Skip to comments.'Expelled' goes easy on Darwin-Nazi link
Posted on 04/24/2008 11:04:16 PM PDT by RussP
Darwin critics know Ernst Haeckel as the German philosopher whose faked embryo drawings helped generations of clueless students accept Darwinism "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and all that.
But there is still another problem with Haeckel, a darker one than mere fraud. Critics of the Ben Stein film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," apparently do not know this.
If they had, they would not have savaged Stein for daring to connect Adolf Hitler to Charles Darwin. In Scientific American, for instance, editor John Rennie describes this connection as "heavy-handed." In Reuters, Frank Scheck calls it "truly offensive."
In reality, it is neither. If anything, Stein and the makers of "Expelled" understate this historically irrefutable link, and the key to understanding it is Haeckel.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
I just saw the movie, and I thought it was great.
As David Berlinski said in the movie, Darwinism is not "sufficient" to produce something like Nazism, but it does seem to be "necessary." Obviously not all evolutionists are Nazis, but all Nazis may be evolutionists.
As for those who will almost surely point out that Hitler touted Christianity on occasion, that is largely irrelevant to the point here. Hitler extreme hostility to Christianity is well documented, and the lip service he occasionally paid to it was clearly a cynical ploy to gain or consolidate power. Darwinism, on the other hand, he truly believed in, and he sought to actively advance its "progress."
Have a ball!
Darwin's works do not mention Jews. Anti-semitism pre-dates Darwin. German Christian Ministers supported the persecution of the Jews.
Nazi eugenics went beyond anti-Semitism to killing the weak and the mentally retarded, among others.
What Darwin did was to lay the “scientific” framework for the notion that man is just part of nature and therefore “nothing special.” If that is true, then killing men is fundamentally no more immoral than killing animals or, for that matter, destroying machines.
Courtesy of DarwinCentral.org
I thought we were all supposed to pretend ID has no connection to religion.
Nazism would never have developed its genocidal characteristics without Darwinism....
Yeah, because there was NEVER a history of “pogroms” against the Jews in Europe before Darwin./s
I would have posted it in the philosophy forum, but that seems to have disappeared.
ID does potentially have religious implications, of course. So does evolution, obviously. But since when do the “implications” of an idea determine whether or not it is “scientific”? Shouldn’t science follow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of the implications?
The Big Bang Theory was originally met with hostility by many scientists because it was perceived to have religious implications. Yes, science came around on that one, and they will on ID as well because the evidence is so overwhelming. The question is only how long it will take — and how many careers will be sacrificed to the gods of political correctness in the process.
If evolution is only science then why is Dawkins writing “The God Delusion”?
Apparently according to one person who wrote after Hitler's death, in his heart of hearts he hated Christianity.
But when we speak of what motivated Nazis, rather than what might have motivated Hitler in private; wouldn't it be prudent to look at the actual words that the Nazi leaders used to whip up Jew hatred?
For an so called obvious historic link there seems to be surprisingly sparse material linking the two that was written or spoken contemporaneously.
Did they say...
“We are all descendants of apes, but we are the SUPERIOR descendants of apes.”
Or did they say....
“We are the Master Race, the Chosen of God, not those *&$#% Jews!”
Can anyone come up with any PUBLIC pronouncement of a Nazi leader whipping up Jew hatred using Evolutionary rhetoric? There sure are plenty of examples of them calling for revenge for Jesus’s “Blood upon the cross”. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Beuller?
That is a moral argument that isn't contained in natural selection and not supported by Darwin himself. Natural selection is also responsible for cultural evolution that produces morals that say that killing is wrong and ultimately leads to the "Golden Rule", which predates Christianity.
Wouldn’t “The Descent of Man” fill that gap?
The word “evolution” has several definitions — even as it pertains to biology. At the far end of the spectrum is purely naturalistic evolution of all life. Evolution in that sense is 1% science and 99% philosophy — bogus philosophy. And that’s being generous.
Pure nonsense. Christians were massacring Jews long before Darwin, and eugenics goes back to the dawn of time. The Spartans practiced it and Socrates supports it in Plato's Republic. Study the facts and don't just pull talking points off of creationist websites
Also cultural evolution would lead to the same tautology as natural selection: The fittest survive. Who are the fittest? Those that survive.
Culturally then, had Hitler won, then the Holocaust would be moral.
ID doesn't offer any supporting scientific evidence. It relies solely on the unproven and unsupported claim that "complex things require a designer".
Apparently he either believes that those who believe in God are delusional; wants to make money; or both. Richard Dawkins has opinions too. Not all opinions are based on science, and faulty opinions do not negate the validity of the scientific method. Dawkins would be the first to admit that science can not prove that God doesn't exist.
“Natural selection is also responsible for cultural evolution that produces morals that say that killing is wrong and ultimately leads to the “Golden Rule”, which predates Christianity.”
This is typical of the non-scientific speculation and hand waving that passes for “thinking” by evolutionists.
Please provide me with a reference to the specific, random genetic sequences that produced “morals that say killing is wrong.”
You or someone else concocted that one out of thin air, and because it seemed vaguely plausible and supports your grandiose “theory,” you announce it as “scientific fact.”
Then what does he base his atheism on?
First, this is hypothetical. National Socialism didn't survive. Second, survival doesn't imply morally good. The meme of morally good has evolved because it is the glue that holds together societies. Societies (groups) have an advantage over individuals. Therefore the moral meme offers an evolutionary advantage for individuals that accept it.
What gap? Have you read it?
Until science can explain and reproduce the origin of life in the lab, ID is the only reasonable explanation. Hell, scientists cannot even *build* a living cell from scratch, let alone cause one to pop up at random in the lab.
Oh, and how can anyone “prove” that the first cell could not have popped up at random? That cannot be proven any more than the idea that the entire text of Macbeth never appeared at random on the sands of the Sahara desert due to random winds. In other words, it’s unfalsifiable — therefore UNSCIENTIFIC. Do you get that, or do I need to spoon feed it to you slowly?
Obviously, the lack of scientific evidence for God's existance.
Evolution theory doesn’t address first causes.
the moral meme offers an evolutionary advantage for individuals that accept it.
Therefore you are defining "moral" as that which has an evolutionary advantage. Isn't "evolutionary advantage" that which better enables its possessor to reproduce and therefore survive (the fittest).
And haven't you then defined "moral" as survival - which you agree say "doesn't imply morally good?"
As already stated, it is a meme and not a gene. To process a meme all that is needed is a brain. I'm not sure what genes are responsible for brain development, but I can provide scientific evidence that brains exists.
“Evolution theory doesnt address first causes.”
OK, here we go with this one again. These things just never die. So are you saying that ID *is* allowed to get to the first cell, but prohibited thereafter? If so, that’s some kind of funny physical “law” that applies only after some apparently arbitrary point in time.
So is the esteemed scientist Dawkins (and I am a fan of his writing on evolution) simply illogical or unaware of the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam?
-Obviously, the lack of scientific evidence for God's existance.
-Dawkins would be the first to admit that science can not prove that God doesn't exist.
“Morally good” is a concept (meme) that provides survival advantage. Natural selection, or survival doesn’t contain value judgement. In other words “morally good” isn’t good or bad in an objective sense. It is just useful.
So are you claiming that morality is nothing more than a survival mechanism that evolved at random throughout history?
If so, do you also believe that no absolute standard of morality exists? So, for example, the most hideous torture of a child is wrong only because we have evolved a sense of shame for doing such things — but that sense of shame is really only some kind of psychological illusion?
If you really believe that, you would have been a fine Nazi. All you would have needed to do is to see through that annoying little cultural “illusion” of conscience.
Thanks, that's much clearer way to put your position.
It does divorce the meaning of "good" from moral. In other words if "immoral" (or bad morals) provides survival advantage, then morally bad in our view is morally good in evolution.
