Home » Intelligent Design » Darwinists Tie Themselves Into Knots Denying the Obvious

Darwinists Tie Themselves Into Knots Denying the Obvious

Some Darwinists will say anything to try to draw attention away from the obvious.  The point of my “Scientific Certitude” post was to show that evolutionary theory has been used to support racist views.  Darwin was a firmly committed racist, and he was not shy about expressing his racist views:

 

“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.  At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.  The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized 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.”  Charles R. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed. (1871; reprint, London: John Murray, 1922), 241-42.

 

While Darwin was still alive his contemporaries took his racism/evolution link and ran with it.  For example, Ernst Haeckl, the great popularizer of Darwin’s theories on the continent wrote:

 

“The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect . . . In bodily as well as in mental qualities, no other human species can equal the Mediterranean.  This species alone (with the exception of the Mongolian) has had an actual history; it alone has attained to that degree of civilization which seems to raise man above the rest of nature.”  Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation: Or The Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes. A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of Evolution in General, and of that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in Particular, translated by E. Ray Lankester, 6th English ed., First German Publication 1868, (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1914), 2:321

 

and

 

“If one must draw a sharp boundary between them [i.e., higher mammals and man], it has to be drawn between the most highly developed and civilized man on the one hand, and the rudest savages on the other, and the latter have to be classed with the animals.”  Haeckel, Ibid., Vol. II, 365.

 

Or how about this from Darwin’s friend Huxley:

 

“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.”  T.H. Huxley, Lectures and Lay Sermons (1871; reprint, London: Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent, 1926), 115. 

 

The point of my earlier post was that by the turn of the 20th century the link between racism and evolution was so entrenched in orthodox thought that it made it into the Encyclopedia Britannica, which some would say is the very epitome of current conventional learning.

 

The link continued to be made well into the 20th Century:

 

“The new creed [i.e., Christianity] was thus thrown open to all mankind.  Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers.  In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?  May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti evolutionary in its aim?”  Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Van Rees Press, 1947), 72

 

Evolutionists, when they are being honest, admit this link:

 

“We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races.  For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority.”  Stephen Jay Gould, “Human Equality as a Contingent Factor of History,” Natural History (November 1984): 28, 26-32.

 

“Since Darwin’s death, all has not been rosy in the evolutionary garden.  The theories of the Great Bearded One have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social reformers – and scientists – to support racist and bigoted views.”  M. Brookes, “Ripe Old Age,” review of Of Flies, Mice and Men, by Francois Jacob, New Scientist, January 1999, 41.

 

The Darwinists who responded to my previous post were not honest.  Instead of facing the facts, they tried to deny the undeniable connection between Darwin and racism, or they tried to change the subject by saying, “hey, some people who say they are Christians are racists too.” 

 

This would be amusing if it were not so tragic.  Someone said, “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.” 

 

This is the bottom line: 

 

(1) It takes only the tiniest step to go from Darwin’s theory to the conclusion that some races are “lower” than others.  Darwin took that step himself; his contemporaries took it with him, and by the turn of the 20th Century it was “conventional wisdom.”  Note to Darwinists:  Them’s the facts; you don’t advance your cause by denying them.

 

(2) Nothing Jesus said gives the slightest credence to racist views.  Therefore, racists who call themselves Christians hold their views in the very teeth of the teachings of the Christ they purport to follow.  So Darwinists.  What is your point?  That some people – even some people who call themselves “Christian” – are stupid or evil or both?  No one denies that.  Sadly for your position, this does notthing to blunt the force of (1) above. 

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

98 Responses to Darwinists Tie Themselves Into Knots Denying the Obvious

  1. Stop it, Barry, you are making too much sense.

    Ray

  2. I’m holding out hope that the next post will concern positive evidence for ID rather than more critiques of Darwin.

  3. 3

    Point A: When Martinez (who says all evolutionists are racists) tells you you’re making “too much sense,” you should start to worry.

    Point B: Nobody believes Darwin was perfect. This is one of many distinct differences betweeen science and religion. People don’t “follow” Darwin the way they “follow” Jesus.

    Point C: you should change “Nothing Jesus said” to “Nothing Jesus is alleged to have said.” We know precious little about what Jesus is supposed to have said. Unlike Darwin, he appears not to have written anything. The accounts that Christian accept were all written by people who apparently worshiped the person they knew from stories. (And one of those, the author of John, certainly paved the way for Christian anti-Semitism, which emerged quite early.)

  4. Madsen (#2): “I’m holding out hope that the next post will concern positive evidence for ID rather than more critiques of Darwin.”

    This is the Internet where criticism of evolution is still legal.

    Ray

  5. Barry “Some Darwinists will say anything to try to draw attention away from the obvious. The point of my “Scientific Certitude” post was to show that evolutionary theory has been used to support racist views. Darwin was a firmly committed racist, and he was not shy about expressing his racist views:”

    Barry, what Darwin is predicting here is the continued replacement of the native populations of the Americas and Australia by the aggressive Christian Europeans, something that had been going on for centuries.

    His prediction was wrong in a sense, as they stopped short of complete genocide, but right in a sense, as most of the native cultures of those continents have effectively disappeared.

    I disagree with him about the use of the word “civilized” to describe the cultures that were at fault.

    Most of the worst crimes were over on those continents by the end of the nineteenth century, and the self-deception amongst creationists who seek to blame them on Darwin is just rather sad.

    I suggest you actually read the section of “Descent” which is specifically about race, and if you still insist that Darwin is a “firmly committed racist”, then I’ll explain the science to you, and what he was actually talking about.

  6. Darwinists always tie themselves into knots denying the obvious.

    That is their raison d’être. This is transparent evidence that they are in a defensive position and in a state of panic, because they know that they are attempting to defend the indefensible.

    So, their tactics are to suppress dissent, ignore evidence, vilify skeptics, use the courts to deny freedom of speech, and coerce public educators into indoctrinating other people’s children in Darwinian “science,” with no opportunity for the skeptics to provide even a modicum of scientific or mathematical evidence that chance-and-necessity Darwinism is a pile of crap, which it is, beyond antibiotic resistance and finch beak variation.

    Go to Michael Behe’s blog at Amazon and read about the desperate attempts to refute the empirical evidence that the Darwinian mechanism is only capable of producing the utterly trivial, and that there is absolutely no evidence that this can be extrapolated to explain the information content and machinery of living systems.

  7. David Kellogg (#3): “Point C: you should change “Nothing Jesus said” to “Nothing Jesus is alleged to have said.” We know precious little about what Jesus is supposed to have said. Unlike Darwin, he appears not to have written anything. The accounts that Christian accept were all written by people who apparently worshiped the person they knew from stories. (And one of those, the author of John, certainly paved the way for Christian anti-Semitism, which emerged quite early.

    Standard Atheism ideology.

    Ray

  8. 8

    Go to Michael Behe’s blog at Amazon

    That would be one of those blogs that doesn’t allow comments?

    Why, that sounds like a defensive position — panicked, even!

  9. 9

    Ray, I’m not an atheist. But it doesn’t surprise me that you mistake me one.

  10. That quote from The Descent of Man is a prediction and there is nothing in it which, on a fair reading, indicates any kind of endorsement. If Darwin had actually believed what he is falsely accused of believing then we would expect him to at least comment approvingly on the treatment of the aboriginal peoples of Australasia and North America, to support the enslavement of black peoples as a proper use of lesser species in the way we also use cattle and to regard the Irish Potato Famine as natural selection in action.

    Instead, we find no general approval of the way in which native people have been treated, we find a clearly-stated abhorrence of and opposition to slavery and a contribution of the equivalent of $15000.00 of his own money to research into the breeding of blight-resistant strains of the potato which would ensure that the Irish famines did not happen again.

    As for the passage from Descent, would a true racist also have written the following in the same book?

    Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

    My thanks to Dr GH for finding that particular passage.

    The now-banned DaveScot also quoted passages from the report about Christian Identity Movements which demonstrated that people who believe themselves to be true Christians can also hold the most racist views which are far more vile and unequivocal than anything imputed to Darwin.

    No one here believes that all Christians share those beliefs or that such groups are anything other than a tiny minority of extremists. To do so would be a clear example – as are the attacks on Darwin – of the fallacy of Appealing to Consequences.

    As I wrote in the thread that has now been deleted:

    The lesson that should be taken…is that racism is not just a problem in evolutionary biology or of any one nation or of whites or even of religion, it is a human problem.

    Perhaps it derives from our instinct to try and make sense of the world by categorizing it, one of the most basic being ‘us and them’ where ‘us’ is the local in-group be it family, clan, tribe or whatever, and ‘them’ being anyone else.

    Whatever its origin, we need to remember that, at some level, we are all capable of it whether we are honest enough to admit it or not.

  11. I would note Barry, that to be fair, the term Racist is actually anachronistic when applied to Darwin. He would have been puzzled at the problem we have in suggesting different Races have different abilities. Heck even Lincoln would have been surprised by this.

    Although you are right, I don’t think Darwinists do them selves any favours trying to pretend reality is other than it is.

  12. Looks like Darwin was undoubtedly a racist. I certainly wouldn’t try to defend that, nor his main theory, which I think is refuted nicely by Behe and a few others.

    But aren’t we missing something here? While Christianity may certainly be defined as following the general teachings of Christ, Darwinism is — at least to anyone interested in a scientific analysis — not at all the mirror image of that.

    Darwinism is the specific claim that mutation-selection evolution is responsible for most if not all complex adaptations. How is this claim connected to racism?

    Could mutation-selection (if it can create much of anything at all) have created a human species of approximately equally capable races? Sure. Could intelligent designers have created a human species with races of very different capabilities? Again, sure.

    I don’t *like* the idea that some races are more advanced than others. And, from a strictly empirical standpoint, I think it’s wrong at worst, irrelevant at best; i.e. if one race is significantly more able than another, so what? What use can we make of that information? Probably none. You still have to screen job applicants individually if you want to be able to survive your company’s competition.

    What bothers me most about UD’s Darwin-and-racism articles, is how much the authors seem to be *delighted* to see racism issues mixed up with evolution, just as most evolutionists seem delighted to see moralistic religion mixed up with ID.

    Maybe Darwin was wrong to mix these issues together — and so is UD.

