theory was practically being applied in his day. As Bryan wrote in the <em>New York Times</em>: The only part of evolution in which any considerable interest is felt is evolution applied to <em>man</em>. A hypothesis in regard to the rocks and plant life does not affect the philosophy upon which one's life is built. Evolution applied to fish, birds, and beasts would not materially affect man's view of his own responsibilities. . . . The evolution that is harmful . . . is the evolution that makes [man himself] a descendant of lower forms of life. (Feb. 26, 1922) Specifically—and this is very important to understanding both the Butler Act and the trial—Bryan opposed those applications of Darwinism to mankind that were rapidly gaining popularity and were contained in Prof. Hunter’s <em>Civic Biology</em>. These teachings included (1) that mankind can be described in terms of five “races” of <em>differing evolutionary status</em> with the Caucasian race being the most advanced, followed by the “yellow” race, etc.—p. 196, (2) that public houses for the poor and asylums for the sick or insane make no sense from an evolutionary perspective and should be at least reconsidered if not dramatically curtailed—p. 263, (3) that certain “parasitic” elements of the human population should not have children (“If such people were lower animals,” Hunter writes, “we would probably kill them off”) and, in some cases, such reproduction should be forcibly prevented (“Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe”)—p. 263, (4) that society’s business classes should be given generous economic latitude (known as “hands off” or “<em>laissez faire</em>” capitalism) to further advance the most successful members of the human species—p. 261ff, and (5) that the gap between the monkeys and the most evolved apes is akin to the gap between those apes and the lowest human “savages”—p. 195. The above teachings were favorably referred to as “eugenics”—a term invented by Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton—and generally pertain to the active management of the gene pool of the <em>human</em> species by the <em>more evolved</em> over the <em>less evolved</em>. This was scary stuff gaining momentum in the 1920s and, as noted below, no longer confined to discussions in Ivory Towers. Statutes permitting sterilizations by force, laws forbidding marriages between people of different races (miscegenation), immigration quotas favoring Northern Europeans (Caucasians), and economic policies benefiting the most successful capitalists, were all popular policies advanced by elitists (university professors, industrialists, Planned Parenthood, liberal ministers, etc.) who self-consciously and persuasively invoked the “scientific” principles of Darwinism. Despite vocal opposition primarily from people outside the academic and scientific communities such as Bryan and the popular evangelist Billy Sunday (both of whom regarded all men as created equal by God), eugenics enjoyed steadily increasing currency in the 1920s, especially among liberal academics. Nazi Germany eventually brought to horrific fruition many of Bryan’s worst fears and put a halt to public support for eugenics and its euphemistic “civic biology” (recall here the title of Hunter's biology textbook).</blockquote></strong> The Nazi holocaust was only a culmination of a far more pervasive growing trend that was embraced in the United States as well. The law in question in the famous Scopes monkey trial was not about forbidding instruction in evolution but rather exclusively about the treatment of man in evolutionary terms. Understood in context, we can see exactly why people were concerned and what they were trying to avoid.

Here is an excerpt from the site http://www.TheMonkeyTrial.com — an extremely eye opening site and highly recommended if you don’t mind letting go of the “Inherit the Wind” mythology.

Bryan did not oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools. For a number of reasons noted below he did oppose teaching the evolution of mankind (one species) as scientific fact and especially in the manner in which evolutionary theory was practically being applied in his day.

As Bryan wrote in the New York Times:

The only part of evolution in which any considerable interest is felt is evolution applied to man. A hypothesis in regard to the rocks and plant life does not affect the philosophy upon which one’s life is built. Evolution applied to fish, birds, and beasts would not materially affect man’s view of his own responsibilities. . . . The evolution that is harmful . . . is the evolution that makes [man himself] a descendant of lower forms of life. (Feb. 26, 1922)

Specifically—and this is very important to understanding both the Butler Act and the trial—Bryan opposed those applications of Darwinism to mankind that were rapidly gaining popularity and were contained in Prof. Hunter’s Civic Biology. These teachings included

