Should the Expelled movie have addressed the Holocaust?
| July 11, 2008 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
Many of us have heard a wearisome amount of commentary about whether the Expelled film should have – or should not have – dwelt on the Darwin-driven Nazi extermination of “inferior” peoples.
Scholar Richard Weikart, who knows more than anyone alive about the Nazis and Darwin, writes to say,
The point about showing the social and ethical impact of Darwinism is not to *disprove* Darwinism. However, many people fail to understand that Darwinism necessarily has ethical implications, in ways that other sciences do not, because it makes claims about the origins of morality (at least Darwin in Descent of Man made such claims, as have myriads of Darwinists thereafter).
However, while not disproving Darwinism, pointing out the ethical implications and impacts of Darwinism is nonetheless important, as I have learned from reactions to my book, From Darwin to Hitler, and to lectures I have given. Some individuals have told me that before learning about my work on the intersection of Darwinism and bioethics, they didn’t think Darwinism was all that important—they saw it as irrelevant, a mere intellectual curiosity. Darwinism, however, makes claims about life and death issues—indeed, about the very meaning of life and death (in addition to its claims about the origins of morality). Granted, there are various ways philosophically to try to meet these challenges, but knowing the directions that Darwinism has taken historically can help clarify the philosophical issues, it seems to me. For those who think that the social implications have only been felt by Nazi Germany, get John West’s excellent book, _Darwin Day in America_, where he shows the way that Darwinism has impacted many diverse fields in the US.
I do not disbelieve in Darwinism because of its ethical and social consequences. I disbelieve in Darwinism because it is inconsistent with the available evidence. It simply is not true. Showing that people have been (and are being!!) killed in the name of Darwinism, however, lends poignancy and urgency to exposing the falsehood.
If I did not have any other reason to believe Weikart, I need only look at the rubbish at Wikipedia on the subject.
Surely no one sends their students there? It is nothing but a whitewash of Darwin’s racism and the inevitable consequences of same. It will be instructive to see Barack Obama’s campaign get hold of this stuff and turn it into something really slick.
Meanwhile, key news from the north:
Killer insects and intelligent design
Intellectual freedom in Canada: Friends fear the comics won’t dare be funny in ways that matter
Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill: White lab coats to take refuge behind black law robes?
Was the bison’s peculiar chest a design feature … to help Native North Americans survive?
Intellectual freedom in Canada: … Look out, PC bigots! The True North strong and free is shaking off your chains …
What happens if Darwinism is subjected to natural selection in the Louisiana bayou?
Darwin’s co-founder Wallace accepted intelligent design?
Canadian comics rally for freedom: Let’s
LAUGH Canada’s “human rights” commissions out of existence!
What I think about common descent – answer to a reader’s question
38 Responses to Should the Expelled movie have addressed the Holocaust?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“Science, it is assumed, must look for exclusively natural causes. Since the postulation of an intelligent Designer or Creator clearly violates this methodological norm, such a postulation cannot qualify as a part of a scientific theory.”
The quote above has seriously confused me more than anything. It has no meaning, yet it is used on both sides of the debate.
One side says that we can’t invoke anything not-natural into “science” and the other side states that “science” isn’t limited to that which is natural. However, can anyone on either side of the debate define “natural?” Is it not true that in order to define “natural” one would have to be able to define its negative in order for it to carry any meaning. If that is the case, what is “not-natural?”
If “not-natural” things can be defined and do indeed exist or can at least logically exist, then what’s the problem? However, if “natural” is defined as “that which exists within our universe” then multiverse theories or that which caused our universe are “not-natural.” Or, if “natural” is stated as meaning that which does exist, as opposed to arbitrarily defining “supernatural” as that which does not exist, then it carries no meaning in the debate. However, even if we run with this definition, we see that intelligence does exist, so it is natural. Again, what’s the problem?
Or we could say that “natural” is defined as “law + chance.” However, it is immediately evident that patterns do exist that are not only the product of law and chance, since intelligent foresight must be a part of their causal chain. An essay requires foresight and a clear purpose of communication. Law and chance have neither foresight nor purpose we are told. Intelligence does exist (as per the human type, at least) and some patterns do not exist unless “run through this filter” of intelligence. So, it is immediately evident that there do exist “not-natural” patterns if we are indeed using the definition of “natural” proposed at the top of this paragraph. In this case, an essay would be “not-natural” yet it still exists in nature.