  13. This is the Internet where criticism of evolution is still legal.

    Ray

    Of course. However, I thought the mission of this blog was to serve those of us in the Intelligent Design community (if I can include myself as an interested layperson). These posts concerning Darwin’s views on race are interesting I suppose, but do not advance the case for ID at all. It would just be nice to see some science for a change.

  14. Darwin also wrote this about the human “races”:

    “Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.” (http://darwin-online.org.uk/co.....ageseq=244)

    And this:

    “Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that all are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.” (http://darwin-online.org.uk/co.....ageseq=244)

    Most evolutionary biologists today freely admit that Darwin was a racist by today’s standards, although even by 19th century standards, his racism was very mild. But that hasn’t been acknowledged by Arrington and O’Leary. Instead, they keep on posting the same idea over and over again, without ever responding to evidence that shows unequivocally that evolutionary biologists today are not racists, nor does the modern theory of evolution contain anything that might be used to support racist ideologies.

    It’s kind of like tag-team wrestling: O’Leary keeps posting until the opposition gets too tough, and then she tags Arrington, who posts the same old same old over again. So, once more into the breach, good friends, once more:

    At this year’s Darwin Bicentennial Celebration at Cornell the department of ecology and evolutionary biology co-sponsored a panel discussion on “Evolution and Racism”. All four of the panelists, two of whom were African Americans (three were evolutionary biologists and one was a sociologist) agreed that by today’s standards Darwin and most of his contemporaries were racists. And they also pointed out that evolutionary biologists today – people like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Will Provine, and Robert Trivers – are among the strongest and most vocal opponents of racism, especially “scientific racism”. You can read about it here:

    http://www.google.com/calendar.....a/New_York

    Two years ago I served on a panel at the Cornell Darwin Day Celebration that dealt with “Evolution and Eugenics”. All four of the panelists (three evolutionary biologists and a Tallman Prize winner) agreed that Darwin’s ideas were used by eugenicists to justify their heinous policies. They also pointed out that prominent evolutionary biologists were among the members of the UNESCO panel that issued the United Nations’ 1950 statement on eugenics and race, which condemned both in the strongest of terms, and that virtually no evolutionary biologist has actively supported eugenics since 1945. You can read about it here:

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/st.....n.lgk.html

    Now admittedly, the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell is not “a world association of evolutionary biologists”. However, it is widely recognized as one of the premier institutions of its kind in the world. We’ve done what O’Leary has asked for. Why hasn’t she acknowledged this?

    How about this statement:

    “The simple fact remains: there is no “inferior” race; the genetic differences between races are trivial.”

    This statement comes from the National Center for Science Education, as part of a report on “Racism and the Public’s Perception of Evolution”, available online here:

    http://ncseweb.org/rncse/22/3/.....-evolution

    (paragraph 31, second sentence)

    Even ID supporters might be willing to admit that the NCSE is a “world-recognized organization of evolutionary biologists”. After all, they complain about the immense political power of the NCSE, and the fact that virtually all evolutionary biologists agree with their organization’s views, including the one quoted above. Seems pretty definitive to me. Apparently not so to Arrington and O’Leary. Why not?

    There have also been multiple sessions at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meetings on this and related subjects, which have condemned the use of evolutionary biology to support racism.

    Last, but not least, one could also read The Mismeasure of Man, perhaps the strongest indictment of “scientific racism” published in the second half of the 20th century, by Stephen Jay Gould, one of the premier evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, and a tireless opponent of racism and the perversion of evolutionary science for political means.

    I made a prediction in O’Leary’s last thread on this subject: that she would not acknowledge any of the evidence I posted to support the assertion that evolutionary biologists today are no more racists than, say, physicists or chemists today.

    But that’s clearly not the point, is it? The point is to assert over and over again (without supporting evidence) that evolutionary theory leads directly and inevitably toward racism, eugenics, and the Nazi holocaust. This, despite the fact that even some of the partisans on their side have pointed out that this clearly isn’t the case, and that their incessant harping on this subject isn’t advancing the science of ID one iota.

    So, when responding to this kind of ad hominem “guilt by association” argument in past threads, I’ve challenged them to name ten contemporary evolutionary biologists who are racists (and I’ve even given them one to get them started). But, to be fair, I’ve also pointed out on numerous occasions that their favorite world view (i.e. Christianity) has also been perverted by evil people for evil ends.

    So, in the interests of fairness, here’s just a few examples (sorry about the Godwin, but I guess it’s inevitable):

    While Hitler uses the word “evolution” in Mein Kampf, it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin’s theory. Indeed, he never mentions Darwin at all. In fact, a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.

    Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

    “The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi.

    Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

    “For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x.

    Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed “from the very beginning”, and could not have evolved from apes:

    “From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier).

    Like a creationist, Hitler believes that man was made in God’s image, and in the expulsion from Eden:

    “Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i.

    Like a creationist, Hitler believes that:

    “God … sent [us] into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. xiv.

    Like a creationist, Hitler claims Jesus as his inspiration:

    “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them.” – Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order.

    Like a creationist, Hitler despises secular schooling:

    “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people.” – Adolf Hitler, Speech, April 26, 1933.

    Hitler even goes so far as to claim that Creationism is what sets humans apart from the animals:

    “The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.” – Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier).

    Hitler does not mention evolution explicitly anywhere in Mein Kampf. However, after declaring the fixity of the fox, goose, and tiger, as quoted above, he goes on to talk of differences within species:

    “[T]he various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.” Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi.

    So, like a creationist and ID supporter, there is some evolution he is prepared to concede — evolution within species, or “microevolution”, to which people like Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe have no objection. It is on the basis of the one part of evolutionary theory which creationists accept that Hitler tried to find a scientific basis for his racism and his program of eugenics.

    Ergo, Hitler did not base his eugenic and genocidal policies on evolutionary theory, but rather on views that are very similar to those held by most creationists and many ID supporters.

  15. By the way, the score is still:

    Racist Christian political leaders = 14

    Racist evolutionary biologists = 1 (sort of)

  16. David Kellogg (#9): “Ray, I’m not an atheist. But it doesn’t surprise me that you mistake me one.”

    In #3 you assert the New Testament to be a collection of forgeries; Christians to be deluded; and the author that impersonated St. John to have originated anti-semitism.

    All of these slanderous assertions correspond to what the traditional enemy of Christianity (= Atheism ideology) has always said. If you are not an Atheist then why are you advocating Atheism ideology?

    Ray

  17. Allen MacNeill (#14; quoting Adolf Hitler): “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them” (1922; when Hitler was attempting to win the hearts of a Christian nation).

    Allen MacNeill, Atheist-evolutionist, is in the unenviable position, even with the 20-20 vision of hindsight, of declaring that he, like the KKK and any neo-Nazi, believes Adolf Hitler.

    The Hitler quote proves that anyone can claim to be a Christian; like Evolutionist Ken Miller who argues Atheist-evolutionism while maintaining that he is a Christian.

    Ray

  18. 18

    Ray,

    No, no, and no.

    In #3 you assert the New Testament to be a collection of forgeries;

    No. I said the Gospels were not based on anything Jesus had written (not at all the same as a forgery).

    Christians to be deluded;

    No. I said the Gospels were written by people who worshipped the Jesus they knew from stories.

    and the author that impersonated St. John to have originated anti-semitism.

    No. I said the Gospel of John paved the way for Christian anti-Semitism, which is historically true.

    You’re 0-for-3 Ray.

    Readings this crude support my view that praise from you should be viewed as a red flag.

  19. 19

    Also, the author of the Gospel of John does not claim to be the apostle John.

  20. Allen MacNeill’s “Like A Creationist” speech was debinked last year.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-241004

    MacNeill says Hitler took Jesus as his Lord and savior, but Hitler did not accept any teachings of the Bible on Jesus as they are all Jewish fabrications, and did not believe in Jesus as the Son of God but the son of a soldier and a whore. His Jesus was an Aryan warrior, not the Jesus of history or Christianity.

    Hitler was unlike a creationist.

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-241018

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-241000

    Further, unlike a creationist, Hitler thought man was descended from some animal as low as a reptile and through the lineage of monkeys and apes – specifically, through something like the baboon.

    Just because you exited that thread without answering, having noticed about 40 comments too late that it had hit the magic number, doesn’t mean your case wasn’t trounced.

    On your above on Mein Kampf:
    How is it clear that Hitler is not referring to DArwin’s theory? Whose theory, if not Darwin’s was he referencing in his Secret Book when he talked about the positive evolution of beast to man by the “incessant struggle for existence” and by “natural selection”?

    Hitler not like a creationst – 1
    Allen MacNeill’s repeated bunk – 0

    While he quotes DoM to show Darwin’s egalitarianism he misses this quote again:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-240764

  21. I thought I’d fixed that.
    *debunked*

  22. Here’s a quote I mined from Hitler’s Second, or Secret, Book a while back.

    Hitler anti-Darwinian??
    Zweites Buch, Hitler’s second book says:?http://www.zogsnightmare.com/b.....esBuch.pdf?

