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.

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.

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).

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.

Good point.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.