and this: “The fact that Darwin’s theory has resulted in violence does not, of course, make that theory wrong”

are near quotes like this: “Darwinism in it’s purest materialist form has devastating moral consequences.”

Interestingly, in the response to his critics in your link, he seems to refute some of what you’re suggesting by quoting one of his reviews:

“Darwin’s ideas are not directly responsible for the Holocaust, Weikart claims, because the principles of evolution do not necessarily lead to Hitler’s destructive philosophy.”

I also find your anecdote about the professor unwilling to answer a question about killing humans somewhat misleading. I have many friends that are far more religious than me that have less of a problem advocating violence, death penalties and war than I do. Just as I don’t judge Christianity as a whole based on their specific views, I think it is unfair to judge a scientific theory for any views that people may read into it. (Especially when it’s not even intended to teach values as it is generally described.)

As well as his Response to critics

Also here on this site :
Hitler as social Darwinist

You say, “What some people choose to do with information does not speak to the truthfulness of that information.”

This is true in most cases, but not in this one.

If we were saying that Hitler covered his evil doings by using Darwinism your statement would be correct. Just as the way many Popes and various radicals in the past have used the cover of Christianity to accomplish horrific sufferings in the name of Christ.

But that isn’t the case here. The link between Darwinism and Hitler’s acts is direct and really quite a logical one.

Jonathan Witt comments on this thus (my emphasis),

It’s a long review, but well worth the read. In reading the review and the book, what is striking, ultimately, isn’t that evil has been done in the name of Darwinism. Every influential paradigm in history has been co-opted for evil purposes. What is striking is how reasonably and logically many of the horrors documented in Weikart’s book follow from Darwinian principles—e.g., the survival of the fittest populations (genocide), the great good that supposedly comes from natural selection eliminating the weak and defective (eugenics and forced sterilizations), the notion that humans are merely smart animals (moral pragmatism, which in turns underwrites not only genocide and eugenics but also even the cruelest kinds of human experimentation, provided they can further medical research).

The fact that Darwin’s theory has resulted in violence does not, of course, make that theory wrong. But it certainly provides a healthy motivation for considering with an open mind the growing body of scientific evidence against the theory.
…
While Weikart documents the pervasive influence of Darwinism on the development of Nazi ideology, he also makes clear that history is often not straightforward and that Darwinism did not “inevitably” lead to the Holocaust. Nevertheless, “without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.” (From Darwin to Hitler, p. 233)

The link between Nazi genocide and Darwin is a clear and logical one.

Ideas have consequences. Claiming that an idea cannot be proven right or wrong because of it’s consequences is not correct in all cases. Some ideas have direct moral consequences. Ideas with direct moral consequences must be judged with those consequences in mind.

Darwinism in it’s purest materialist form has devastating moral consequences.

I once listened to a “pure” Darwinist university professor discuss morality and ethics from a Darwinist materialist view. Same view as Dawkins, Provine et al.

An attendee stood and asked during question period at the end whether or not it was right to kill humans”. A dead silence followed. The prof refused to answer.

Nazis killed jews with no cringe of conscience whatsoever. Why? Jews were not as evolved and thus not really “human” in their minds. So killing a jew was no different than killing an animal.

Hitler called blacks “monstrosities”.
This view came from his belief that blacks were an inferior race – still very close to primates on the evo scale.

You might also want to check out Beate W. Smith’s (wife of late Dr. AE Wilder Smith) book, “The Day Nazi Germany Died”. Same conclusions from an eye witness.

One could go on quoting page upon page.
Hope you get the point that this is not what you claim – a mere ad hom.

You say this is history, not opinion, and yet I don’t think I’ve seen evidence to that effect. I’ve seen quotes about Hitler claiming to be doing God’s work, but not that he was inspired by Darwinism.

If there are quotes… I suppose we could get into a quote war comparing the two views, but it probably wouldn’t go anywhere useful.