    The struggle for existence and continuance in life waged by billions upon billions of organisms?takes place on the surface of an exactly measured sphere. The compulsion to engage in the struggle for?existence lies in the limitation of the living space; but in the life struggle for this living space lies also the basis?for evolution.?
    ?In the times before man, world history was primarily a presentation of geological events: the struggle of natural?forces with one another, the creation of an inhabitable surface on this planet, the separation of water from land, ?the formation of mountains, of plains, and of the seas. This is the world history of this time. Later, with the? emergence of organic life, man’s interest concentrated on the process of becoming and the passing away of its? thousandfold forms. And only very late did man finally become visible to himself, and thus by the concept of? world history he began to understand first and foremost only the history of his own becoming, that is, the ?presentation of his own evolution. This evolution is characterised by an eternal struggle of men against beasts? and against men themselves. From the invisible confusion of the organisms there finally emerged formations:? Clans, Tribes, Folks, States. The description of their origins and their passing away is but the representation of? an eternal struggle for existence.
    ?…. ?
    First of all a very violent struggle for existence sets in, which only individuals who are the? strongest and have the greatest capacity for resistance can survive. A high infant mortality rate on the one hand?and a high proportion of aged people on the other are the chief signs of a time which shows little regard for?individual life.? Since, under such conditions, all weaklings are swept away through acute distress and illness,?and only the healthiest remain alive, a kind of natural selection takes place. [Descent Of Man, anyone?]
    Thus the number of a Folk can? easily be subject to a limitation, but the inner value can remain, indeed it can experience an inner heightening.?But such a process cannot last for too long, otherwise the distress can also turn into its opposite. In nations?composed of racial elements that are not wholly of equal value, permanent malnutrition can ultimately lead to a ?dull surrender to the distress, which gradually reduces energy, and instead of a struggle which fosters a natural? selection, a gradual degeneration sets in. This is surely the case once man, in order to control the chronic?distress, no longer attaches any value to an increase of his number, and resorts on his own to birth control. For? then he himself immediately embarks upon a road opposite to that taken by nature. Whereas nature, out of the ?multitude of beings who are born, spares the few who are most fitted in terms of health and resistance to wage?life’s struggle, man limits the number of births, and then tries to keep alive those who have been born with no?regard to their real value or to their inner worth. Here his humanity is only the handmaiden of his weakness, and?at the same time it is actually the cruellest destroyer of his existence. If man wants to limit the number of births? on his own, without producing the terrible consequences which arise from birth control, he must give the? number of births free rein but cut down on the number of those remaining alive.?
    ?Since the firstborn in no way must grow according to the racially valuable sides of both parents, it lies ?in the interest of a nation that later life at least search out the more racially valuable from among the total?number of children, through the struggle for existence, and preserve them for the nation and, conversely, put the ?nation in the possession of the accomplishments of these racially valuable individuals. But if man himself ?prevents the procreation of a greater number of children and limits himself to the firstborn or at least to the?secondborn, he will nevertheless want to preserve especially these inferior racial elements of the nation, even if? these do not possess the most valuable characteristics. Thus he artificially hinders nature’s process of selection, ?he prevents it, and thereby helps to impoverish a nation of powerful personalities. He destroys the peak value of? a Folk.

    ——

  23. Sorry about the question marks everywhere – they appear to have been placed when I inserted “spaces” which had disappeared in copying this from previous uses.

  24. Nobody is really accusing evolutionists of being publically racists. Even if they do believe in racism in their heart, they would be foolish to admit it publically as that would amount to career suicide. I suspect, however, that many are in fact closet racists and that we are only seeing the tip of a submerged iceberg.

    What evolutionists cannot deny is that evolution, by its very use of a selection mechanism, must be discriminatory in nature. Otherwise it would not work. Discrimination, within the context of genes, implies racism, i.e., the superiority of one ethnic/racial group or breed over another.

  25. By the way, Allen MacNeill, since this thread is still short by some distance of a hundred comments could you comment to this of yours?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-307961

    It looks to me that, in denying mapou’s point, you have agreed with Skell that a thorough knowledge of evolution is superfluous to success in the biological sciences:

    Francis Crick and James Watson, neither of whom are evolutionary biologists, nor are recognized by the scientific community as having spent their whole lives studying evolution.

    And here you appear to confirm that unintelligent abiogenesis is, in fact, a necessary component of modern evolutionary theory:

    On the contrary, Francis Crick is on public record as vigorously opposing the basic principles of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” (often referred to on this website as “neo-darwinism”). Crick, along with Leslie Orgel, proposed an alternative theory called “directed panspermia”, which essentially is one of the versions of “intelligent design” cited by Dr. William Dembski as an explanation for the origin of “complex specified information” (i.e. it was seeded on Earth by aliens).

    I like quoting you, so could you confirm my readings on this issue?
    If you do so on the appropriate thread rather than let this lovely veer off topic would you kindly link to your response?

  26. Oh, by the way, I am not accusing anyone, evolutionary biologist or not, of racism.
    With the exception right now of Darwin (yes, a lesser racism than many of his era) and Hitler.

  27. Allen_MacNeill,

    If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile. ~ Adolf Hitler

    The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. ~ Arthur Keith

    National Socialism is nothing but applied biology. ~ Rudolph Hess

    Hitler and many of the physicians that carried out this program were very fanatical Darwinists and particularly wanted to apply Darwinism to society. ~ Richard Weikart

  28. Mapou #24

    What evolutionists cannot deny is that evolution, by its very use of a selection mechanism, must be discriminatory in nature. Otherwise it would not work. Discrimination, within the context of genes, implies racism, i.e., the superiority of one ethnic/racial group or breed over another.

    Exactly what are you saying here? Many IDers accept at least “microevolution”, and some even accept “macroevolution”. Are you saying that these people must therefore believe in the superiority of one racial group over another?

  29. Yep, that’s exactly what he’s saying.

  30. In #28 Madsen wrote:

    “Discrimination, within the context of genes, implies racism, i.e., the superiority of one ethnic/racial group or breed over another.”

    It implies nothing of the kind. According to modern evolutionary theory, atural selection operates at the level of individuals, not races. Indeed, the whole concept of “race” is no longer an operative one in evolutionary biology, and hasn’t been since at least 1945.

  31. 31

    Allen [30], mapou wrote that, not Madsen.

  32. In #25 charlie wrote:

    “…you have agreed with Skell that a thorough knowledge of evolution is superfluous to success in the biological sciences.”

    On the contrary, I have commented on previous threads that Dr. Skell is completely mistaken. Indeed, evolutionary biology itself is one of the major branches of the biological sciences. Would you like to argue that knowledge of evolution is superfluous to success in that field?

    And, if evolutionary biology is superfluous to success in the biological sciences, why have at least a half dozen Nobel Prizes been awarded to evolutionary biologists, despite the fact that no category for biology exists in Alfred Nobel’s bequest of gift? Or that in 1982 the Swedish Academy of Sciences established a parallel prize – the Crafoord Prize – specifically to honor astronomers, biologists, and geologists, and that since 1982 eleven evolutionary biologists have been awarded Crafoord Prizes?

    Dr. Skell’s opinions (which he has never defended through the use of actual evidence) have been thoroughly debunked by the majority of the scientific community. Arguing by assertion doesn’t work, even if you’re a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and especially if you know virtually nothing about the sciences outside of your field of study.

  33. Forget about racism already.

    Its the least of darwinists problems. They can’t even see the forest for the trees.

    There is absolutely no competition happening in nature. It is an illusion, much more so than the supposed illusion of design Dawkins likes to trumpet.

    Competition says there are winners and losers. In nature, there are no winners and losers. Rather, there are fluctuations in the quantitative representation of organisms. Species come and go but animal kinds are still here.

    The Dodo bird left us long ago. But birds are still here. The day ALL birds go extinct is the day nature starts to unravel and ALL of life goes extinct.

    Again, organisms don’t compete, they barter. Rabbits give 8 so they can keep two. Snakes give 100 so they can keep 20. Insects give millions so they can keep thousands.

    This is a key concept that Darwinists miss (whether from ignorance or intent I don’t know).

  34. In #25 Charlie also wrote:

    “…you appear to confirm that unintelligent abiogenesis is, in fact, a necessary component of modern evolutionary theory”

    On the contrary, I merely pointed out that Francis Crick thought that it was, and presented an hypothesis that is very similar to the suggestion by Dr. William Dembski; that aliens might have been responsible for the “planting” of life on Earth. Personally, I think that the question of the origin of life is still quite far from an evidence-based solution, and may remain so for the foreseeable future. So what? Neither Darwin nor most evolutionary biologists over the past 150 years have bothered to argue about the origin of life. Rather, we have studied life as it already exists, using the empirical method and publishing our findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals. ID supporters have done none of these things, and so ID remains merely an hypothesis, devoid of evidence and based primarily on questionable mathematical speculations, promoted by people who have a not-very-well-hidden agenda of promoting the Christian religion in the guise of science. So far, it hasn’t worked, and if the rapid demise of organizations such as the IDEA clubs is any indication, it won’t.

  35. 35

    IDists on this site often say that they believe in evolution but disagree about the mechanisms of evolution. If this is true, then don’t the claims of evolution being inherently racist also apply to ID?

  36. Oramus

    Again, organisms don’t compete, they barter. Rabbits give 8 so they can keep two. Snakes give 100 so they can keep 20. Insects give millions so they can keep thousands.

    This is a key concept that Darwinists miss (whether from ignorance or intent I don’t know).

    Eh? Not claiming to be a Darwinist here, but have you heard of the term “differential reproductive success”?

  37. Hi Allen MacNeill,

    you have agreed with Skell that a thorough knowledge of evolution is superfluous to success in the biological sciences.”

    On the contrary, I have commented on previous threads that Dr. Skell is completely mistaken.

    So then both Crick and Watson were well-acquainted in evolutionary theory?

    “…you appear to confirm that unintelligent abiogenesis is, in fact, a necessary component of modern evolutionary theory”

    On the contrary, I merely pointed out that Francis Crick thought that it was, and presented an hypothesis that is very similar to the suggestion by Dr. William Dembski;

    Ok, so his proposal of directed panspermia did not put him ” on public record as vigorously opposing the basic principles of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” (often referred to on this website as “neo-darwinism”). ”
    And I don’t think that he doubted the efficacy of Natural Selection. So what was the basic principle of MES/ND, that he vigorously opposed? Natural variation?

  38. madsen @ 28:

    Exactly what are you saying here? Many IDers accept at least “microevolution”, and some even accept “macroevolution”. Are you saying that these people must therefore believe in the superiority of one racial group over another?

    No. As a Christian, I only believe in human spiritual superiority or inferiority. And that, only in terms of faith, not righteousness. Why? Because I believe what Paul wrote to the effect that all human spirits are defective (they’ve fallen short of the glory of God). You either have faith or you don’t. There’s nothing you can do about it and your genetic background will do you no good in this regard. This is the primary reason that Christians should not be racists. Heck we are not even allowed to judge other spirits, let alone the genetic makeup of the bodies they may inhabit.

    By comparison, Christians are taught that only 1/3 of Angelic spirits (yes, we do believe in non-human aliens) are bad.

  39. Mapou #38
    No. As a Christian, I only believe in human spiritual superiority or inferiority.

    ***

    By comparison, Christians are taught that only 1/3 of Angelic spirits (yes, we do believe in non-human aliens) are bad.

    Ok, thanks. My mistake.