But, who cares?!?!?! Semantic games can be played all day and at the end of the day essays and intelligence both do exist, so have it whichever way you want. Define natural however you want and you find that you either neglect a whole element of that which does exist (intelligence and its “existing not-natural” patterns) and arbitrarily cordon off a whole subset of that which does exist in nature OR you include a study of intelligence and its effects into the natural philosophy of science since intelligence and its effects do indeed exist as elements within our natural universe.
I guess my main question is “how can you say that science is or is not limited to that which is ‘natural?’” Intelligence and its effects exist around us in nature, so why is it not “natural?” I ask these questions of both sides of the debate.
Kairosfocus, thanks for the links. I’d forgotten about them.
CJYman said (#31) –
ne “natural” as being that which we have actually observed. A lot of what we have observed we would consider to be “supernatural” or “miraculous” if we had not observed it. We would consider “front-loaded evolution” (called “prescribed evolution” by John A. Davison), the idea that organisms were pre-programmed to evolve, to be “natural” if we had actually observed it.
IMO the criticisms of evolution — Intelligent Design and Non-ID criticisms (e.g., criticisms concerning co-evolution and the propagation of beneficial mutations in sexual reproduction) — are attempts to determine the likelihood that evolution occurred by what we consider to be “natural” means. A big problem in determining such likelihood is the difficulty in quantifying such likelihood. Some likelihoods in biology can be quantified — e.g., DNA testing laboratories, in reporting that two DNA samples appear to be from the same person, say that there is one chance in a few billion (they usually give a figure of how many billion) that the samples actually came from two unrelated people. However, Michael Behe is unable to quantify irreducible complexity — he just says, “I know it when I see it.” It is because of this subjectivity of ID that I have preferred non-ID criticisms of evolution. Non-ID criticisms of evolution also tend to be subjective but often appear to me to be stronger barriers to evolution than ID. For example, in the co-evolution of obligate mutualism (total co-dependence of two different kinds of organisms), unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., air, land in its different forms, and water in its different forms, there may be nothing to adapt to, and the reason why there may be nothing to adapt to is that the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be locally absent. Thus, the problems of co-evolution would be a barrier to “natural” evolution even if ID were not. Co-evolution presents problems even for front-loaded evolution — evolutionary changes would have to occur simultaneously in both organisms in mutualism if there is total (i.e., obligate) co-dependence.
I think that ID has become less subjective. For example, it appears to me that Michael Behe shows in “The Edge of Evolution” that evolution is especially unlikely in situations that are highly unfavorable to evolution (complex organisms, long generational times, small populations, and huge changes) because evolution has shown only limited ability to produce change in situations that are highly favorable to evolution (simple organisms, short generational times, huge populations, and small changes).
My first sentence in my preceding comment (#33) was cut off. It should read, “I would define ‘natural’ as being that which we have actually observed.”
The blockquote function seems to be causing me problems here and I may stop using it.
Quite simply, Hitler is a universal floor of morality. Even a person who has little idea of what morality might be may invoke that they “are not as bad as Hitler”.
Hitler, the NAZIs, and the Holocaust are empirical definitions of a concept that skeptics had thought was no longer valid: Evil. And it does so without direct reference to God or even Providence. To a large extent we define “The Good” as the absence of Evil.
And to another degree, we might not even know what “The Good” is, but by making Hitler the baseline, we know what Evil is.
My goodness. You had Bill Provine argue that because of blind evolution there is no right or wrong or even meaning to life. As such, as is inevitably the case–Godwin’s “Law” notwithstanding–Hitler’s deeds come into view. Working from Provine’s conclusion, these become without a solid, objective opposition–apart from that we don’t enjoy being gassed.
I think Expelled stayed to their main point. The part on the historical development of NAZI-ism in introduced only after Myers talked about the social aspect of Darwinism/Science gradually doing away with religion. Thus Myers’ claim was Darwinism as Science is positive for society. Wiekart’s response is the counter, by addressing the baseline of inter-paridigm morality.
Okay, that last post swallowed my well-defined (and double-checked) <blockquote></blockquote>. So there is something up with this site.
Anyway I just wanted to say that I will not interrupt this thread again for a fiver–actually that the first sentence is Larry Fafarman’s. (I just get this picture of Eric Idle in a beret whenever people have to butt back in to clarify something the posting software mangled.)
Post 16 expressed my opinion perfectly.
We have to stick to the science and not get sidetracked with politics, philosophy and run into Godwin’s Law.
It also bothers me that IDists spend too much time in court battles and making enemies with the public schools instead of just speaking directly to the people. ID would be better off if it minimized antagonism with other groups.