(1) that mankind can be described in terms of five “races” of differing evolutionary status with the Caucasian race being the most advanced, followed by the “yellow” race, etc.—p. 196,

(2) that public houses for the poor and asylums for the sick or insane make no sense from an evolutionary perspective and should be at least reconsidered if not dramatically curtailed—p. 263,

(3) that certain “parasitic” elements of the human population should not have children (“If such people were lower animals,” Hunter writes, “we would probably kill them off”) and, in some cases, such reproduction should be forcibly prevented (“Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe”)—p. 263,

(4) that society’s business classes should be given generous economic latitude (known as “hands off” or “laissez faire” capitalism) to further advance the most successful members of the human species—p. 261ff, and

(5) that the gap between the monkeys and the most evolved apes is akin to the gap between those apes and the lowest human “savages”—p. 195.

The above teachings were favorably referred to as “eugenics”—a term invented by Darwin’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton—and generally pertain to the active management of the gene pool of the human species by the more evolved over the less evolved. This was scary stuff gaining momentum in the 1920s and, as noted below, no longer confined to discussions in Ivory Towers.

Statutes permitting sterilizations by force, laws forbidding marriages between people of different races (miscegenation), immigration quotas favoring Northern Europeans (Caucasians), and economic policies benefiting the most successful capitalists, were all popular policies advanced by elitists (university professors, industrialists, Planned Parenthood, liberal ministers, etc.) who self-consciously and persuasively invoked the “scientific” principles of Darwinism.

Despite vocal opposition primarily from people outside the academic and scientific communities such as Bryan and the popular evangelist Billy Sunday (both of whom regarded all men as created equal by God), eugenics enjoyed steadily increasing currency in the 1920s, especially among liberal academics. Nazi Germany eventually brought to horrific fruition many of Bryan’s worst fears and put a halt to public support for eugenics and its euphemistic “civic biology” (recall here the title of Hunter’s biology textbook).

]]> By: ericB http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-257392 ericB Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:51:03 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-257392 Stone (73, responding to DLH): "Empirical evidence for design would be to look for patterns by which a designer would be required. There are many monoliths that are simply the result of natural processes." If you mean simply "a single great stone ..." or "a massive structure", sure. Nature can produce many of those. But how many have perfectly flat sides with dimensions 1 by 4 by 9 (the squares of 1, 2, 3) and a host of other unusual properties. DLH didn't simply refer to just any old monolith but rather to that particular one with its obviously non-natural properties. That said, the general sense of your first statement seems right. We look for effects that are not plausibly within the reach of undirected processes. The design filter seeks to weed out cases that might plausibly be explained by undirected law+chance. If they are not within the reach of the limits of undirected processes, then the best causal inference is to directed processes, i.e. intelligent agency. Of course, all scientific inferences are tentative, being made with the best evidence available at a given time. Stone (73, responding to DLH): “Empirical evidence for design would be to look for patterns by which a designer would be required. There are many monoliths that are simply the result of natural processes.”

If you mean simply “a single great stone …” or “a massive structure”, sure. Nature can produce many of those. But how many have perfectly flat sides with dimensions 1 by 4 by 9 (the squares of 1, 2, 3) and a host of other unusual properties. DLH didn’t simply refer to just any old monolith but rather to that particular one with its obviously non-natural properties.

That said, the general sense of your first statement seems right. We look for effects that are not plausibly within the reach of undirected processes. The design filter seeks to weed out cases that might plausibly be explained by undirected law+chance. If they are not within the reach of the limits of undirected processes, then the best causal inference is to directed processes, i.e. intelligent agency.

Of course, all scientific inferences are tentative, being made with the best evidence available at a given time.