  40. 40

    Mapou

    The idea of superior and inferior do not follow from the theory of evolution but are imposed from the outside. Rather than go through the whole process of demonstrating this again, I refer you to my posts on another thread: here, here, here, here, and here. They tend toward greater abstraction as I’m forced to really distill the logical fallacy involved, since the rebuttals to my posts were generally a simple restating their position as if it were any more logically valid than before. Please post any rebuttals here, since I’m not really following that thread any longer.

  41. Madsen, yes I have.

    The concept of differential reproductive ‘success’ is meaningless.

    ALL organisms are reproductively successful. Whether varieties within a ‘kind’ of organism continue or not has no bearing on the survivability of the kind.

    I submit that if any kind of animal were to go extinct, nature would be in danger of imploding. Could life survive without insects, without trees, without bacteria, without birds?

    Evolution as maintenance man is conceivable. Evolution as architect is fantasy.

  42. 42

    I don’t know if anyone else is having trouble with those links, but all my comments can be found under the post “Darwinists, just divorce racism. Get back to me when you have filed, okay …” starting at post #33.

  43. In #33, Oramus said:

    The Dodo bird left us long ago. But birds are still here. The day ALL birds go extinct is the day nature starts to unravel and ALL of life goes extinct.

    How long does this “unravelling” take? Dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, and life is ticking along so far.

  44. Oramus #41: ‘kinds’? What’s a ‘kind’?

  45. Is it merely good fortune for Darwinist PR that some intermediary between ape and man no longer exists? Doesn’t the theory make it quite possible that some race of inferior “humans” might still have existed had things turned out a bit differently? Would we be having this discussion if we found an isolated tribe in the jungle that actually was “inferior”? Or would this just advance the cause of animal rights (Hey, apes, subhumans, humans, we’re all equal)?

  46. Mikev6, dinosaurs are still with us: the shark, the elephant, the hippo, the gilo monster,

  47. Madsen,

    If you have trouble with the concept of kind, you oughta have even more trouble understanding what a species is.

    Oh, I dunno, I’ll give it a shot.

    Kinds: bacteria, insects, reptiles, fish, mammals.

  48. 48

    Charlie, post 22:

    “If man wants to limit the number of births? on his own, without producing the terrible consequences which arise from birth control, he must give the? number of births free rein but cut down on the number of those remaining alive.”

    Hitler argued this way primarily because France at the time was using a program of birth control to try and control evolution. Hitler made the same argument in Mein Kampf, that evolution should be allowed to take its natural course rather than arbitrarily control it by preventing births. I think though, that diatribe extends mainly from his hatred of France, lol. Hitler was above all, a nationalist. He used whatever methods he could to promote the German race, and it is worth noting that he found evolutionary ideas much more to his liking than Christian ones. You will never find him making the argument that the Jews should be exterminated because they crucified Christ and should be punished.

    The speech that was quoted earlier:

    http://www.humanitas-internati.....04-12.html

    Hitler said that Christ expunged the Jews from the temple. Laughable compared to what Hitler wanted to do. Hitler then basically said that Christ died to oppose the Jews. Pretty tame considering the final solution Hitler had in mind. It’s easy to see why he abandoned such rhetoric later on. This was 1922 after all, before he wrote Mein Kampf, and twenty years before the Final Solution. His thinking evolved quite a bit in that time period.

  49. Oramus,

    Madsen,

    If you have trouble with the concept of kind, you oughta have even more trouble understanding what a species is.

    Oh, I dunno, I’ll give it a shot.

    Kinds: bacteria, insects, reptiles, fish, mammals.

    Just to be clear, are you saying that humans, apes, rats, deer, and kangaroo are all of the same kind? (all being mammals)

  50. Hi TM,
    Thanks for the point on France.

    Hitler made the same argument in Mein Kampf, that evolution should be allowed to take its natural course rather than arbitrarily control it by preventing births.

    He did indeed. And he sounded very Descent Of Man-like when he did it.

    In addition to the Second Book quote on the subject, here’s Hitler not mentioning Darwin in Mein Kampf:

    “For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned.” — Adolf Hitler
    Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 4.

    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.“Chapter 21, DoM

  51. I never understood the idea that there is a struggle for existence in nature.

    Animals live, procreate, and die. Where is the struggle? No matter what life in particular does, it never survives.

    No animal (except for humans maybe) tries to live longer. They just follow what their instincts tell them. Have turtles, sharks, bees increased their longevity over the millions of years?

    Struggle implies difficulty in attaining a goal. What organisms have difficulty in living? Is it because we focus on individual organisms? Some die instantly upon birth, some live the length of their biological calendar thus giving an ‘appearance’ of struggle?. If there was such a struggle for survival, we would not see old animals. Yet we KNOW comparatively elephants live old, as do turtle, gorillas, canines, just to name a few.

    Rather, I think we are mistakenly looking at life through an emotional lense, anthropomorphisizing biological phenomena.

    There’s no competition, no struggle.

    Just life.

    Now. How am I gonna pay next month’s mortgage?

    :)

  52. Madsen,

    Scientifically, they are not the same, I’m sure.

    What I AM trying to say is that laserbeaming on individual organisms behaviour in particular leads to the wrong conclusions in general.

  53. Oramus:
    There is absolutely no competition happening in nature. It is an illusion, much more so than the supposed illusion of design Dawkins likes to trumpet.

    How strange; I see competition everywhere around me.

    Lions: …when one or more new males oust the previous male(s) associated with a pride, the conqueror(s) often kill any existing young cubs, perhaps because females do not become fertile and receptive until their cubs mature or die.

    Whatever the reason, the outcome inevitably is competitive: his genes takes precedence.

    Another example: Deer bucks in the mating season spend all their energy assembling and protecting a ‘harem’ against competing males. At the end of the season he may be completely exhausted and ready to die – but his genes have been propagated, we must believe, to the detriment of his competitor’s genes.

    You may not agree much with Richard Dawkins but reading “The Selfish Gene” might be informative with respect to what reproductive competition is and how it works but you are of course free to disagree with him.

  54. Cabal, thank you for the response.

    Yet, the ‘loser’ in the fight will also propagate his genes, just not with that particular female he was fighting for.

    Will the progeny of the stronger lion or buck be better adapted than the progeny of the losing lion and buck?

    As well, a particular lion is a winner in one fight but a loser in another fight.

    Genetically, it seems both winners and losers win.

    How is that?

  55. Cabal, I have not read the selfish gene.

    Does Dawkins speak to my question above?

    BTW, my wife won’t let me use a credit card on the net, and I can’t get the book here in Taiwan. So its not that I am lazy to read. It just really is a pain in the arse for me really to get my hands on the books I want.

  56. Cabal,

    Cooperation rules life, not competetion.

    Competetion exists but to a much lesser degree than cooperation.

    Deers mate- even those who have “lost” some sort of competetion.

    Lions also mate- even those males who have been kicked out of their original pride.

    As for evolutionary biology-

    We don’t even know what is responsible for the development of our eyes and vision system.

    And that means no one knows whether or not our eyes and vision system could have evolved via any mechanism.

    Evo-bio certainly hasn’t provided any insight into our sight.

  57. DavidKellogs:

    Your ignorance of biblical history is appalling and seriously flawed.

    I’ll bet that everything you learned in life about the bible and Christianity was gleaned from the fictional novel “The DaVinci Code” and your understanding of science from Star Trek.

  58. McNeill – you’re still wandering around chasing your tail missing the point and responding with your usual ire.
    In short; basically just proving Arrington right.

    All your Hitler quotes? I suggest you take a good look at the Nuremberg process, specifically the part where the documents reveal that the Nazis planned to corrupt and undo the church.

  59. 59

    Hi Borne. I’m not sure what precisely is your objection in [57]. Your understanding of me is the thing that’s flawed. I’ve never read the Da Vinci code, though I imagine it’s a pretty terrible book.

    My understanding of the Bible comes from about 15 years as an evangelical and inerrantist. So I’ve engaged sympathetically with a lot of that material, as well as with more “liberal” scholarship such as that of Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and others.

    That John did not write the gospel attributed to him by tradition is in line with most modern biblical scholarship.

  60. I am just amazed that people still think there was no connection between darwin and racism, or darwin and Hiter…Gould admits..

    ” Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
    ‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

    and the link between Hitler and darwin is nothing new, and has been cited by many historians…

    The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

    The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

    John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

    In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself

    link

    Hitler was concerned with the master race…I don’t see that in the bible..but of course in evolution, some races must be more ‘fit’ than others…and darwin was of course sure the caucasion race was the most fit..eugenics flows from evolution..it is nothing more than applied evolution

  61. Bone

    I suggest you take a good look at the Nuremberg process, specifically the part where the documents reveal that the Nazis planned to corrupt and undo the church.

    You may be intersted in what protestant pasors were thinking about Hitler in 1931 (the text is in German unfortunately).
    You will find it here:
    http://bs.cyty.com/kirche-von-.....ze1931.htm
    According to the references quite some percentage of the pastors were appreciating Hitler, his nationalism and his anti-semitism. And haven’t you seen those pictures of pastors greeting Hitler with the “Deutsche Gruß”? BTW, Did you ever hear about the ratline?

  62. Thanks for the replies. I see no conflict between competition and cooperation. Take behavior in flock species like wolves or chimpanzees. Cooperation is required for the success of flock or tribe, but competition within the flock is to a large extent responsible for the distribution pattern of genes

    When the living is easy nothing much happens but in times of hardship, shortage of food and other necessities it pays (payoff = reproduction) to be strong, aggressive, smart, more fit than average.

    IMHO, many of the problems of understanding evolutionary theory may be overcome only by doing some effort of one one’s own to figure out how it is supposed to work. That doesn’t mean one will be lead to believe in evolution, but it may at least be helpful in arriving at an understanding of what evolutionists are trying to say. It seems to me that critics of evolution sometimes overlook some of the more subtle aspects of the theory.

    WRT “The Selfish Gene”: Google is your best friend. I googled “the selfish gene” right now and as often is the case Wikipedia returned with what looks as a reasonable introduction to the subject. I wish you luck.

  63. David Kellogg (#18): “No. I said the Gospels were not based on anything Jesus had written (not at all the same as a forgery).”

    Since we already know that only Atheists say these types of things about their enemy (= the Bible), what is the point, David?

    Ray

  64. David Kellogg (#59): “So I’ve engaged sympathetically with a lot of that material, as well as with more “liberal” scholarship such as that of Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and others.

    Since both of these guys are Darwinists their conclusions concerning the Bible, that is, the source for Creationsim-ID and supernaturalism, are obviously predetermined.

    Ray

  65. Prof. MacNeill:

    If you started publishing research into the evolution of racial differences that indicated heretofor undiscovered, yet significant important differences between racial groups (i.e. intelligence differences), would your University job be at risk? Assume no tenure if you are tenured.

    My point is that if evolutionary theory does indeed lend support to racist theories, then we probably wouldn’t hear about it. Wouldn’t embarrassing results be suppressed and those who ventured to explore them be censured? I’m thinking of the president of Harvard University who lost his job for suggesting that male-female differences might account for differential performance in math and science. If his suggestion was right, we will never hear it from an academic source. The same with racist theories based on a Darwinian model.

    Disclaimer: I don’t subscribe to racist ideology. But I think Darwinism fits better with racism than design theory or creationism.

  66. Allen_MacNeill:While Hitler uses the word “evolution” in Mein Kampf, it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin’s theory.

    Hitler called his book “my struggle” partly because he equated his fight with a Darwinian struggle for survival.

    In fact, a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.

    This claims falls to the level of claims made by Holocaust deniers. Any reader interested in the truth need only research Nazi attitudes to the Confessional Church and their attempts to eliminate the “Jewish influence” from Christianity, including the Jewish creation narrative.

    A historical example:

    Grundmann’s continuous efforts to obtain the permission for a periodical were treated in a dilatory way, and an internal note of the Propaganda Ministry gave the following reasons for this attitude:
    The endeavors of this organization and its leading men such as Prof. Grundmann are well meant. But there is no interest either in assimilating (angleichen) Christian teaching in national socialism or in proving that a re-shaped (umgestaltetes) Christianity is not fundamentally Jewish (keine judische Grundhaltung aufweist).
    On a specific occasion, even a more negative attitude was revealed. When several persons of the Ministry of Propaganda were invited to a meeting of the Institute in Berlin on January 15, 1942, at which Professors Grundmann and Werdermann were to lecture, a high official of the Ministry noted in pencil on the invitation: ‘If such lectures at present are considered desirable at all, they should be watched.’ Another of Goebbels’ officials contemplated asking the Party Chancellery, i.e., the supreme authority of the Party, for a decision on how to treat the Jena Institute, but whether such a request was ever made is not known.
    (Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
    By Max Weinreich
    (New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) : 67)

    The Nazis generally viewed the entire Old Testament as the work of “wandering nomads,” “ignorant shepherds” and so on based on the mythologies of progress that have been typical to hypotheses of evolution. Their attitudes stand in stark contrast to the claims typical to “orthodox creationists” who support the Jewish creation narrative and generally believe the Old Testament and so on.

    Allen MacNeill’s claims seem to rest on ignorance, I will try to correct more later before he begins claiming that the Nazis were actually all practicing Jews who firmly believed in the Jewish creation narrative (i.e. orthodox creationism).

  67. There is no mention of racial inferiority anywhere in the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolution. Secondly, any opinions held regarding social policy of past evolutionary biologists are irrelevant to the discussion to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis.
    I never see the final conclusion of the theory of gravity being discussed. You know, dropping heavy objects on inferior people’s heads….

  68. Ray, the world is not split into “true Christians” and atheists. I’ve studied with several ID-friendly Othodox rabbis who would easily agree with David Kellogg’s position on the NT. ;-p

    According to the NT itself, what Jesus wrote, he wrote in the dust.

  69. It should also be mentioned the Neo Darwinian Synthesis makes no claims as to what “should be”–it lends no support to eugenics, genocide, infanticide, euthanasia, etc and presenting such arguments is disingenuous. Theory (capital T) is only descriptive of what ‘is’ and of the ‘how.’ Only man determines the ‘what.’

  70. Allen you wrote:

    They also pointed out that prominent evolutionary biologists were among the members of the UNESCO panel that issued the United Nations’ 1950 statement on eugenics and race, which condemned both in the strongest of terms, and that virtually no evolutionary biologist has actively supported eugenics since 1945.

    Um, UNESCO’s first leader was the president of the eugenics society — Julian Huxley. After WWII the eugenics establishment publicly repudiated eugenics but privately continued on under different organizations with the same agenda, e.g. creating the population and birth control movement, which was also aligned with the environmental movement, in order to deprive third world resource rich countries, especially Africa, of economic development, stability, and aid — following the Malthusian ideology which is part of the basis of eugenics, along with Social Darwinism.

    Political unification in some sort of world government will be required… Even though… any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.

    - Sir Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy.

    One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.

    - Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

    The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.

    - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

    If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

    — Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

    The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.

    —Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)

    See http://www.toolan.com/hitler/sameold.html

  71. In case it needs repeating: evolutionary theory says nothing about eugenics or social engineering. The socio-politcal perspectives of former and current prominent evolutionary biologists are irrelevant to the validity of the theory. It is a non sequitur. Should we condemn Newton’s contributions towards physics because of his metaphysics? I do not see “materialists” doing such things.

    Could someone clarify (perhaps Barry Arrington?) how the abuse of evolutionary theory (or science in general) detracts from its validity or explanatory and predictive powers?

  72. It should also be mentioned the Neo Darwinian Synthesis makes no claims as to what “should be”–it lends no support to eugenics, genocide, infanticide, euthanasia, etc and presenting such arguments is disingenuous.

    This is the same type of reasoning which allowed Darwin to lament the inevitable extermination of the lower races while predicting it as a scientific fact. Of course he lent little support to such things personally, he just described them as a scientific fact of nature based on his type of pseudo-science.

    Darwin promoted the ridiculous idea that his hypotheses were little different than physical theories. Given that, the inevitable extermination of lower races predicted by his theory of natural selection was no different than objects falling to the ground as a result of gravity.

    Theory (capital T) is only descriptive of what ‘is’ and of the ‘how.’ Only man determines the ‘what.’

    Except when someone is ignorant enough to propose a theory of man and other animals which supposedly totally reduces them to blind, unintelligent, inanimate processes. According to Darwin, whatever it is you think you mean by “what” has its roots in natural selection operating on the reproductive and excretory organs of a group of ancient ape-like creatures. You say that man determines “what,” whatever you may mean by that but Darwin believed he had a knowledge as to what determines man himself. In fact, many Darwinists are ignorant and stupid enough to keep repeating the same type of charlatanism that Darwin engaged in. How is it that so many argue that Darwinism is a “universal acid” that eats away all traditional values but then when someone points to the historical fact that it really did all the effete Darwinists claim that it actually has nothing to do with anything based on refined abstractions? It’s a historical fact that it did undermine traditional values, just as the hard men* of Darwinism have always openly admitted. In contrast the “soft men” of Darwinism generally just turn it back into mush whenever they dislike its predictions.

    *As the philosopher David Stove called them.

  73. In case it needs repeating: evolutionary theory says nothing about eugenics or social engineering.

    Does evolutionary theory explain man? Does it explain intelligence, language, religion and ethics? If it does not, then why do so many seem to have a problem admitting that intelligent agency exists and may have an impact on biology? For example, if the “theory of evolution” (Are you sure there’s only one?) does not explain man’s intelligence, language and religion at this time then how far back does this failure extend? Why shouldn’t students be informed of this failure and the possible role of intelligence and language in biology? (After all, they were indoctrinated in eugenics only a short time ago.)

    Should we condemn Newton’s contributions towards physics because of his metaphysics?

    If Newton had the Darwinian urge to merge he would have claimed that his metaphysics could be merged with his physics. He did not because his metaphysical views were grounded in the notion that reality has an ordered structure that can be described mathematically thanks to a divine Architect. This was the matrix in which his physics emerged. He did not separate his metaphysics from his physics, he married them:

    Newton ridiculed the idea that the world could be explained in impersonal, mechanical terms. Above all, having discovered the elegant lawfulness of things, Newton believed that he had, once and for all, demonstrated the certainty that behind all existence there is an intelligent, aware, omnipotent God. Any other assumption is ‘inconsistent with my system.’
    (For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch Hunts and the End of Slavery by Rodney Stark :168)

    Could someone clarify (perhaps Barry Arrington?) how the abuse of evolutionary theory…

    You can’t “abuse” or pervert the hypothetical goo that gives rise to “evolution.” It comports with all observations and all specifications. To the extent that Darwinian theory has been specified it describes racism and genocide as a brute fact of life. There are no metaphysics, it is all merely natural and physical.

    …(or science in general) detracts from its validity or explanatory and predictive powers?

    What does the theory of evolution predict about man’s application of eugenics or racism? Nothing? If there are wide swaths of human behavior that fall outside of “evolutionary theory” (whatever you may mean by that) then why do so many seem to have such trouble admitting that?

  74. Excellent posts, mnym.

  75. You may be intersted in what protestant pasors were thinking about Hitler in 1931…

    How many protestant pastors in America have little problem with Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood?

    Those who do not run with the Herd are more interesting. After all, why don’t they run with it when it’s natural to do so?

    For example:

    …the German Lutherans have given Herr Hitler his first jolt. In the face of growing opposition to his efforts to crush religious beliefs into a Nazi form the Chancellor has now decided that the results of his efforts to “nazify” religious faith in the Reich represents simply a church dispute in which the State leaders of the country should not try to take a part.
    The effort to reshape religion in Germany is being undertaken by the German Christians, who belong to the Lutheran Church, but who are all Nazis. Their head is Bishop Mueller. The German Christians, in turn, are divided into extremists and moderates. The extremists would do away with the Old Testament, revise the New Testament. They wish to make a Nordic church… They would look upon Jesus Christ not as a holy figure but as an historical figure. In the long run, they would force all Germans, except Jews, into a German National Church, based not on Christianity but the consecration of the virtues represented by the Nazi political faith.
    (Hitler Given First Jolt by Protestant Pastors: Refusal of 4,000 Lutheran Clergymen to be Nationalized Brings Nazi Regime Significant Check
    By Edwin L. James
    The New York Times; Dec. 3, 1933 pg. E1)

    Note Allen MacNeill’s specious claims and distortions as well:

    “Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people.” – Adolf Hitler, Speech, April 26, 1933.