Another way of putting it is we are hardwired to think what we think is "good" is "good". But this doesn't mean it's good. Had "bad" survived, "bad would be "good."
Now, can you see why some would say that evolution applied to philosophy or religion is relativistic or devoid of morality?
Or as you put it: "doesnt contain value judgement. "
True moral values, if they are to exist for man, must come from something transcending science.
It will happen during our lifetimes. If it does, will you accept evolution?
I should make clear that “we are hardwired to think what we think is “good” is “good”. is the pure scientism way of seeing; not one agree with. And I think not one that you agree with. Unless you think your morality is an illusion. :)
And will science also create its own matter/energy and laws of physics? Or will it borrow these from elsewhere?
The gap of reducing man to matter and animal.
I am a member of the same culture that you are. I am anti-abortion and very conservative. The source of the meme doesn't change it's power. I say it evolved, you say it is because "God says so". The source is different, but the result is the same.
What kind of a parent are you???
The fact is that Darwinism was used to rationalize traditional racial bigotry and give it a “scientific” basis. And that’s just fine with you? You don’t care that so-called “science” was used to justify bigotry? Just what the hell is your point — or are you just throwing sand?
The Ascent of Man wasn’t about evolution of matter. It simply placed man in the same group as primates and suggested that all primates evolved from a common ancestor. This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by genetic research.
Did you choose this? Do you have a choice whether you are or not? What do you base this choice on?
So has God and Christ been used to justify bigotry
I base it on natural justice. Many “Christians” support abortion.
It’s the Descent of Man, and I take your point. My question was that it removes the distance between man and animal. The idea of “consciousness” comes to mind.
BTW, I see you’re in dock here and battling on all sides. No doubt the odds will change later, but it’s appreciated that you engage and discuss with courtesy.
I convinced her to go to work with Good Will Industries. What’s wrong with feeding the hungry anyway?
“I am a member of the same culture that you are. I am anti-abortion and very conservative. The source of the meme doesn’t change it’s power. I say it evolved, you say it is because “God says so”. The source is different, but the result is the same.”
No it isn’t. If morality simply evolved and has no absolute basis, it can unevolve — fast. If I can “see through” the cultural illusion of conscience, then I can simply choose to ignore it — as so many mass murdereres did, for example. I just need to be sure not to get caught at whatever I choose to do for sport, be it murder, torture of children, or whatever.
Thanks, I’m certainly aware of natural law in religion, however that concept still relies on an absolute value of good. It holds that the universe favors this absolute value, which comes from God.
Is this what you mean here?
If not, could you explain a bit more what you mean by natural justice.
Thanks for your kind response. The evolution of consciousness is predected by the engineering discipline of real-time process control as part of the evolution of complexity. I don’t type fast enough to cover it here.
An important point is that evolution doesn’t change what is. It just offers a scientific explanation of how it got that way. Morals are still morals. Love is Love. Consciousness is still consciousness.
“So has God and Christ been used to justify bigotry”
Not at anywhere the level that Darwinism has been used. I’m not a historian, but I’ve read that the number of people killed during the Inquisition per *decade* was something like the number of people killed by Nazis and Communists per *week*.
OK, that’s a vague recollection, but you get the point. We know, for example, that communists murdered something like 100,000,000 of their own countrymen during the past century. That’s why I get very annoyed when Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and other try to pin genocide and mass murder on religion.
My point is that science cannot explain how “Good” got to be “good”. It can’t see it with the tools it has wisely limited itself to.
To science, purely scientifically, dead is no better than alive, pain no better than comfort, kindness no better than cruelty.
And to logic, or philosophy, values can only be conditional, “If/then”. Each better than relies on a previous premise - always conditional: IF life is better than death then..
To arrive an an unconditional value, requires, by the nature of the tools available, some knowledge beyond either science or logic.
This is the sphere of religion. And in this area, our absolute values, everyone has them, or acts as if they do. Even you; even Dawkins.