]]> By: DLH http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-256674 DLH Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:27:19 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-256674 Keep the Reason at 94 Translation of DaveScott at 92 "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." Perhaps you could demonstrate how the information in the genome arose by chance and necessity and obtain a patent on the process. (Guaranteed a Nobel prize if you can! - Hint: The Patent Office will not patent perpetual motion machines.) "How many times must I repeat it? Do the work. Go for it. Get the evidence." See <a href="How many times must I repeat it? Do the work. Go for it. Get the evidence." rel="nofollow">The Biologic Institute</a> See <a href="http://cayman.globat.com/~trademarksnet.com/Research/EILab/index.html" rel="nofollow"> Evolutionary Informatics Lab</a> In the interest of science and the public good, will you help raise the funds to do so? --------------- "What “scientific” explanation can you provide for the Origin Of Life? ======== Right now, none." Good - no one else does either. Which was why Stein asked. ------------------- "Please explain such guidelines to me, " See <a href=" http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/">Comment Moderation Policy</a> ------------------------ ". . .since you take me to task for accusing Stein of deceit (which can be backed up by numerous people), but you say nothing to Stone for saying “Dawkins should lean to hold his tongue”, . . ." That is a <a hrf="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html" rel="nofollow"><i>tu quoque</i></a> logical fallacy. A subset of <a href="http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html" rel="nofollow">Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial)</a> ----------------------------- I said "No <i>ad hominem</i> arguments. "Excuse me, are you taking me to task for calling Ben Stein deceitful in his methods — as an ad hominem in this debate??" Yes ---------------- "I make NO moral judgments on people who do or don’t believe in evolution, and have argued 180 degrees apart from that. Please show where I’ve made this argument you’ve accused me of." Then study your use of words like: "deceit", "deceitful", "perpetrator", "horribly", "wrong", e.g., <blockquote>If someone embraces this methodology, then they can only be purposely deceitful (since they know science doesn’t work that way), by pretending science does work that way.</blockquote> That politely is begging the argument, since ID is showing examples where science DOES identify intelligent causes etc. Evolutionists are trying to define science to explicitly exclude all possibilities of intelligent causation. I encourage you to take a break and learn more about logical fallacies and how to avoid them, especially <i>ad hominem</i> arguments. Also study about moral judgments, speaking the truth, accusing people of wrongdoing etc. Keep the Reason at 94
Translation of DaveScott at 92
“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”

Perhaps you could demonstrate how the information in the genome arose by chance and necessity and obtain a patent on the process. (Guaranteed a Nobel prize if you can! –
Hint: The Patent Office will not patent perpetual motion machines.)

“How many times must I repeat it? Do the work. Go for it. Get the evidence.”

See The Biologic Institute

See Evolutionary Informatics Lab

In the interest of science and the public good, will you help raise the funds to do so?
—————
“What “scientific” explanation can you provide for the Origin Of Life?
========

Right now, none.”
Good – no one else does either. Which was why Stein asked.
——————-
“Please explain such guidelines to me, ”

See http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/“>Comment Moderation Policy

————————
“. . .since you take me to task for accusing Stein of deceit (which can be backed up by numerous people), but you say nothing to Stone for saying “Dawkins should lean to hold his tongue”, . . .”

That is a tu quoque logical fallacy.
A subset of Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial)
—————————–
I said “No ad hominem arguments.

“Excuse me, are you taking me to task for calling Ben Stein deceitful in his methods — as an ad hominem in this debate??”

Yes

—————-

“I make NO moral judgments on people who do or don’t believe in evolution, and have argued 180 degrees apart from that. Please show where I’ve made this argument you’ve accused me of.”

Then study your use of words like: “deceit”, “deceitful”, “perpetrator”, “horribly”, “wrong”,

e.g.,

If someone embraces this methodology, then they can only be purposely deceitful (since they know science doesn’t work that way), by pretending science does work that way.

That politely is begging the argument, since ID is showing examples where science DOES identify intelligent causes etc.

Evolutionists are trying to define science to explicitly exclude all possibilities of intelligent causation.

I encourage you to take a break and learn more about logical fallacies and how to avoid them, especially ad hominem arguments. Also study about moral judgments, speaking the truth, accusing people of wrongdoing etc.

]]> By: StephenB http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-256638 StephenB Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:07:15 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-256638 Keep the reason: One quick point and one extended one. 1) On ID: One thing you need to realize is that ID can detect design but it cannot establish the IDENTITY of the designer. Your references to the supernatural suggest that you are not making that distinction. Unless you learn what a design inference really is, you will criticize ID for what it is not and not for what it is, which is what you are doing. 2) On Darwinism: You cannot simply build a civil society on the hope that we will all agree to be nice to each other. In fact, there are plenty of people will not conform to altruistic principles. Indeed, those who lust after power, the very ones who will be able to use the power of the state against us, don’t want to get along, they want to dominate and enslave. That is why we have the rule of law, which in turn, is supposed to be based on the natural moral law. The natural moral law teaches us that the “inherent dignity of every human person is not something to be negotiated or arrived at by consensus. It is build into nature. That is what is meant by “natural rights.” The Darwinist principle denies that any right can be natural, because it insists that there can be any such principle in nature. Any rights that are not natural are not inalienable and can be withheld at any time. Keep the reason: One quick point and one extended one.

1) On ID: One thing you need to realize is that ID can detect design but it cannot establish the IDENTITY of the designer. Your references to the supernatural suggest that you are not making that distinction. Unless you learn what a design inference really is, you will criticize ID for what it is not and not for what it is, which is what you are doing.

2) On Darwinism: You cannot simply build a civil society on the hope that we will all agree to be nice to each other. In fact, there are plenty of people will not conform to altruistic principles. Indeed, those who lust after power, the very ones who will be able to use the power of the state against us, don’t want to get along, they want to dominate and enslave. That is why we have the rule of law, which in turn, is supposed to be based on the natural moral law. The natural moral law teaches us that the “inherent dignity of every human person is not something to be negotiated or arrived at by consensus. It is build into nature. That is what is meant by “natural rights.” The Darwinist principle denies that any right can be natural, because it insists that there can be any such principle in nature. Any rights that are not natural are not inalienable and can be withheld at any time.

]]> By: Rude http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-256615 Rude Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:40:38 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-256615 Interesting thread here! I for one am very glad that Ben Stein included the Darwinism-Holocaust connection. Today's phlegmatic, politically correct culture needs the conversation! For sixty years we’ve discussed the Christian anti-Semitism connection—and it’s been for the good. That the Church tortured and burned to death its tens of thousands should never be forgotten. And by and large Christendom has not shied from considering a Nazi connection, and many have expressed sorrow and shame for the past. But what a difference now when just the whif of a mention of a Darwinian connection and the folks come out snorting like banshees. That for me is the best sign that the discussion is long overdue! Interesting thread here!

I for one am very glad that Ben Stein included the Darwinism-Holocaust connection. Today’s phlegmatic, politically correct culture needs the conversation! For sixty years we’ve discussed the Christian anti-Semitism connection—and it’s been for the good. That the Church tortured and burned to death its tens of thousands should never be forgotten. And by and large Christendom has not shied from considering a Nazi connection, and many have expressed sorrow and shame for the past. But what a difference now when just the whif of a mention of a Darwinian connection and the folks come out snorting like banshees.

That for me is the best sign that the discussion is long overdue!

]]> By: alext http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-256504 alext Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:15:49 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-256504 <blockquote>Stone: There is plenty of evidence for design. The fact our species has nearly created the first synthetic microbe is the only evidence needed to demonstrate that intelligent agents can create life.</blockquote> this shows that design is possible, not that it happened to cause life on earth. it is possible to do many things that have not happened in history before. Kep the Reason - good posts.

Stone:
There is plenty of evidence for design. The fact our species has nearly created the first synthetic microbe is the only evidence needed to demonstrate that intelligent agents can create life.

this shows that design is possible, not that it happened to cause life on earth. it is possible to do many things that have not happened in history before.

Kep the Reason – good posts.

]]> By: DaveScot http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-256127 DaveScot Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:26:48 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-256127 keep_the_reason <i>And really, the first thing you need to do is stop pretending that every gap in evolution means ID must be the option B. That’s horribly UNscientific, and every last one of you knows it.</i> I'll agree to that if you stop pretending that everything in evolution is chance & necessity. That's horribly UNscientific, and every last one of you knows it. keep_the_reason

And really, the first thing you need to do is stop pretending that every gap in evolution means ID must be the option B. That’s horribly UNscientific, and every last one of you knows it.

I’ll agree to that if you stop pretending that everything in evolution is chance & necessity. That’s horribly UNscientific, and every last one of you knows it.

]]> By: DLH http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/comment-page-3/#comment-252657 DLH Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:05:27 +0000 http://www.uncommondescent.com/expelled/the-road-to-the-holocaust-darwin-or-the-pope/#comment-252657 Keep the Reason <blockquote>And really, the first thing you need to do is stop pretending that every gap in evolution means ID must be the option B. That’s horribly UNscientific, and every last one of you knows it.</blockquote> You are accusing everyone here of "pretending" and of being "horribly UNscientific". That is not civil debate. <blockquote>Stein attempts to make Dawkins look like a fool for admitting that it’s possible that the ID might be “aliens” in “Expelled” — more deceit.)</blockquote> Again you accuse of "deceit". Stein gave Dawkins sufficient time to clearly express his beliefs on possible causes of biotic systems. Dawkins now appears to be expanding on his performance in Expelled with <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dawkins18apr18,0,2798612.story" rel="nofollow">similar declarations.</a> You appear to be basing your arguments on materialism or philosophical naturalism and claiming those who do not hold to your worldview are morally wrong. The critical issue is whether "Science" can empirically detect intelligent causation. It is being used in forensics, archeology, and reverse engineering etc. Evolutionists acknowlege that biotic systems have the appearance of being designed. Over 700 credentialed scientists are skeptical of the capabilities of neo-Darwinian theory to explain the origin of biotic systems. What "scientific" explanation can you provide for the Origin Of Life? Mathematical population models do not appear to support neo-Darwinian explanations of observed complex biotic systems. Natural law cannot explain the origin of coded information. Stochastic methods does not provide an explanation either. Thus, for those not committed to philosophical naturalism, it appears reasonable to see if theories of Intelligent Design can be developed to explain such systems. We respect freedom of conscience and of speech - but require civil discourse. You have one last chance to respond civilly, and address substantitive issues without accusing those here of egregious violations of their consciences. Keep the Reason

And really, the first thing you need to do is stop pretending that every gap in evolution means ID must be the option B. That’s horribly UNscientific, and every last one of you knows it.

You are accusing everyone here of “pretending” and of being “horribly UNscientific”.

That is not civil debate.

Stein attempts to make Dawkins look like a fool for admitting that it’s possible that the ID might be “aliens” in “Expelled” — more deceit.)

Again you accuse of “deceit”. Stein gave Dawkins sufficient time to clearly express his beliefs on possible causes of biotic systems. Dawkins now appears to be expanding on his performance in Expelled with similar declarations.

You appear to be basing your arguments on materialism or philosophical naturalism and claiming those who do not hold to your worldview are morally wrong.

The critical issue is whether “Science” can empirically detect intelligent causation.

It is being used in forensics, archeology, and reverse engineering etc.
Evolutionists acknowlege that biotic systems have the appearance of being designed. Over 700 credentialed scientists are skeptical of the capabilities of neo-Darwinian theory to explain the origin of biotic systems.

What “scientific” explanation can you provide for the Origin Of Life?

Mathematical population models do not appear to support neo-Darwinian explanations of observed complex biotic systems. Natural law cannot explain the origin of coded information. Stochastic methods does not provide an explanation either. Thus, for those not committed to philosophical naturalism, it appears reasonable to see if theories of Intelligent Design can be developed to explain such systems.

We respect freedom of conscience and of speech – but require civil discourse.

You have one last chance to respond civilly, and address substantitive issues without accusing those here of egregious violations of their consciences.

]]>