    The most charitable reading of Allen’s claims is that he’s not capable of discerning the difference between what is said by politicians in speeches and what actually happens. Are we to conclude that Hitler began to educate all students in creationism and so on?

    At any rate, Hitler’s private words and public deeds corresponded no matter what he said in political speeches:

    Hitler stopped and looked me in the eyes,‘Christianity is, for the moment, one of the points in the programme I have laid down. But we must look ahead. Rosenberg is a forerunner, a prophet. His theories are the expression of the German soul.’
    (Hitler and I
    by Otto Strasser (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940) :96)

    His testimony about Hitler’s sentiments comports with what happened historically:

    ….the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists. As Bormann, one of the men closest to Hitler, said publicly in 1941, “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.” What the Hitler government envisioned for Germany was clearly set out in a thirty-point program for the “National Reich Church” drawn up during the war by Rosenberg, an outspoken pagan, who among his other offices held that of “the Fuehrer’s Delegate for the Entire Intellectual and Philosophical Education and Instruction forthe National Socialist Party.”

    A few of its thirty articles convey the essentials:
    1. The National Reich Church of Germany categorically claims the exclusive right and the exclusive power to control all churches within the borders of the Reich: it declares these to be national churches of the German Reich.

    5. The National Church is determined to exterminate irrevocably the strange and foreign Christian faiths imported into Germany in the ill-omened year 800.

    7. The National Church has no scribes, pastors, chaplains or priests, but National Reich orators are to speak in them.

    13. The National Church demands immediate cessation of the publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany.

    14. The National Church declares that to it, and therefore to the German nation, it has been decided that the Fuehrer’s Mein Kampi is the greatest of all documents. It . . . not only contains the greatest but it embodies the purest and truest ethics for the present and future life of our nation.

    18. The National Church will clear away from its altars all crucifixes, Bibles and pictures of saints.

    19. On the altars there must be nothing but Mein Kampi (to the German nation and therefore to God the most sacred book) and to the left of the altar a sword.

    30. On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from all churches, cathedrals and chapels . . . and it must be superseded by the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika.
    (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History
    of Nazi Germany
    William L. Shirer
    (Simon and Schuster) 1990 :238-40)

    Unfortunately there may not be that much difference between “naturalism” and the emergence of nature based paganism in the end. But even if that’s not the case it’s ridiculous to try to portray the Nazis or Hitler as “creationists” as Allen MacNeill does above. If anyone had little use for the Jews and their creation story (i.e. creationism) it was the Nazis.

  76. 76
    CannuckianYankee

    B L Harville,

    “IDists on this site often say that they believe in evolution but disagree about the mechanisms of evolution. If this is true, then don’t the claims of evolution being inherently racist also apply to ID?”

    Well, no; because the part of Darwin’s theory that ID theorists reject is natural selection’s supposed influence on descent – precisely the part that leads to racist ideas.

    I look at it this way: natural selection implies cetain stages of development. I sense that Darwin thought that there were intermediary examples of common descent present among contemporary humans, and that they were exemplified in the various races; a position from which most modern-day Darwinists have distanced themselves.

    What IDists agree with concerning evolution is micro-evolution because we find clear evidence for it. We don’t find clear evidence for the intermediary evolutionary stages (contemporary ones) that Darwin thought existed. IDists are not racist in that they reject those intermediary stages based on the lack of evidence. If the evidence was there, I don’t think it could then be called “racism.” Racism is based in a value judgment concerning the intellectual, moral and physical abilities of the various races. In Darwin’s day the white race in Europe did in fact have a superiority complex, and Darwin naturally was a part of that social dynamic. But we have history to show that he was wrong.

    I don’t think anyone here is blaming Darwin for his racism. It was a part of a social dynamic that started long before his own time. However, Darwin’s views on natural selection falsely implied a white race superiority, an opinion formed out of Darwin’s social biases, and not out of anything scientific. Darwin simply used natural selection as a way of justifying the bias in quasi-scientific terms.

    I agree with many of the atheist posters here that Darwin’s views on race were more than that. He viewed other races as just as legitimate as his own, with the same rights and privileges. However, those views were inconsistent with the implications of natural selection as he put forth. One can be forgiven for being inconsistent. But when the implications of natural selection as Darwin understood them have a negative impact socially – as in the holocaust and eugenics, we’d be blind not to point that out. And we’d be blind not to also point out that modern Darwinists are being inconsistent with the implications of natural selection specifically as it pertains to human evolution.

    Now someone here attempted to point out that the writer of John was an anti-semite. Not only that, but that it is a proven fact. Well I should point out that the writer of John was probably a Jew himself, so I find that assertion hard to fathom.

    Furthermore, Jesus himself – a Jew said many negative things against the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem in other gospels. For example: Luke 11:39-43,13:34-35, Matthew 23:1-5. Is this then evidence that Jesus himself was anti-semitic, or that the writers of those other gospels were?

    Therefore, I would like to see the “proof” that the writer of John’s gospel was an anti-semite, or that John’s gospel gave impetus to anti-semitism in the west. Perhaps it’s true that it did in fact give impetus to it. But if so, it would be beside the point.

    We know by the evidence that the writer of John’s gospel did not hold anti-semitic views, and therefore any contribution his writing may have had on the development of anti-semitism in the West would be attributed to poor exegesis of his writings, combined with an already existant anti-semitism, for which there is historical evidence. I mean, look at the Romans, for heaven’s sake. They weren’t Christians.

    In fact, since there is already good evidence that John was the last of the gospels to be written. The author was merely expounding upon the sayings of Jesus aginst the Jewish leadership specifically, that were present in the synoptics.

    Christianity is far from being anti-semitic. Do Christians agree with the Jewish teachings? Somewhat, yes, but with one great exception, and that is that we believe Jesus is the promised Messiah – the Son of God. As such, Jesus was certainly in his right to criticise the Jewish leadership, and he did so precisely because they misrepresented the Father, and lorded over the Jewish people as a whole. Hence, Jesus was a liberator, and the gospel of John illuminates this fact even better than the synoptics.

    Now to tie this into our discussion of racism and Darwinism, I think there is a clear contrast. The teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were never anti-semitic, nor racist. It is clear in fact in John’s gospel that salvation is open to “the world” through simple belief (John 3:16). There is no distinction between Jew and gentile here.

    Darwin, however, did make distinctions between races, justifying such distinctions based on natural selection.

    This is the point that most IDists here are attempting to point out in several days of posting and comment on the subject. I don’t think it could be made more explicit.

    Is this then scientific evidence that Darwinism is false? Perhaps not. But who among us is of the opinion that scientific evidence is the only evidence that exists? History is not scientific, but it holds evidence. There are other areas of inquiry which produce truthful results, such as forensics (which is based in combinations of scientific as well as an accumulation of other circumstantial evidences).

    The racist implications of Darwinism fit well with a forensic type of evidence against the notion of natural selection’s supposed impact on descent. It also fits well with an historical type of evidence.

    We often know that ideas are false based on the inconsistencies prevalent in formation by their authors. Darwin’s inconsistencies regarding natural selection and race is a clear red flag waving in the direction of falsehood. But that should not be considered the only or complete evidence leading to a rejection of natural selection.

  77. 77
    CannuckianYankee

    I meant to point out that ID’s criticism of natural selection is solely scientific, and does not delve into the above issues. However, ID supporters often stray into other evidential areas apart from hard science, which is also true of supporters of Darwinism.

  78. Sigh:

    I really wanted to sit this one out.

    Since Mr MacNeil has seen fit to raise herr Schicklegruber’s rationale as an issue [adn to thereby tar Bible-believing Christians by direct extension of the context of "creartionist"], it is reasonable on rebuttal to provide a certain degree of balance by citing from Bk 1 Ch XI of his infamous first book.

    I apologise for citing such painful rubbish, but it is necessary, for too many are unable to see how by 1925 or so, the implicaitons of Origin’s subtilte were being understood.

    That sub-title, again, from 1859, is:

    >>On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life>>

    Plainly, the envisioned unit of population competing for SURVIVAL of the fittest — thus not mere displacement but elimination of the less fit [as CRD states in the cited excerpt from Ch 6 of Descent, as an aside on the subject of why the missing links are missing] — is the race.

    Now, with deep pain to have to put such up to underscore a point, herr Schicklegruber:

    __________________

    >> Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.

    The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice [or a pure-blood "Aryan" Nazi superman with sympathy to "lesser" breeds: Jews and Poles etc, doubtless . . . ] . . . .

    In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

    If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best [NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in Descent, cf chs 5 - 7], if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . . >>

    To wash such filth away, let us immediately contrast the Apostle Paul, to the Athenians on Mars Hill, in AD 50, from Acts 17:

    >> 24″The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28′For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ >>
    ____________________

    Sorry folks, there are some truths we HAVE to face, if we are to learn form them and perhaps avert the sort of future Mr Darwin projected in Ch 6 of Descent, and repeated verbatim in the second edn, i.e. AFTER he privately wrote to another party on the recognition of the import of his findings on the intellectual capacity of us Negroes.

    Mr MacNeill, please, please, PLEASE, I NEVER want to see the “Hitler was a creationist” canard from you or any other commenter at UD again.

    But, the real issue at root is not racism, it is that evolutionary materialism per its worldview level axioms and dynamics, logically undermines mind and morality and THUS removes key civilisational barriers to oppressive and abusive dominance of strong over weak. Just what civilisation is designed to block.

    So, it is survival of our civilisation as something worth having that is what is in the end at stake. And, the Darwinists are plainly severely challenged to show a solid ground for an ethics of justice and protection of the weak and vulnerable among us.

    A challenge that over many months of observing it raised, I have yet to see a serious and solid answer to. 9the much despised creationists will simply quote the US DOI, 2nd paragraph: all of us are created equal and are endowed with unalienable rights, which it is the purpose of Govt to protect. ALL of that can be easily warranted on the biblical, indeed Creationist, frame. [Which makes racist etc oppression: SIN.])

    Again, forgive me for having to broach such a painful reminder. but — for the survival of our civilisation — we MUST face it together.

    GEM of TKI

  79. 79
    Vladimir Krondan

    You guys should read Measures for Race Betterment by Samuel J. Holments. Holmes was a president of the American Eugenics Society and a fellow of the AAAS.