Either way, can we just drop the argument? What some people choose to do with information does not speak to the truthfulness of that information. This is effectively an ad hominem attack.

“The logic being defended above i…s will lead to intimidation and then to coercion. … this will then lead to these people sweeping to political power and then sending off the faithful to concentration camps and ultimately genocide.”

You’ve got it a bit backwards.

Darwinism was the scientific justification underlying Nazi eugenics (mass murder). It was there long before any posters were put up or any intimidation attempted.

Illegally posting evo dogma will not lead to intimidation. Darwinism has already intimidated and persecuted IDists. Posting anti-ID propaganda is just a symptom of deeper problem.

Intimidation of IDists is the norm already.

It is not just a straight comparison either. It is simply what history tells us about Darwinism’s horrific record on human rights. Darwinists can deny it all they please – it is history not opinion.

Funny one never sees anything in the pop sci-shows about that part of Darwinism’s past ‘accomplishments’.

So when one sees Darwinian Youth out bursting with fear-mongering zeal and nonsense about ID being a war against science the ID community is justified to take notice and complain.

The logic being defended above is that illegally putting up posters will lead to intimidation and then to coercion. If I may take it to its logical conclusions, this will then lead to these people sweeping to political power and then sending off the faithful to concentration camps and ultimately genocide. That is what the Nazis did. Do we really think the Darwin movement is like that? Given the spinechilling and appalling evil of the Nazi movement, I personally don’t think we should make the comarison lightly, even if the other side do the same. I guess that means I’m from the Neville Chaimberlain school of intelligent design!

Denyse I apologise for taking the thread on a tangent, but I sometimes question whether the rhetoric on this blog goes a bit below the belt every now and then. Maybe its because its just a blog. I don’t know.

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking.

How do make the judgment

“Hmm, Jerry, doesn’t that sound like the people you have just described? Am I either for you or against you?”

When I am proposing is open discussion and so is ID.

The evangelical atheists’ hostility towards religion in general and Christians in particular, coupled with their conflation of ID with Christianity, makes the reported incident a troubling (though not exact) parallel.

Not that all Darwinists are Nazis or even like Nazis. Nevertheless, that lame excuse for science, which is nothing but the materialist’s origins myth, was at the root of Nazi eugenics.

Given the way Darwinists have publicly and privately persecuted and attempted to intimidate ID scientists in the last years, (using the same pathetic tactics that hate groups like Nazis used before WWII), I see no qualms for abstaining from the use of brownshirts when applied to zealots posting propaganda posters.

A superficial visit to TPT should be enough to convince anyone of the kind of vehement hatred and vitriol that fuels so much of Darwinism today.

antg: Perhaps you ought to upgrade your knowledge of history?

I notice that you didn’t object to the content of the poster that ID is a war against science. If you read this site then you know that is absurd. So why didn’t you object?

Hmm, Jerry, doesn’t that sound like the people you have just described? Am I either for you or against you?

Regarding the posters, its easy to say that ID is a war on science if you conflate darwinian evolution with science. As to whether ID or Darwinism is science or pseudo-science comes down to how you define science.

Everybody goes about their day in most of North America without seeing the influence of the fundamentalist Christians or the thought police as illustrated by the Darwinists. Where Darwinist coercion shows up is in the classrooms in subtle but consistent ways and occasionally in the media, especially the print media.

But the brownshirt approach seems to be spreading slowly to the general culture beyond the school systems for certain topics such as hate laws and global warming where a uniformity of thought is being demanded. Evolution is small potatoes compared to some of the other topics but conformity there is being demanded sometimes not too subtlety.

I notice that you didn’t object to the content of the poster that ID is a war against science. If you read this site then you know that is absurd. So why didn’t you object? It cannot be because Darwinian evolution does not need to be criticized so how would you express the conformity that is being demanded in schools to accept a bogus science. Not quite brownshirts yet but getting close.