Let’s say Darwin was necessary for the holocaust

_{May 6, 2008

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Let’s say that Darwin’s theory of evolution was a necessary factor for the holocaust.

Now class, what science journal should we try to publish this in? Anyone? Anyone?

Comments

[Frost122585] The connection between Darwin and the Nazis is about the implications of a Darwinian world view and those of Nazism. The preamble to this website uses words like 'subvert' to describe the effects of materialistic ideologies--Darwinism being the leading such ideology. It is reasonable to assume that there is a consensus behind this blog: Darwinism has pernicious effects on science and society. It is reasonable to explore just what those pernicious effects are. In doing so, we come naturally to eugenics and the culture of death. Once we reach this point, we cannot really avoid pondering about the Nazis, because now we are in a realm of unavoidable implications driven by historical fact. Many of us have concluded, from studying the claims of Darwinism, that it is a pseudo-science. It's rather an insult to our intelligence when someone comes along and says 'you can't conclude from the holocaust that the scientific theory of Darwinism is wrong. Just because dynamite can be abused doesn't mean chemistry is false or evil.' As if there can no other reasons for concluding that Darwinism is a pseudo-science. Or that the critics of Darwinism have never thought about the validity of Darwinism as a science, prior to speaking about the Nazis.Vladimir Krondan_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

Dave, My point entirely. You can expect that the masthead is what a site is about. Thus we don't just discuss what gets published in journals. We also discuss materialism, and I would expect historical materialism, which is an indication of just what the beast is.jjcassidy_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
10:26 PM
10
10
26
PM
PDT}

Stephen I think materialism is bad for the culture because is causes people to reject important foundational truths such as the existence of mind, human conscience, and the inherent dignity of the human person. This is the root of our conflict. I don't conflate evolution with materialism and ID with supernaturalism. My interpretation of intelligent design is perfectly suited to material science so long as it is an axiom that intelligent agency can be manifest in material form. I think that's a rather safe, self-evident axiom since the practitioners of science themselves are, as near as any of them can describe, material manifestations of intelligent agency. They prove the axiom by their very existence. This is critical to treating ID as science. Any inference to an intelligent agent must infer an agent that operates within the physical laws of the universe. If we don't bound the capabilities of the agency then ID becomes a nonsense theory which, because it can explain everything, explains nothing. As well, the theory of chance and necessity must be bounded by the reality of the physical universe. If chance can do -anything- regardless of how improbable then it also becomes a nonsense theory in that because it can explain everything it explains nothing. To do science requires that we bound the problems and explanations in physical law (materialism).DaveScot_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

jjcassidy No science journal would publish it. It's not science. It's a complaint about how science is conducted that properly belongs in a philosophy of science journal. Just to be clear, I didn't have any part in the composition of that and don't really share in the complaint. There's nothing wrong with how science is conducted. There's a lot wrong with the exclusionary practices surrounding who gets to conduct it and how the results are disseminated. I put up the definition of ID on the sidebar and you may refer to this for my general beliefs surrounding ID:
The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection — how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences. ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion. Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the “messages,” and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation. Other evidence challenges the adequacy of natural or material causes to explain both the origin and diversity of life.
I didn't take part in the creation of that definition but I believe Bill Dembski was in on it. I simply lifted it from my friend John Calvert's IDNet website with his permission as I thought it was the best and most succinct representation of my own views that I'd seen and I still believe that it is.DaveScot_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT}

jjcassidy, Good point.Frost122585_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Dave, Suppose the following were true:
Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.
What Science Journal would that be published in?jjcassidy_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT}

Dave at 14, I never said anything about the bible. My point was regarding significance. ID like all theories is a two edge sword. On the one side you have the scientific potential of the theory and on the other side you have it's social- moral- political and ethical implications. The connection between Darwin and the Nazis is about the implications of a Darwinian world view and those of Nazism. More importantly Dembski and others have made a great case against a purposeless designless universe. If one wishes to demand that Darwinian evolution is the only thing to be taught and accepted as scientific it is because of THIER METAPHYSCIAL AND DOGMATIC BIASES, not ours. I have always supported the teaching of both (minus the issue of purpose or purposlesness). What should be taught and viewed as scientific is design AND natural processes working together and competing against one another as the best explanation based on the evidence. So the connection between Darwin and Nazism is a world view and historical one. It is also about one’s beliefs. You know as well as I that we IDists seek to fight the atheistic Darwinian establishment not to get the bible in but to get the dogmatic atheism out. I fail to relate to your point.Frost122585_{May 7, 2008
May
05
May
7
07
2008
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