    Darwin Medalist Henry Fairfield Osborn (horse evolution, president of the AAAS) wrote the preface to Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant. This book, and Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy are the Mein Kampfs of american nazism.

  80. In case it needs repeating: evolutionary theory says nothing about eugenics or social engineering. The socio-politcal perspectives of former and current prominent evolutionary biologists are irrelevant to the validity of the theory. It is a non sequitur. Should we condemn Newton’s contributions towards physics because of his metaphysics? I do not see “materialists” doing such things.

    You are very naive if you think that evolutionary theory is being promoted by the evolution lobby as some type of benevolent enlightenment solely because of evolutionary theory’s scientific legitimacy. As has been pointed out by countless highly educated people — evolutionary theory is scientifically vapid, it is without any legitimate scientific support. So then the question arises — why is evolution so dogmatically and forcefully promoted as being the only viable and true explanation about the origin of species? And, where and what can the promotion of that paradigm lead people and or society towards?

    These are legitimate questions that are part of the ID movement’s conversation with the public.

    Richard Dawkins recently made headlines with his atheist bus advertising campaign in the U.K. The slogan “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” served what purpose? Clearly, Dawkins or whatever amateur psychologist came up with tha slogan, believed that they could make a psychological connection in people’s psyches that would have them meld the concept of “worry” — with belief in God, and the concept of “enjoying life” — with not believing in God. Basically they are trying to brainwash people into becoming or staying atheists. This is from one of the leaders of the evolution lobby, in fact the leading public face of the evolution lobby. So here in a very open and unequivocal way the question as to what motivates the evolution lobby is very succinctly revealed — they want to brainwash people into atheism.

    What is interesting about this revealing episode is that the method — psychological manipulation — that Dawkins and crew have used to promote atheism, is the same method the evolution lobby uses to promote evolution and denigrate ID — psychological manipulation. In both cases there is an objective that is sought — convincing the public that a certain belief is modern, true and beneficial, and that another belief is anachronistic, false, and harmful. In both cases the ends justify the means to the evolution lobby. We know this because they refuse to stay within the boundaries of any ethical or moral code or guidelines while propagating their missions. In both cases psychological manipulation is seen as not only acceptable, but essential to winning over the hearts and minds of the public. While rational debate is seen as pointless since they are not interested in examining the good or bad within their own beliefs, they are only interested in convincing others that their beliefs are the only rational, sane, acceptable, intelligent beliefs — and that any other contradictory beliefs are irrational, insane, unacceptable and foolish.

    Let’s examine the slogan “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”. One of the major implication of belief in God is the conception that there is some omnipotent omnipresent intelligence that — like Santa Claus — knows if you’ve been naughty or nice because he sees you when you’re sleeping and when you’re awake — so you better be good for goodness sake! That is ingrained into the psyche of those who have firm belief in an omnipresent omnipotent God. What happens to people when they don’t “worry” about God, as Dawkins suggests we should, but instead believe that there isn’t an omnipresent omnipotent intelligence who is monitoring our lives? What happens if there is no police force in a community? People believe they can get away with crime. That slogan would have been more accurate if it looked like this “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life — From I Did it My Way, by Joseph Stalin”

    But people like Dawkins aren’t concerned about the social implications of their quest, they have tunnel vision, they don’t care whether they are right or wrong because they are right no matter what. The truth is that belief in God is more likely to make someone happier than disbelief. This is because if you firmly believe that your life will end, forever, when your body dies, that is inherently going to cause you to view life through the eyes of a person on death row. Whereas a person who believes that his life will go on forever after the death of the body, that person will inherently view life through the eyes of a god-like being.

    The profoundly morally and ethically challenged, like Dawkins and his ilk, foolishly believe that atheism will free people from the oppressive bondage of various aspects of the teachings of various religions, and therefore people and society in general will be better off for it. It’s the worst case of ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ imaginable. Belief in God not only acts as a moral and ethical restrain on people and society — for the better — it also brings existential relief from the dread of eternal death, which all atheists experience — consciously or subconsciously — whether they realize it or not.

    History has proven that evolutionary theory gave “scientific” legitimacy to the abandonment of morality in pursuit of a “science” agenda — racist imperialism, eugenics and Social Darwinism. Evolutionary theory was used by immoral dictatorial governments in support of their agenda to oppress populations in pursuit of their own power and wealth. Communist countries outlaw religions because they want allegiance to the laws of the state over that to God’s laws. Other states force evolution to be taught for the same reason — they need an alternate reality to teach people about the origins of the world and life. Evolutionary theory is used to fill that gap.

    The validity of evolutionary theory would ultimately be of minor consequence if the people promoting it weren’t so feverishly devoted to forcing on everyone the belief that evolution is sacrosanct absolute truth, and that to disbelieve in evolution is a sign of feeble-mindedness or insanity. But unlike other scientific theories, evolution is seen as a tool of psychological manipulation by people with specific passionate social agendas. For people like Dawkins who fear the abuse of religious teachings, it is a tool to convince people to be atheists. For people who support some type of eugenics in support of their exploitation, it is a valuable tool, because if God exists then we tend to see all races and ethnicities as brothers and sisters, instead of masters and slaves.

    So, it’s always the evolutionists who don’t want to bring up anything about the consequences and abuse of evolutionary theory, they claim evolutionary theory should be judged solely on it’s merit as a scientific theory. But the average person who believes in evolution doesn’t know that he has been manipulated into believing that it has concrete scientific validity. They don’t know that the people pushing evolution on society and fighting against anything else, have social agendas, they are not the knights in shining armor defending the hapless public from the dragon of outdated dangerous ideas about God, as they portray themselves. In reality they are either pushing evolution because they make a living from it, or they are they have a social agenda to promote. Those are the people behind the evolution lobby. Of course they don’t want evolution connected in any way to Nazis, or racism, or eugenics, they have an agenda to promote evolution as purely beneficial to society as an absolutely necessary science, when in reality their sole purpose is to foment atheism.

  81. I am not sure many of you know what logical a fallacy is. The article uses ad hominem to attack the Neo-Darwinian synthesis–Darwin and his ilk were a bunch of dirty racists, therefore evolution is wrong. Evolution stands on its own and should be evaluated free from what the personal beliefs were of those who formed it. The issue is the scientific validity of the theory, which is wholly independent of the characters involved. Many of you are resorting to character assassination suggesting an inability to refute the actual science involved.

    Secondly, the article relies on a non sequitur–there is a causal relationship between evolutionary theory and racist ideals. Evolutionary theory states NOTHING about what social policy should be. If it did, it would not be a theory. Posters claim evolutionary theory encourages immoral behavior. Does nuclear magnetism encourage men to annihilate one other via nuclear war? It is equally fallacious as the arguments being presented here. It is a theory descriptive of reality–it contains no instructions on how man is to behave, asking it do so is beyond science.

    Finally, evolution is presented as the sole explanation for the origin of species, because it is the only model which has any predictive power. Creationism does not provide predictive or explanatory power. Are there creationist models for adaptation? No. Are there creationist models for how organisms respond to environmental pressure? No, not without evoking the same mechanisms of “micro evolution” and natural selection which leads back to evolution…

    There is a difference in discussing the validity of a theory and its social impact. Here, the two are confused. To declare the theory wrong, because certain individuals held disgusting positions is fallacious.

  82. “Finally, evolution is presented as the sole explanation for the origin of species, because it is the only model which has any predictive power.”

    Talking about non sequiturs. What fallacy is this? It has no predictive power because it cannot explain much of evolution. But yet is taught in schools and is in textbooks. So what is the name of this fallacy.

  83. 83
    Vladimir Krondan

    In case it needs repeating: evolutionary theory says nothing about eugenics or social engineering.

    That’s what you say. It’s not what famous Darwinians have said. In Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics Darwin Medalist Karl Pearson wrote:

    Let me, even at the risk of talking about the familiar, sketch for you the broad outlines of Darwin’s theory of evolutionary progress. The individual better fitted to its environment lived longer than its fellows, had more offspring, and these, inheriting its better fitness, raised the type of the race. The environment against which the individual had to struggle here was not only formed by the other members of its species, not only by its physical surroundings, but by the germs of disease of all types. According to Darwin — and some of us still believe him to be right — the ascent of man, physical and mental, was brought about by this survival of the fitter. Now, if you are going lo take Darwinism as your theory of life and apply it to human problems, you must not only believe it to be true, but you must set to, and demonstrate that it actually applies.

    Darwin’s theory means this, that if individuals are reared under a constant environment, and a larger percentage of them are killed off in the first year of life, then a smaller percentage of those remaining will die in the later years of life, because more of the weaklings have been killed off… Now if there be — and I, for one, think that two independent lines of inquiry demonstrate that there is — a fairly stringent selection of the weaker individuals by the mortality of infancy and childhood, what will happen, if by increased medical skill and by increased state support and private charity, we enable the weaklings to survive and to propagate their kind? Why, undoubtedly we shall have a weaker race… Surely here is an antinomy — a fundamental opposition between medical progress and the science of national eugenics, of race efficiency. Gentlemen, I venture to think it is an antinomy, and will remain one until the nation at large recognises as a fundamental doctrine the principle that everyone, being born, has the right to live, but the right to live does not in itself convey the right to everyone to reproduce their kind… Our social instincts, our common humanity enforce upon us the conception that each person born has the right to live, yet this right essentially connotes a suspension of the full intensity of natural selection. Darwinism and medical progress are opposed forces, and we shall gain nothing by screening that fact, or, in opposition to ample evidence, asserting that Darwinism has no application to civilised man… I say that only a very thorough eugenic policy can possibly save our race from the evils which must flow from the antagonism between natural selection and medical progress.

  84. Vladimir:

    Let us challenge our evo mat advocate friends to refurte Mr Karl Pearson on their premises.

    GEM of TKI

    PS: Mentok, excellent. Let’s challenge the evo mat advocates to ground – not assume or assert — a reasonably trustworthy mind and reasonably objective core morality on evo mat premises.

  85. Secondly, the article relies on a non sequitur–there is a causal relationship between evolutionary theory and racist ideals

    There obviously is. so tell us, are the races equally evolved? how many races are there? Evolutionists from Darwin to Watson have been telling us there ARE differences in the races. Racism is implicit in the theory since the races evolved differently one must be more ‘fit’ than the others..right? The theory of evolution has consequences which must be faced, and cannot be so easily explained away.