-----Dave: "Don’t be silly. I haven’t shifted one tiny bit. I’m assuming “for the sake of argument” that Darwin led to Hitler just to make the point that in any case this has nothing at all to do with the science of design detection. You guys just don’t get it." I totally agree with you. One has nothing to do with the other. Even if I thought that social Darwinism had no connection at all with Darwinian science, I would be no less committed to the science of design detection. The explanatory filter has no relationship whatsoever with the question about whether or not Darwin influenced Hitler. Further, in spite of my many disagreements with you, I admire your ability to play chess with so many challengers and I salute you for your tenacity in standing up for your convictions. I have had to hold up the minority position in other venues, and I know how hard it can be. Even so, my motive for criticizing materialist/Darwinism is less about getting a bible on every desktop and more about restoring intellectual and mental health. I think materialism is bad for the culture because is causes people to reject important foundational truths such as the existence of mind, human conscience, and the inherent dignity of the human person. Also, Like any ideology, religious ideology included, it causes people to persecute dissenters.StephenB_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Nature would be a good choice of rag. It started off as a mouthpiece for eugenics. If you need some convincing that Darwinians had something to do with eugenics and nasty projects like Aktion T4, merely examine the following page: Euvolution 0.4.6.1
"As an agency making for progress, conscious selection must replace the blind forces of natural selection; and men must utilize all the knowledge acquired by studying the process of evolution in the past in order to promote moral and physical progress in the future. The nation which first takes this great work thoroughly in hand will surely not only win in all matters of international competition, but will be given a place of honour in the history of the world." - Leonard Darwin, Presidential address, First International Eugenics Congress, 1912.
Vladimir Krondan_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

Rude 6 billion souls are alive today. More than any time in the history of the world. Living standards and average lifespans are higher than ever before. By what metric do you judge the 20th to be such a terrible century? Seems like the best one yet to me.DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Frost Don't be silly. I haven't shifted one tiny bit. I'm assuming "for the sake of argument" that Darwin led to Hitler just to make the point that in any case this has nothing at all to do with the science of design detection. You guys just don't get it. I'm beginning to think the chance worshippers were right all along and this IS all about getting a bible on every desktop in every public school in America. How depressing. What Expelled seems to have done more than anything else is to get all the God botherers fired up and out of the closet, dropping any pretense that it was ever about science at all. It is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo. An attempt to establish a theocracy. What a revolting development. DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Todd, It's not an opinion like "BMWs are better looking than Audis. Or Pizza Hut has better pizza than Dominos. This is about obvious connections between world views and whatever historical evidence there is to tie them in directly together.Frost122585_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Well Dave it looks like you have shifted ground. First you expressed disagreement with the Nazi/Darwin pertinent connection and now you are trying to force it's adherents into justifying it on scientific grounds which assume you mean outside of history- comparative world views/religion, philosophy, sociology, and of course it relationship with the Darwin/ID debate in science. Nazism is in many regards an extension of Darwinism- and so it strikes me that if Darwinism is scientifically wrong than so is Nazism by virtue of “science.” Of course the reality of what distinguishes good from bad science is a philosophical issue. I think that trying to force a philosophical- historical connection/theory into a hard science frame work is a weak escape route. What scientific journal would you publish the connection between politics and Global Warming? What scientific journal would you publish the truth about religion of Christianity in? Assuming that you are in fact a Christian and really believe in the Christian teaching based on more than just writing on a page and indoctrination at an early age- then it seems by you standard that there is no place for it's truth either- regardless of the historical and philosophical arguments for it. I think that would amount to poor reasoning.Frost122585_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Which "science" journal? Hmm, who decides what is science and what is not? There is chemistry, there is psychology, there is anthropology, there is physics, there is linguistics, there is biology ... and there is history---by what criterion do we cordon off "science"? Anyway I find it fascinating that what’s really got people’s goat in regard to Expelled is the Darwinism-Nazi connection. And in a sense that really is the focus of the movie. Suppress freedom of expression via state power and no telling where it’ll end. The 20th century, which should have been civilization’s brightest, turned out to be its bloodiest. Should we not look for causes? Should we not ask why? Well, history cannot be replayed in the laboratory, therefore let’s ignore Santayana’s maxim. It’s futile to seek to derive any lessons from Korea or Vietnam or Iraq because each man’s lesson is driven by his prejudices and is but mere speculation that’s neither verifiable nor falsifiable. No, boys and girls, Ben Stein has done us a great favor! He’s touched a raw nerve. Let’s find out why. Let the conversation proceed!Rude_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Now class, what science journal should we try to publish this in? Anyone? Anyone?
Any journal that cares whether science has been (is being, or could be) hijacked by "just so" stories and supression of dissenting scientific opinion. Just because "Nature", et. al. don't want to hear what history has already established, that Nazi's argued Darwinian survival of fitter races and evolutionary biologists and scientists contributed "justsoifications" to those arguments and dissinting opinion was suppressed, doesn't negate that history. And a history ignored is a history repeated, at least in part. Dave, you're flagellating a deceased eohippus. Get over it.Charles_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