    Evolutionary theory states NOTHING about what social policy should be. If it did, it would not be a theory.

    again evolution has implications…which provine sums up…

    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.”

    Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

    so this is far beyond a theory of mere ‘science’. Its a worldview, a theory of everything, and purports to explain all human behavior, and our origins. in other words, its a religion. and the rabid defense of evolution shows that to its adherents its a faith. who would go to court to defend the theory of magnetism from question?

    Finally, evolution is presented as the sole explanation for the origin of species, because it is the only model which has any predictive power.

    ok then what is the next stage in the ‘evolution’ of humans? what is the next step in the ‘evolution’ of the flu virus, and how should we design the vaccine to counter it? so much for predictive power. Even coyne has admitted that evolution doesn’t inform us of much, and has limited commercial value…I’ve quoted enough for this post, you can look it up.

  86. I don’t know where to begin in giving most of you a good hard slap in the face.

    Whether Darwin was or was not a racist has no implication to the credibility of evolutionary theory.

    Both ID and evolution can be argued both in support and opposition of racist/eugenic arguments and I find it of little value arguing over the source of Hitler’s (or other prominent figure’s) ideological principles in support of one theory or another.

    Evolution. I could say both white men and black men are descended from a common anscestor making us relatives, like brother and sister, and we stand equal within the world, helping and being nice to our relatives etc. etc.
    OR – white peoples appear to be more advanced than the black races therefore we should take up a dominance over them.

    ID. Black and white peoples were created by the same designer making us of the same importance and equals within this world.
    OR – Black and white peoples were created differently by our designer for a reason, maybe the black races are to live in servitude to the white races, this is what our designer had in mind.

    There are multitudes of examples of atheists, evolutionists, christians, creationists and other people with different beliefs commiting atrocious acts fuelled by hate. If they can justify their hate with facts and theories they will. This does nothing more than demonstrate mankind’s in and out group state of mind, us and them is all it will ever be. Whether that is a product of evolution or ID is what remains to be argued.

    Is in-group and out-group mentality a product of ID or evolution?
    I’m sure our benevolent creator put a lot of care into building hatred and racism.

    – I only allow this comment as an example of “what not do”. Starting a comment with “I want to slap you” is in general a bad idea…needless to say this person is banned. –Admin

  87. If you wish to question the validity of various evolutionary models you are welcome to it, but you need to state specifically which ones. If you are asserting natural selection cannot lead to reproductive isolation, there are perhaps thousands of studies confirming this observation and many are free to read. I have not seen a creationist model which can explain how such things occur without evoking similar language to current evolutionary models. The operant conditions of natural selection are a fact and there is no debate in biology of its power to change allele frequencies.
    The neo-darwinin synthesis does not aim to explain all “human behavior”–another fallacious argument (I believe it is called moving the goal post). Evolution can only act upon what is biologically inherited. It is used to describe changes in allele frequencies within populations and how they can become reproductively isolated, leading to speciation. Demanding a biologist to explain how evolution caused religion rests upon the premise religion is genetic and not a social construct. If you wish to discuss how evolution explains our intelligence and ability to understand symbols, we can do that. But, if wish for me to use evolution to explain how specific languages emerged I cannot do that.
    When I say predictive power I refer to using one of the many models and conducting an experiment to test its validity and extrapolating its results to other populations. Example: organism A is provided with selective pressure B and is expected to respond via C. Asking me to predict the future trends of human evolution relies on the premise I have control over the conditions of human existence. I cannot make a prediction because natural selection does not have foresight, it selects for what works now.
    On the subject of race—it is a human construct. Comparative genomic studies have confirmed there is little differences in “races” other than outward physical appearance much like different breeds of domestic farm animals. Race is sociological and not really a subject for evolution.
    And to restate it again, racism and eugenics is not advocated in evolutionary theory. You can post quotes from any source you like about the social impact or the philosophical impacts of evolution, but it does not change the fact evolution is a scientific theory and cannot advocate anything (especially the existence or non existence of a god), nor does it change its validity. It is a fallacious and illogical way to refute the validity of the theory, because it is no longer an issue of science, but one of philosophy, sociology, and politics, clearly outside the realm of natural science. I ask again, do the theories of nuclear physics advocate nuclear holocaust?
    The argument is clearly creationists are concerned about science being used for perverse agendas. If this is the case, perhaps we can shift the discussion to Newtonian physics and how many people were effectively killed by his equations.

  88. 88

    http://www.antievolution.org/c.....8;p=135096

    Date: 2009/02/06 11:21:39, Link
    Author: sparc
    J-Dog
    Quote
    “Someone should send your post and links to the IDiots at UD.”

    sparc–”I don’t want them IDiots here.”

    You don’t want us “IDiots” on your forum sparc? But you want us to allow you to be here with us?

  89. You don’t want us “IDiots” on your forum sparc? But you want us to allow you to be here with us?

    I was not refering to ATBC but to the Cologne Spring Meeting. I surely don’t want ID-creationists around there.
    To my best knowledge ID-creationists will not be banninated at ATBC but may just be re-directed to the bathroom wall.

    Anyway, although I don’t want them arround I will not prevent ID-creationists from joining the Cologne Spring Meeting. Indeed, Dr. Lönnig showed up there today and exposed his extravagant world views: After a really cool and convincing presentation on the evolution of the genome of mammoths he stated that “there are web sites stating that mammoths were not adapted to cold” to which the speaker replied that there are also web sites stating that the earth is only 6000 years old.

  90. They can’t both be right. What are the odds of any non-cold adapted mammoth finding its way to Siberia in less than 6000 years?? Ergo, mammoths were adapted to cold.

  91. Maybe mammoths get warm when they are running. In addition this would explain why they arrived there in less than 6000 years.

  92. On a few observations:

    1] Val, 86 [now banned]: Both ID and evolution can be argued both in support and opposition of racist/eugenic arguments and I find it of little value arguing over the source of Hitler’s (or other prominent figure’s) ideological principles in support of one theory or another.

    First, ID — as WAC no 1 points out right away, is a scientific theory and research programme about signs of intelligence, not a worldview:

    “Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.” Wm A Dembski]

    In short, you are comparing oranges and junkyards as if they were equivalent.

    It is a matter of fact that historically from 1859, Darwin’s theory of evolution EXPLICITLY focused on the race as the unit of competition for survival of the fittest, and that in both 1871 and 1874 he made it plain that Negores and Australian aborigines were doomed to extinction in the competition for survival. His intellectual descendants took the race-ball forward, and as I have had to cite, this ended up int eh shock administered by the events of 1939 – 45. Up to that time, racial superiority/ inferiority was taken for granted among the scientifically informed elites as well as those in popular culture shaped by the view,never mind warnings of the ilk of H G Wells in his sci fi novels of the 1890′s.

    Those are historically grounded facts, facts that we had better face frankly, if we are to avert future disasters as bad as the 1939 – 45 one.

    For, evolutionary materialism remains the dominant view among key elites, and it is undeniably inherently antithetical to any rights– and equality- based morality. Indeed, the recent thinking on abortion and embryonic stem cell research so called, is chilling in its import.

    By sharpest contrast, the much despised creationists root their worldview in a book that explicitly grounds the principles of equality, morality and linked rights. Indeed — though that aspect of the history is too often censored out today — that view materially contributed to the rise of modern liberty and democracy. (Re-read the 2nd paragraph of the US DOI, in the light of this exhibition by the US Library of Congress on the religious roots of the revolution, and in further light of an online discussion with significant citation of relevant documents here.]

    It is indee3d possible to be a Biblically based Creationist theist and a racist; but to do that requires the massive wrenching of the import of the very direct teachings of the text. [Cf above my excerpt from Ac 17.]

    in short, in the biblical Christian context, racism is sin and heresy that is blasphemous as it fails to respect the image of God in ALL peoples. Finite, fallible, fallen, all too often ill-willed men are indeed prone to such, but a major point of the biblical frame is to expose such sin and call us to repentance and reformation.

    2] Eli, 87:The operant conditions of natural selection are a fact and there is no debate in biology of its power to change allele frequencies.

    Yes indeed: NS requires differential FUNCTION to see which of populations is superior, and leads to the dominance of the superior in the population. (Hence its tendency to feed into elitist- oppressive worldviews and movements.)

    It is not the source of variation, and apart from design we have no credible source of variation capable of generating 600 k bits to 10′s or 100′s or more of mega bits of innovative functional bio- information on the gamut of our observed cosmos.

    GEM of TKI

    PS; Re Sparc: plainly, we see the subtext of contempt showing up. As to Dr Lonnig, it seems his views are a little more nuanced and peer-review publishable that sparc suggests.

  93. Indeed, Dr. Lönnig has published a lot.

  94. Another publication that didn’t get much attention at UD although it was visible in the side bar is Lönnig’s paper on Dolo’s law.

  95. 95
    AmerikanInKananaskis

    It makes me so angry when evolanders deny that Darwin (and his theory) were racist.

    In The Voyage of teh Beagle, he talks about killing native inhabitants of 2 or 3 different Islands with a hammer. He even wrote letters to people bragging about it!

  96. 96

    @ AmerikanInKananaskis

    I have my copy of “Voyage of the Beagle” at the ready. Let us have the page reference.

    Darwin did some interesting research into facial expression and demonstrated that human facial expresion was universal among races, showing that humankind are all one species. Damn racist! ;)

  97. 97
    AmerikanInKananaskis

    Do the research for yourself, “Big Science”.

    And yeah, Darwin may have thorught we were one “species”, but white people were the “favored race”.

  98. I’m pretty sure AmerikanInKananaskis is your typical Darwin cultist troll trying to make I.D. supporters look bad with his over-the-top comments (note the convenient use of three Ks in his/her/its username). Probably one of the “brights” who tagged Intelligent Design with phrases like “turd sandwich” over at Amazon. What a classy group of people!

    As for the topic at hand, instead of dwelling in the distant past, here’s my question: are we seeing the same thing repeated today, only with religion in place of race? Basically the arrogant scientist trying to scientifically justify his alleged superiority of those which he despises?

    You religious folks simply haven’t evolved beyond religion the way that those ultra-sophisticated evolutionary biologists have.*

    *sarcasm

Leave a Reply