The movie Conspiracy (Kenneth Branagh) covers the events of the Wannsee conference of SS commanders and government ministers in 1942. During this meeting, the Final Solution was unveiled, amid varying degrees of reservation from the attendees. This movie is an un-sensational film based on the records, minutes, and other documentary evidence, yet it is chilling in the calm, pleasant way in which the fates of six million lives were decided. The reason I bring this up, is that when the solution to European Jewry was slowly revealed, many attendees were quite concerned, some even horrified. And it was the logical explanation of pure, Darwinian natural selection that was used to quell their concerns, and even cause some of them to feel as if they were part of something monumental and wondrous. In the end, the decision was unanimous, and it was pure Natural Selection applied to the human species – and the vision of a glorious new humanity – that brought about the consensus.Graceout_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

"Why would you want to publish an opinion piece in a science journal?" Yeah, because there are absolutely no opinion pieces ever published in science journals.jinxmchue_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Todd Indeed.DaveScot_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

Maybe Wikipedia: "Karl Marx... Influenced by Kant, Epicurus, Hegel, Feuerbach, Stirner, Smith, Ricardo, Rousseau, Goethe, Fourier, Comte"JunkyardTornado_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT}

Todd opinion pieces about the magick of evolution are published every single day under darwinism. I think the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London is a fine place to publish this piece, and for reasons that are so obvious that I will not even point them out. But the behavioral ecology of ethical systematization in groups of varying social and reproductive classes is amazing. The darwinists were in complete control of the european habitat and populations and amassed complete dominion of their resources, even though individual germans-darwinists did very little per capita. sounds like biology to me, and I hope to see an able IDist make these cases. I know Sal is trying and I favor that. back to the Royal Society We should give the Brits a chance to apologize for the Empire and all the fruits of that dark hour of mankind. the deep incestuous dark dealings by elite cabals have been thrust into the glaring sterile light of the cameramen, and the throbbing animal jungle beat of slave trade wealth creation has been interrupted by Amazing Grace. In the theological and philosophy corner, this is an empirical confirmation of the effects of willful separation from God by way of partial atonement. i am not well versed here but it seems to me that proving that Hitler and his countrymen were inveterate Darwinists could be used as a test of many various theological claims. Glad to see you are beginning to consider your error Dave that takes a much bigger man than to stick with erroneous claims about Darwin just to save face or hold your own.irreducible_complacency_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

It seems scientific to look at the evolution of somebody's ideas, to trace the burgeoning of their thought to precursors, preoccupations they had in school and the like. Don't we also have to look at the dynamics of power influence, and propaganda and how those is search of power seek legitimacy, and appeal to sources of authority in their society, such as the intelligencia, the church and so on. Even if a causal connection is made, is must be done so by those who don't have an agenda themselves, and if even it is made this way, the connection can be exploited by others for political and not scientific purposes.JunkyardTornado_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

I think this post creates a caricature of the real argument at hand (a creator being responsible for moral absolutes that would forbid actions like the holocaust). Darwin certainly was not necessary, but he was a very convenient and logical vessel through which removal of a creator, and hence, moral absolutes was enabled. However, I know a few people that would say removing moral absolutes from one's worldview could lead directly to the holocaust. That one holds water for me.selectedpete_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Science journals are only concerned with heavy-duty technical stuff, not with topics dealing with ethics, politics, religion or things of that nature, right? Just look at how premiere journals like Science and Nature try to stay away from such subjects as much as possible.JPCollado_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

Why would you want to publish an opinion piece in a science journal?Todd Berkebile_{May 6, 2008
May
05
May
6
06
2008
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply