As you may know, Ben Stein's execrable crapfest of a movie, Expelled!: No Intelligence Allowed, slimes its way into theatres on Friday. From my perspective, the biggest, most vile lie pushed by Ben Stein and produce Mark Mathis is that it's a direct line from their hated "Darwinism" to the Holocaust, as I've pointed out twice before, but another major theme of the movie is that the poor, "truth-seeking" intelligent design creationists are ruthlessly "expelled" by those (pick one or more) atheistic/Stalinist/Nazi Darwinists.
Fortunately, there is a resource to counter Ben Stein's lies (and, yes, they are lies; either that or Ben Stein is just to deluded, ignorant, or stupid to realize their untruth): Expelled! Exposed. Thanks to the National Center for Science Education, there is now a quick and easy site to find the truth behind the fiction and to learn about the deceptions of Premise Media and the producers of the movie.
Spread the word!
Thank you for this important bit of info. Maybe Orac could ask for doantions to take out a full-page ad in a newspaper or something similar? Spread the word in a major way.
I've heard a number of suggestions about organizing a 'Darwinist stake-out' of the movie --small groups standing outside the theaters and passing out leaflets with information to counter the 'Expelled' message. If people do this, I think a link to the ExpelledExposed web site will be an indispensable resource.
I hate to be pedantic, but if the point of these links is attempting influence a search engine, you have to wrap the particular search term in the link to the other site. so putting the link around the word 'resource' doesn't help much. putting the link around the word Expelled or the words Ben Stein eventually causes searches for those terms to point to the alternate site. (Which seems to be what the Science Blogs 'familia' is shooting for...)
cheers,
PZ started a campaign to googlebomb this sight higher in the rankings. Now get coding, or be
Expelled!
Very well. Expelled
Just caught the movie trailer for "Expelled" on TV last night out here on the West coast.
Movie trailer gives the impression its a comedy with Ben in prep school wearing a school uniform?
From the reviews on this site I guess it is.
I think that the "nofollow" attribute that most blog comment software inserts could be a problem for any scheme that involves links in blog comments.
You people are amazing, how this tiny movie pricks your consciences. Unbelievable, but oh so predictable anytime someone gets their toes stepped they lash out with spiteful words to try and counter the truth. but the funny thing is truth always prevails no matter what you say and it will again this time regardless of how you rant and rave against Ben Stein's movie. Ha! Ha!
Oh, I agree that the truth will eventually prevail regardless of what I say. Too bad Ben Stein has chosen lies instead.
Grace:
You people are amazing, how this tiny movie pricks your consciences.
One out of two ain't bad. It is a tiny movie (real tiny, actually), but if your idea of "pricking a conscience" is to call scientists communists and Nazis without a single f*cking shred of proof and just stand
there and take it, you're insane.
-Chris Krolczyk
Well, I suppose the part in EXPELLED with Richard Dawkins saying he could believe in aliens depositing the first living cell on Earth that, under the influence of natural selection, gave rise to all of the wonderful variety of life we see today, did not strike anyone posting here as ironic. An unprovable "belief," that is alright to discuss in secular circles because of the lack of one mentioning "designer," "creator," or "God." Like the primordial ooze theory, the evidence, or potential to achieve valid scientific experimentation to replicate and thus validate the theory, is lacking, yet the scientist may believe in such a fairy tale. The yarn? It is a self-replicating, self-repairing molecules spontaneously appearing and then giving rise to the actors, living cells, that then could be influenced by Darwin's natural selection. So "valid" scientists, to which relgion do you belong? Dawkin's "directed pan spermia" sect or the "random electrified ooze" sect?
So where's the problem? In that case the alien would be "God," would it not?
That still doesn't answer the question of how the ALIEN got there, so we're right back where we started. As usual. No one ever answers where the designer comes from.
FWIW I never heard of this film before today when some of the religious blogs I lurk on mentioned it, and instantly I thought "Orac will surely have some good links about this."
I'm not disappointed!
Cee, they quotemined Dawkins. He doesn't believe in panspermia. He was just giving what he thought would be the most probable (but still ridiculous) scenario for ID. He was trying to be generous.
I think you are being too generous to Mr. Dawkins, Bronze Dog. The questioning by Mr. Stein was in regards to the theories of the origins of life and what naturalists are willing to discuss. The rules seem to change when naturalists speculate that either the first self replicatable, information storing molecules spontaneously appeared in a pool of ooze or perhaps it was placed here by aliens. Both theories are unprovable, yet regarded as open to discussion, according to Dawkins. An intelligent designer, again deemed unprovable, is not open to discussion. True or not, Bronze Dog?
Again, let me emphasize, Darwinian theory cannot explain the origin of life yet scientists speculate about this far distant an unprovable event all day long. Even Dawkins admits the pan spermia idea is discussable. Why is ID not discussable by the same logic?
Read what Dawkins had to say. Creationists are known serial quote miners.
Science doesn't deal with proof. It deals with evidence and confidence. I see no reason why they shouldn't be discussed if we can (and currently are) gathering evidence for it. We're still working on the possibilities. You can't declare something impossible by fiat. I fail to see any double standards, except for your arbitrary declarations.
And the theory of gravity can't explain how bees make honey. What's your point? Evolution is what happens when you have life. Abiogenesis is about how you get life in the first place, and is currently being researched. Again, you can't declare something impossible by fiat. Panspermia can be discussed because it's a natural theory that can potentially leave evidence.
Intelligent Design can be discussed, but it's gotten absolutely nowhere so far, and nearly all the formulations I've seen cut it off from ever going anywhere. "It's magic! You can't understand magic!"
"Again, you can't declare something impossible by fiat."
Well put. Those scientists who believe that an intelligence made life have been told that that is impossible by atheists and agnosistics who hold power in scientific circles. The declaration has been made about ID. The origin of life is an event that, according to science, occured billions of years ago, so please explain to me what evidence could confidently show that the ooze theory is the one. How about the same question for pan spermia. Is there a possibility that the first cell could be found in the fossil record? I enjoy reading how one theory, however impossible to provide evidence that it is the likely explaination, is ok to discuss among students and teachers while another one is tossed despite the same logic.
BTW, Bronze Dog, the link to Dawkin's site simply shows, like EXPELLED discussed, that his world view (ideology) is more important to him than objective inquiry. The atheist or agnostic scientist who takes the "road of Dawkins" becomes a blind ideologue. Those believers in a supernatural are then faced with these ideologues in academia, the press and in the government. The result is clear and the wonderful way EXPELLED depicts such intellectual crimes is apt. I would suggest that those who are areligious remember what freedom of thought and speech really means before they begin their pograms. This is the true and logical conclusion of EXPELLED and makes demogogic ideologues like Richard Dawkins look pathetic. The man spoke in response to a question and trying to take it back also shows his inability to overcome his prejudice that arises from his ideology. Ideologues ON BOTH SIDES of the debate do the seeker of truth an injustice.
^What we have here, is a failure to communicate.
By who? Not me, and as far as I've read, not Dawkins. "Impossible" is a favorite word I've seen among woos, not scientists and skeptics. Dawkins was arguing that it was highly, highly improbable at most.
Replicating the event under the conditions of the ancient Earth for one. I'm a layman in that field, so I don't know all the details.
There you go again, claiming impossibility by fiat. Being an ancient event makes it much harder to give definitive evidence. I imagine one piece of evidence would be finding panspermic "seeds" with commonalities to Earth life from an extrasolar meteor or whatever would be a piece of good evidence.
How does it show that? I think you're stretching. The purpose of me showing you that link was to show you that Expelled quote mined him to make him look like he believed in something he didn't. Like I said, Dawkins doesn't believe in panspermia.
Define "supernatural".
You're new to the discussion, aren't you? There's no persecution going on. Read Expelled Exposed. Link in the main post. It's clear that they aren't being persecuted.
Liar. Show my anywhere in his writing that Dawkins supports panspermia. You're asking me to think that one interview performed by serial quote miners takes precedent over everything else Dawkins has ever said about his views. You're asking me to believe that Dawkins lied in all of his books, and that an Orwellian culture repeatedly caught performing quote mining to the point of being synonymous with the act got him to tell the truth once and only once on camera.
The answer is obvious: He wasn't taking anything back. He was giving the least ridiculous (but still quite ridiculous) ID scenario, and Ben Stein tries to pretend that Dawkins was arguing in favor of it with creative editing. And he expects us to buy his even less probable stories that rely on the existence of a magic man who done it all. You're just another ID ideologue who's willing to lie and quote mine in order to get people to say what you wish they would say.
Ben Stein shot himself in the foot, and you can't admit it. That's why you're putting up all this transparent false bravado. The Expelled crew was too scared to release the unedited interview with PZ, and I'm damn sure they're too scared to release the whole Dawkins interview.
The dishonesty surrounding these issues lies pretty much on all sides.
Creationists lie about the nature of the book of Genesis, the nature of biblical fundamentalism, the physical evidence for evolution, etc.
IDers, the ones who want to foist it onto science lie about the nature of science, which can deal with nothing but the actual physical record. They also lie about the fact that any aspect of "a designer" would fall outside of what science can deal with because of that limitation.
Darwinists lie about what he wrote, his obvious ties to eugenics, through no less than his own son, his cousin and colleague, Galton, numerous other Darwinians, etc.
Ben Stein lies about just about everything, he has no more interest in evolution than he does about democracy or genocide. The man is a hack for hire, nothing more.
Evolution has come a long way since Darwin died more than 120 years ago, the record of what Darwin and his circle said is there for anyone to read. The pop-Darwinists of the blogs lie about their opponents being illiterate and stupid. While that might comfort them, as an increasing majority of Americans fall for creationism, it just might be the stupidest lie of them all.
Modern evolutionary science doesn't need Darwin as its figure head.
Read what Dawkins had to say. Creationists are known serial quote miners.
Oh, give me a break. Everyone picks and chooses the quotes they use, including Dawkins. "Quote mining" is the phoniest charge there is always available to anyone who wants to avoid answering any citation. Short of quoting the entire work of someone it's a charge that anyone can make.
1. Evidence, please.
2. You'll need to appeal to something other than "obviousness", especially since eugenics predate Darwin by millenia. About the only way I could possibly think to tie Darwin to eugenics was that he figured out gravity, weather, and environment in general perform eugenics all on their own.
Many are. Many others are dishonest. Many simply never read anything about the debate. These are conclusions typically arrived at through their actions and comments. I haven't seen a single "pop-Darwinist" conclude that they're all just one category. I think you're either making stuff up or that you're still new to the whole debate.
Unfortunately, Creationists will never let Darwin go. They'll never stop transparently setting him up as a religious figure. And we'll continue finding it hard to resist disemboweling the Creationists who lie about what Darwin said because we have a bad habit of pointing out lies.
Bronze Dog: "since eugenics predate Darwin by millenia."
There was no widescale Western eugenics movement until the early 20th Century, led by those who believes their public policy prescriptions rested on sound science - specifically Darwin, Galton et al. The eugenics movement was inspired not only by animal breeding and Spartan infanticide but the idea that natural selection is no longer operating under conditions of civilization, resulting in inevitable hereditary decline. That's not to blame Darwin. Read geneticist and anthropologist Jon Marks on the eugenics movement.
"Unfortunately, Creationists will never let Darwin go."
It's also time for us to let Darwin go. Darwin Day, reconstructing the Beagle, Dawkins' and others continued use of the term "Darwinism" for evolutionary science. No wonder creationists think that evolution is Darwinism.
Bronze Dog, well, evolution predates Charles Darwin and he's pretty well associated with that, too. Don't you guys understand how history happens? If what you assert was the case then, evolution predating all of us, no one today could be "associated" with evolution.
Francis Galton cites Charles Darwin as a major source for his eugenics, in chapter twenty of his memoir he includes a letter of support from C.D. after the publication of his Hereditary Genius. He says that Darwin was the major influence on him.
Darwin's son Leonard succeeded Galton as Chairman of the British Eugenics Society, he cites his own father's inspiration.
I've been looking for anti-Darwinian eugenicists for quite a while now and am only finding eugenicists who believed themselves to be Darwinists, many of whom knew him or his closest associates.
I am also finding no objections to other friends and close associates of Darwin who objected to the links made by his cousin and son from Charles Darwin to eugenics.
I think, considering that these people actually knew and corresponded with Charles Darwin that they have more credibility to make that link than, literally, anyone alive today.
Charles Darwin has ceased to be a real figure and has turned into a series of political myths, both pro and anti-evolution. None of the are real, all are dangerous to reality, none are useful.
"He says that Darwin was the major influence on him.
Darwin's son Leonard succeeded Galton as Chairman of the British Eugenics Society, he cites his own father's inspiration."
Darwin had no control over who drew inspiration from him, so I fail to see how inspiring someone makes him a eugenicist. Yes, I realize you said "tied to eugenics", but it's apparent from your post that you think this discredits him.
All sorts of crazy people claim inspiration from good sources. Considering a subject in the news right now, does the FLDS' use of the Christian Bible invalidate Jesus? I think not.
Also, "all are dangerous to reality"? Hyperbolic much?
"I've been looking for anti-Darwinian eugenicists for quite a while now"
Just a couple of examples, of many possible ones, in order to refute your conclusion:
Henry Fairfield Osborne, non-Darwinian evolutionist and eugenicist.
William J. Tinkle, creationist and eugenicist.
Keep in mind that there were multiple schools of non-Darwinian evolutionary thought prior to the Modern Synthesis, including orthogenesis, Lamarckism, and mutationism. Also consider that since eugenics is microevolutionary it is perfectly compatible with creationism.
Darwin and his associates were people of their times, an era in which many (though not all) theists, including creationists, believed all kinds of reactionary things about race differences, the socioeconomic hierarchy, and imperialism.
Nothing about intellectual history - no matter how unpleasant or complex - can possibly offer any aid or comfort to a pathetic pseudoscience like Intelligent Design. Your use of logical fallacies, including the genetic fallacy and argument by consequences, fails to lend any support to ID/creationism.
I think Bronze Dog has a "dog" in this fight. Like I said, ideologues lose perspective and those like Bronze Dog just cannot stand to have actual quotes repeated. Like this one from DESCENT OF MAN:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
Alrighty then, Charles. I am very familiar with the Darwinists defense of this little ditty. One says Darwin was simply speaking in the vernavular of his day and words like "savages," and "civilized" should be looked at in context. When I do that I still get the same conclusion and the word "exterminate" sure has a lot of baggage!
Another says, "So what? The turth is the truth." Fine. Who determines who is civilized and who is savage. Logic dictates that natural selection seems to not be the arbiter here simply because the actions of intelligent, compasisonate (can I say religious?) man works against selection only based on "survival." This is the basis of modern medicine, social welfare, even basic laws and due process. My goodness, why do we keep the old, feeble and unproductive alive when there are finite resources giving us food, energy and shelter?
The eugenics movement of the 20th century relied on the thinking (read: theology, world view, ideology), this quote represents. To excuse it, blame the reader for misapplication, etc. is to simply be an apologist. Again, very "unscientific" stuff if you ask me and this is the point of EXPELLED. Ideologues masquerading as white coat scientists has made the world an Orwellian place and posters like Bronze Dog is very happy to accept the status quo.
cee, you're using the same vacuous "reasoning" as McCarthy; namely, the aforementioned logical fallacies. In addition, you appear to not understand the Naturalistic Fallacy.
Also, for centuries Europeans needed no Darwinism to slaughter and enslave nonwhites or to allow their own poor to starve. Many traditional cultures practiced infanticide and killed the handicapped.
"Ideologues masquerading as white coat scientists has made the world an Orwellian place"
Ridiculous boilerplate.
"Again, very "unscientific" stuff if you ask me and this is the point of EXPELLED."
Anyone who thinks that junk like Expelled is laudatory is a pathetic ignoramus (fortunately, that condition can be remedied) and contributing to the decline of the United States relative to the rest of the world in terms of scientific and hence technological prowess. It's downright unpatriotic in effect, if not intent, to parrot the childish pseudoscience of 'Intelligent Design.' (By the way, that's NOT an argument by consequences, because ID is stupid and false regardless of its consequences.)
"is a pathetic ignoramus (fortunately, that condition can be remedied)"
Through education, of course. (I know that some people have phantasmagoric imaginations and tend to misinterpret things.) Check out Panda's Thumb, Matt Ridley's Evolution, or any number of other online resources.
The 2:06PM post by colugo...Ah, the dismissive elitist...how ideological of you! Again, the post that claims I am using boilerplate material is, what is the word I am looking for....oh yes..boilerplate. The remaining post, using such sophisticated adjectives like stupid, unpatriotic and childish, reminds me of the language participants use on JERRY SPRINGER. I suppose Colugo is a product of the United States public school system because the retreat into ideological demogoguery was so brisk!
The ideologue Colugo, along with the ideologue Bronze Dog, are just two examples of the type of character Mr. Stein mentioned in EXPELLED. They are in good company! Real scientists work and discover no matter where the data take them. Ideologues go into court, on to blogs and hold picket signs calling people who differ from them on fundamental issues, "stupid," etc.
Oh well. I should have expected it.
Colugo, "naturalistic fallacy"? Cut the buzz word crap. It's no answer to evidence. I was talking about the historical record of what Galton and Leonard Darwin said and did. Both of them knew Darwin, talked to him, worked with him.
Natalie, I'm sorry if I take Darwin's son as an authoritative source in preference to you. Somehow I've got the feeling he knew more about it than you. Or PZ or Richard Dawkins. Same with Francis Galton his cousin and someone who, unlike you or anyone else alive, knew him personally.
If you want to go into what Chas. Darwin gave to eugenics directly, read The Descent of Man without pretending that Darwin was giving eugenicists just about every argument they needed to get going. His cheesecloth think alibis sprinkled among those arguments doesn't change the fact that they were used by eugenicists during and after his death.
a pathetic pseudoscience like Intelligent Design
Posing as science it is absurd, outside of science, it's a personal belief. It's not a problem until they try to pretend it's science.
Osborne, I haven't read him yet, though I doubt that as a eugenicist he wouldn't have used arguments similar to or identical to Charles Darwin's assertions like this famous example:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
If that's not the foundation of eugenics, what is it?
Anthony McCarthy, even if Charles Darwin was directly and personally responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, 9/11, and the career of Creed that would change absolutely nothing about the truth value of evolution by natural selection. Buzz word or not. Something is real (evolution by natural selection) if it is real or bogus (ID) if it is bogus.
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child."
Time to put away childish things like Intelligent Design, the fig leaf for creationism. All of your off-the-shelf rhetoric about history, science, and philosophy just serves as a rationale for your theological infantilism.
Here's what I don't understand: What does whatever Darwin had to say or not say about eugenics have to do with his valid scientific theory? The idea that eugenics is a good or bad thing is ideological, right? Are we to stop reading Nietzsche because he may have been an ass and a misogynist? Further, should we stop reading Nietzsche because he influenced Hitler? Actually, you'd be hard pressed to find any philosopher who was also a really nice guy.
I don't understand why anyone would focus on one part of an entirely complex thing: a man and his ideas and theories. Actually, if you break it down, it doesn't matter who proposed the idea of evolution. If it is true, it is true and the source is irrelevant.
"Natalie, I'm sorry if I take Darwin's son as an authoritative source in preference to you. Somehow I've got the feeling he knew more about it than you. Or PZ or Richard Dawkins. Same with Francis Galton his cousin and someone who, unlike you or anyone else alive, knew him personally."
Your reading comprehension is obviously quite poor. Maybe I can simplify this for you: if Joe takes Bob's words as inspiration, that does not make Bob responsible for what Joe does. Nor does it invalidate everything Bob has ever done. Can you understand that?
Colugo, please, tell me you aren't in the hard sciences or math. Please. I want to have some faith in the education system left when I, again, leave Scienceblogs.
You are being silly, as all you Darwinjocks get. I didn't make the arguments you wanted me to make, I made the ones I did. Deal with those. I am not going to be led on that wild goose chase.
Calugo, gah! beat me to it. That's what I get for walking away from the computer in the middle of writing a comment.
History shows us the unintended consequences of effete elitists like Colugo.
When fanaticism is all consuming to the point that inquiry is met with disdain, insult or hatred, how does the ideologue realize it?
That is the true dilemma the ideologue faces.
See Colugo.
Ideologues are always the enemies of freedom, whether they are from the left, from the right, from the professions or from the mob. How does one avoid becoming an ideologue? My advice to any person pursuing higher study is to remember you are no better in mind or spirit than the "fool" who still believes in childish things.
Your reading comprehension is obviously quite poor.
How perceptive of you. Actually, I'm between glasses prescriptions.
So, who do you think would be a better authority on the subject of Charles Darwin's association with eugenics than his son? Or his cousin? Can you find other, closer associates of Charles Darwin who objected to their claims that he was an inspiration to them? How about Charles Darwin, himself?
" Hereditary Genius made its mark at the time, though subjected to much criticism, no small part of which was captious or shallow, and therefore unimportant. The verdict which I most eagerly waited for was that of Charles'Darwin, whom I ranked far above all other authorities on such a matter. His letter, given below, made me most happy. ,,
DOWN, BECKENHAM, KENT, S.E.
3rd December
"MY DEAR GALTON,--I have only read about 50 pages of your book (to Judges), but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original--and how Well and clearly you put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself in just the same terms, tells me that the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get to these latter chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think this is an eminently important difference. I congratulate you on producing what I am convinced will prove a memorable work. I look forward with intense interest to each reading, but it sets me thinking so much that I find it very hard work; but that is wholly the fault of my brain and not of your beautifully clear style.--Yours most sincerely,
(Signed) "CH. DARWIN"
http://www.galton.org/books/memories/chapter-XX.html
I believe that the actual letter is still in existence if you think Galton made it up.
Anthony MCarthy, what my educational background is it appears that it provided me with more knowledge about the history of eugenics than you or cee have.
Ever heard of Eighteenth Century eugenicist Charles Vandermonde? Time Travelin' Steampunk Darwin must have gotten to him. Same with Founding Father Thomas Jefferson and his notions about how blacks are more like apes than whites are (how on earth did he get such a notion before Chaz Darwin?) and may even be able to interbreed with them. The same with Andrew Jackson's exterminationist rhetoric regarding "inferior" races.
What's the original inspiration for eugenics? Well, let me put it this way: Do you eat aurochs at McDonalds?
Colugo, ok, you did it, now I know that someone can learn to type without knowing how to think.
Deal with the topic at hand, whether or not Charles Darwin was associated with eugenics. You don't have to originate something to be associated with it, or don't you realize that? By your reasoning Charles Darwin couldn't have an assocation with evolution because Lamarck preceeded him, as well as Erasmus Darwin. Thought, maybe, since Leonard Darwin isn't to be trusted on the subject of his father's work, Charles shouldn't be on his grandfather's field.
You are the third Sciencblog jock I've encountered this week who has shown that they don't understand how history sort of happens all in one direction and ends up in the present.
Looks like my point was dulled by my own typos. Oh well.
I've seen that letter by Darwin to Galton, Anthony McCarthy. We can discuss intellectual history and the sociological context of Victorian England as long as we want, but it doesn't change jack squat about the reality of evolution by natural selection.
Poor, poor Colugo. Go deeper. Come on now. Use the logic you have and continue to the end.
The common thread through all you are discussing (pre and post Darwin) in your silly attempt to distance Darwin from the modern eugenics movement is your running away from the ultimate and unavoidable destination of your ideology, nihilism.
We can discuss intellectual history and the sociological context of Victorian England as long as we want, but it doesn't change jack squat about the reality of evolution by natural selection.
Once again, Colugo, you show that you can't deal with anything outside of your prefabricated framework. I never denied evolution or natural selection.
The issue I have been talking about is Charles Darwin's relationship to eugenics, not evolution.
The intellectual history of England. Oh, yes. The "product of his time" argument. Good for an excuse, but it doesn't serve as a disproof that he supported Galton's eugenics at its inception.
The excuses you might make up for that doesn't change the fact that he did support it and supplied arguments useful for it, some of them, such as the ill effects of vaccination the "weaker members" of society, without a shred of scientific data to back them up.
I'd love to hear Orac's views on Darwin's theory of dysgenic effects from vaccination.
Well, I've got a student coming in about five minutes so I'm out of here for a while.
Anthony McCarthy: If anyone has a reductive, dumbed-down, distorted, and agenda-driven approach to intellectual history, it is you.
The history of ideas and movements, their influences and origins, is generally quite complex, far more than the simplistic morality play version you are trying to peddle.
Read Diane B. Paul's chapter in The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, particularly pages 222-223. This is not a very flattering portrait of Darwin's views on eugenics by any means, but it is more nuanced and accurate than your fingerpainted version.
As someone more well informed on the topic than you I've provided many pointers to further research: Vandermonde, Paul, Osborne, Tinkle, Jefferson, Jackson. So have some class and show some gratitude.
A name for our elitist Colugo to educate us all on....
Adam Sedgwick
Following some links, it looks like McCarthy is a left wing Darwin critic rather than some right wing religious nut. Whatever.
Look, I know all about Darwin's not-so-nice side, the historical context of eugenics movement, scientific racism, Social Darwinism etc. I get crap myself from atheists (note: I am an atheist) for not hewing to the standard talking points regarding Darwin, evolution, eugenics, Nazi biopolitics etc. Do some on the side of science whitewash Darwin, the full story of the eugenics movement, the complex relationship between Nazism and evolutionary biology etc.? Sure. See my contributions to Pharyngula threads.
I've also said before that we need to stop making Darwin into a reverential figure.
But in the name of Jesus H. Darwin and His apostle St. Dawkins, don't go overboard.
Lemme guess, McCarthy is a huge fan of Not In Our Genes. Am I right or wrong about that?
That book's low points include gushing over the wit and wisdom of Mao and sympathy for Red Army Faction terrorist Ulrike Meinhof. Its "Darwinism as bourgeois individualism" is something of a left wing precursor to Expelled's politicized thesis. Is NIOG totally off base on that score? Funnily enough, no. Intellectual history is goddamned complicated.
Clearly the attempt to change the debate about evolution from one of science to personality and ideology is the goal of the IDers, instead of a relevant discussion of relevant science. They know they don't have a leg to stand on with science so they try to force the debate into ideology, the realm where they might have something relevant to contribute. When all else fails, attack something else the scientist proposed or believed that has been proven to be or is thought to be intrinsically or morally wrong. It's a classic red herring argument.
cee quote and wrote:
"from DESCENT OF MAN: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
Alrighty then, Charles. I am very familiar with the Darwinists defense of this little ditty. One says Darwin was simply speaking in the vernavular of his day and words like "savages," and "civilized" should be looked at in context. When I do that I still get the same conclusion and the word "exterminate" sure has a lot of baggage!"
cee, "is" or "will" does not imply "ought." If I say "The sun will engulf the earth", I am not advocating the death of humanity; I am just stating what I think to be true. It is the same with the quote you gave. Darwin was giving a prediction, not advocating a course of action.
Clearly the attempt to change the debate about evolution from one of science to personality and ideology is the goal of the IDers
Liesl, I'd assume you are talking to me here? Since I'm not an IDer who said more than once that the idea has no place in science, it's kind of hard to tell. The only thing I've been talking about here is Charles Darwin's association to eugenics. I though of thought that was the theme of the post considering it's about Ben Stein's crappy movie. Your comment is a red herring, since it doesn't address the issue. It's historically inaccurate to say that Charles Darwin had nothing to do with eugenics, to keep asserting that with the evidence presented turns it into a lie just as much as anything Ben Stein has ever said.
So, do you agree with Charles Darwin about the degenerating effect on the general population on providing vaccination and medical care to the "weaker members of society" or not?
Oh yes Liesl, and the framing of the argument in the way that best suits one's argument is the first rule of the ideologue. So I do enjoy seeing Mr. Dawkins, you, Colugo and the others calling foul when the discussion of beliefs other than atheism enters into the analysis of supression of speech or thought from ideologues.
I also enjoy seeing fanatics like Richard Dawkins become angry and decline intheir intellect in the use of pejoratives. It is good to see those who deny a metaphysical involuntarily show signs of their moral self they try to deny everyday when they look in the mirror.
The grand pronouncement of "there is no supernatural" still falls on a doubting majority who have not turned the corner down the road to nihilism.
Our humanity survives because of that struggle.
Shirtai, it's really rather remarkable how dispassionately Darwin makes that prediction about the inevitability of the extinction, he makes it sound like the erosion of a cliff as if there was nothing that was to be done to forestall the extinction of the "savage races". Along with his approval of the effects on the general population that the means of attrition of the "weaker members" as practiced among "savages" ensure, you wonder if it didn't occur to him that, perhaps, there was something that might be done to prevent their eventual extinction. Or that his presentation of it as an inevitability just might make people think it was hopeless and so not worth doing anything to prevent, you know, people dying. Passive eugenics by the means he foresees isn't much of an improvement over coerces sterilization, as far as I see it. Coupled with the eventual extinction he takes so well, it's worse.
He lost his faith in Christianity over the death of his daughter, they say. You wonder why other people don't have the same right to lose faith in him over the deaths of so many others which he takes so well.
Colugo, you are nuts. And, apparently, a big compulsive.
Anthony McCarthy, it's really rather remarkable how dispassionately astrophysicists make the prediction that the Earth will be engulfed by the Sun when it becomes a red giant. And not a single one is working on ways to prevent this. Maybe they all this it's not worth it. Astrophysicists must want humanity to end.
Anthony: I wasn't speaking of you specifically, but of the ID movement as a whole. I really don't understand why the two ideas, Darwin's views or not views on eugenics and his theory of evolution, are being discussed as the same thing. I think the discussion about Darwin and his beliefs is interesting and valid, but I also don't think it has much to do with evolution. I realize I'm being redundant, but it is simply so perplexing that people (general) are confusing philosophy with science.
As for whether or not I agree with Darwin on providing health care for the down trodden : does that matter? Seriously, why would you even ask that? I admit that I have a headache and am multitasking here, but I can't for the life of me see the relevance of that question to anything I've posted.
Meh. Typo on my third line. It should read: "Maybe they all think it's not worth it."
Cee:
As tempting as it is to get into a debate with the unschooled about the nature of metaphysics and all that entails, I don't think this is the place for it. You've made some ridiculous assumptions about everyone and everything in your last comment to me, so I'll leave you to your hyperbole.
it's really rather remarkable how dispassionately astrophysicists make the prediction that the Earth will be engulfed by the Sun when it becomes a red giant. And not a single one is working on ways to prevent this. Maybe they all this it's not worth it. Astrophysicists must want humanity to end.
Shiritai, ah, well you see there is a big difference, one I wrote a very long essay about earlier this year, it's whether or not you think that democratic societies can take effective beneficial actions that override theoretical natural forces. It's in the ability to do something about something like people dying that the difference lies. If you don't believe that democratic societies can do that, as it appears Darwin didn't, then you don't believe that democracy is useful.
I've wondered if a scientist discovered that the earth was going to be vaporized in two days if he would make his short lived, world wide fame or if he would keep it to himself so people might not have two days of horrible experiences. My guess would be most would opt for the fame, though I hope I'm wrong about that.
Liese, I'd imagine that it would matter to the down trodden quite a lot.
So far, the following conclusions of EXPELLED have yet to be adequately dismissed:
Darwinism's connection to the 20th century surge of interest in eugenics and subsequent huge humanitarian crisis on Nazi Germany.
Ideological motivations on the part of atheists and agnostics that blur their motivations in shutting out Intelligent Design from the public academic discussion.
I am happy to leave it at that although I would suggest there is just so much more. The one crazy uncle in the Darwinist's attic that will never be allowed out is acknowledging the impossible goal of knowing the likely process by which life began on our planet. This is as likely as proving the existence of God and an honest person would admit as much. At least Dawkins had a moment of honesty in the film before he retracted it.
But again, so far I have yet to meet an honest ideologue.
Anthony,
Can't help myself, I must tuck in: "If you don't believe that democratic societies can do that, as it appears Darwin didn't, then you don't believe that democracy is useful."
Interesting idea. Why is that a requisite for utility?
As for the downtrodden: I don't really think they care one way or another about my beliefs or thoughts on health care; nor do I think they care about this post and its subsequent comments. Either way, I still don't understand what that question had to do with anything, much less anything I've posted.
Better nuts than an intellectual poseur, Professor McCarthy. I read your pretentious little series on Darwin and Darwinism. You are clearly out of your depth, with a grossly inadequate understanding of evolutionary biology's intellectual and political history.
God help me, I will argue with a rock. I am simply compelled to respond to you, Cee.
"Darwinism's connection to the 20th century surge of interest in eugenics and subsequent huge humanitarian crisis on Nazi Germany."
The reason this idea is a problem is because it attempts to equalize an idea and an actuality. Who cares where the idea of eugenics originated? If you believe eugenics to be a valid path of action, that is all on you, the doer. You cannot ever say, Darwin made me do it. It is a fundamental shift in responsibility and one that is both intellectually dishonest and disgusting.
"Ideological motivations on the part of atheists and agnostics that blur their motivations in shutting out Intelligent Design from the public academic discussion."
See, you're doing again. You are equating atheists and agnostics with Nazi ideology by your progression of sentences. You are attempting to link two things that have nothing to do with each other. Evolution is not ideological. Intelligent design is. Science.Faith. Not, science=faith.
"This is as likely as proving the existence of God and an honest person would admit as much."
HOW? Please, for the love all things secular and sectarian! tell me how! You have no idea how much this would change the very nature of my life and work. I really, really, really, really want to know how God is going to be proven to exist. I am dead serious.
You keep using the word "ideologue;" what do you think it means?
I guess it is all about Liesl, or Colugo only. Narcissism is another pathology of most in our modern time.
Historical connections between similar world views and how those "beliefs" (secular or religious) affect public policy, economic paradigms, societal mores or resource management are not important to address. I suppose I am to assume Marxism emerged in a vacuum, Darwinism emerged in a vacuum, Nazism emerged in a vacuum, and this debate between those who demand the supernatural be shunned by the intellectual and those who wish to follow the example of great minds like Sir Issac Newton, is useless.
Oh, yeah....that's framing the argument again, is it not?
I really, really, really, really want to know how the first self-replicating, self-correcting information containing molecule came to be on Earth. I am dead serious.
Please speak in definitive language with evidence. A fossil record, an eyewitness.
"I really, really, really, really want to know how God is going to be proven to exist. I am dead serious."
My answer to that demand is the same honest one to the first. If not, please show me why.
Why?
Oh, and I never said evolution was ideological. I said those who defend Darwin's theory of evolution as the only possible exaplaination for the variety of life on Earth
are ideologues. The "belief" in a solely natural explaination for the universe around us is a world view and those who exclude the possibility of other explainations to the extreme of behavior seen by such as Dawkins are fanatical ideologues no different than the most right-wing evangelical "flat-earther."
Please prove me wrong.
Apparently, I am in love with the idea of banging my head against a brick wall.
"I guess it is all about Liesl, or Colugo only. Narcissism is another pathology of most in our modern time."
This makes absolutely no sense. It isn't contextual, it isn't relevant, it is simply silly.
"Historical connections between similar world views and how those "beliefs" (secular or religious) affect public policy, economic paradigms, societal mores or resource management are not important to address. I suppose I am to assume Marxism emerged in a vacuum, Darwinism emerged in a vacuum, Nazism emerged in a vacuum, and this debate between those who demand the supernatural be shunned by the intellectual and those who wish to follow the example of great minds like Sir Issac Newton, is useless."
See, this is what kills me: nowhere did I say that the debate about historical context is meaningless. However, there is only so much responsibility you can give an idea. Wouldn't you agree that the practice and idea of eugenics is of far greater importance than the person who originated the idea? Do we discard Heidegger because he was a Nazi, or do we call his writings valuable in themselves? Personally, I'd far rather understand the idea than the origination of the idea. That's the way I roll.
Didn't you mention something about proving the existence of god? I have to go next door for a moment but I will rush back in happy anticipation of the process you propose for proof. I'm so excited!
Anthony,
You have a wonderful, thought provoking website. I will gladly take what I have read this afternoon to heart. Thank you for a humble and noncontentious attitude.
I agree with this quote from your website most abundantly:
"If biologists are content with having Dawkins being the face of their science, they are exchanging short term glamor for long term problems. It is growing clearer that in the political climate in democracies that science can't support the dead weight of extraneous ideologies unnecessary for it. I will make a prediction that you can check out later, if Dawkins truly becomes the face of evolution it will continue to face fierce opposition by many of those he insults gratuitously. Its research funding will not be secure. In the face of his arrogant condescension, a large percentage of the public will not understand the science or want to."
Bravo!
I'm back. Lucky, lucky!
"I really, really, really, really want to know how the first self-replicating, self-correcting information containing molecule came to be on Earth. I am dead serious."
That's very nice. However, since I never made a claim about being able to prove anything about the origins of life, I don't feel the need to answer this question. The question reminds me a little bit of something red... what was that?? Oh yeah.
"Oh, and I never said evolution was ideological. I said those who defend Darwin's theory of evolution as the only possible exaplaination for the variety of life on Earth."
If evolution isn't ideological in your reasoning, what is it? Science?
"The "belief" in a solely natural explaination for the universe around us is a world view and those who exclude the possibility of other explainations to the extreme of behavior seen by such as Dawkins are fanatical ideologues no different than the most right-wing evangelical "flat-earther.""
Aha! now we're getting to the core of your confusion! you are equating faith with fact. If you can prove something as true, real, tactile, it does not require faith in its existence. Unless, of course, you want to deconstruct reality to absurdity. But even the Dadaists have stopped doing that. Does the computer you are using exist? Prove it. Ah yes, it can be proven, right? Hmmm, doesn't require belief to be true. Durn.
Now, prove the existence of god. Prove the nonexistence of god. Please. I'll wait.
"Didn't you mention something about proving the existence of god? I have to go next door for a moment but I will rush back in happy anticipation of the process you propose for proof."
No I did not. I am framing the argument for you to give me an equally provable hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth.
I cannot prove the existance of God. I simply know God exists. The metaphysical is as real to me as the physical.
Sir Issac Newton said it best, "This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Oh, but that part of his discovery is not acceptable now to the ideologues like Dawkins, right?
So please...prove the very DNA in the squamous skin cell of my left index finger touching the T button right now came from an ancestor that spontaneously emerged billions of years ago...was it in a primordial ooze struck by lightening, was in pan spermia? How are you going to prove your hypothesis? How confident are you in your hypothesis AND WHY?
Is your answer any better than my answer to your demand about God?
I think EXPELLED did a very job in showing that nice reality as well.
"No I did not. I am framing the argument for you to give me an equally provable hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth."
Actually, you're right. I went back and reread your comment and I was mistaken. Sorry!
"I cannot prove the existance of God. I simply know God exists. The metaphysical is as real to me as the physical."
You don't know he exists, you believe it. And you know what? nothing wrong with that. It's ok to admit that a thing isn't knowable the way we know a desk exists. Isn't it necessary for it to be that way if you believe that faith is the key?
"Sir Issac Newton said it best, "This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.""
Good for him. He had faith, too.
"Oh, but that part of his discovery is not acceptable now to the ideologues like Dawkins, right?"
See, that's where you're losing me; it isn't a "discovery," it is a belief. Unless he discovered the way to prove it, it remains in the realm of belief. And what's wrong with that?
"So please...prove the very DNA in the squamous skin cell of my left index finger touching the T button right now came from an ancestor that spontaneously emerged billions of years ago...was it in a primordial ooze struck by lightening, was in pan spermia? How are you going to prove your hypothesis? How confident are you in your hypothesis AND WHY?"
This is not my job. My job is to point out the difference between faith and science. I have no desire to prove anything scientifically true, nor do I have any business doing so. My point has been and remains, there is a difference between ideology/faith and science. If you wish to change this to a scientific discussion, you will have to get answers from someone else.
"Is your answer any better than my answer to your demand about God?"
See above.
"I think EXPELLED did a very job in showing that nice reality as well."
Reality? um....
The quote-mined quote continues:
At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated.
Do you think Darwin was looking forward to the extermination of the apes, too?
Better nuts than an intellectual poseur, Professor McCarthy. I read your pretentious little series on Darwin and Darwinism. You are clearly out of your depth, with a grossly inadequate understanding of evolutionary biology's intellectual and political history. Posted by: Colugo
Please, Colugo, generate some more traffic for me. Maybe I should reconsider advertising.
Your condemnation, is my commendation. Oddly enough, I got some really good comments from people in the life sciences over that essay.
Did you really read all 8000 words? Or did you skim?
Professor. No, just your every day studio piano teacher.
The quote-mined quote
Windy, just how much of Darwin do you have to quote before you escape the phony charge of "quote mining"? Doesn't anyone who doesn't quote, literally, the entire work of a controversial author "quote mine"?
I wonder which of the heros of the Sci-rangers it was who popularized the "quote mining" dodge. It's nothing but an intellectually dishonest method of avoiding unpleasant citations. That way you can avoid dealing with it.
Wasn't Darwin "quote mining" whenever he made a citation? He made quite a number of them, though his body guard, Thomas Huxley, was the real master of the art.
Windy, time-traveling steampunk Darwin shot the last ape himself in 2079.
If you want a lot more traffic, Mr. McCarthy, then perhaps you should present your assertions to the commenters at Pharyngula.
Some of the Pharyngulaites might benefit from a little disillusionment about Darwin. But you have misconstrued some things and you are lacking a more complete context. And because of that your conclusions about Darwin, especially about the relevance of this for today, are problematic. Don't feel too bad; it's a common error: drawing straight lines between A and B and lacking an appreciation of the more subtle sociohistorical tapestry. It's the mistake Weikart and West make, and Jonah Goldberg as well.
To show my good faith, I'll even provide some additional readings:
Patrick Bratlinger. 2003. Dark Vanishings: Discourse on the Extinction of Primitive Races, 1800-1930.
Jon Marks. Eugenics - Breeding a Better Citizenry Through Science
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html
Robert N. Proctor. 1988. Racial Hygiene.
Well, as a nonideologue who simply believes teaching a controversy or allowing people to express their beliefs (secular, religious, "what eva") in an open society, in any venue does not threaten my beliefs, I look at the defensive and rather unsupported concern over EXPELLED rather interesting. The obvious ideolgues concerned over the young minds being exposed to the possibility of a living and creating God will continue to swarm to bigots like Dawkins and in defending his position, I believe many well meaning people are supporting a nihilistic world view they otherwise would reject.
That is the deep struggle that causes the visceral reaction on both sides.
I would suggest that after thousands of years of scientific advancement by individuals who knew God existed (and I do), the false fear that such a combination will give the ChiComs an advantage in science is silly and unfounded.
However, looking back on the 20th century and the effect secularist philosophy had on the human condition, nihilism is what the cynic must guard his/her soul against. And I do mean, "soul" because I know the soul exists.
The elitist Colugo demured to educate his/her lessers on who Adam Sedgwick was so allow me to give you his observation.
"There is a moral of metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro' final cause, link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature of the other -- You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it -- & sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history."
A Letter to to his friend, Charles Darwin, November 24, 1859
So think about it friends. "Darwinism v. Intelligent Design" as the blunt weapon against the "flat-earthers" makes good TV, a la CROSSFIRE and JERRY SPRINGER, but the devastating effect such tactics have on the participants and the greater society is evident.
Along with one of the conclusions Stein's movie comes, John Scopes (yes, that "Scopes") was very wise to observe the following:
"Unless we, as individuals and as a society, respect the other man's point of view, no matter how far out he seems and no matter how vigorously we disagree with him, we are not going to give full expression to our own laws that insure the right of the individual to be his own man. And intolerance apparently plays no favorites. I have often said that there is more intolerance in higher education than in all the mountains of Tennessee."
Professor "Colugo" would be wise to remember this.
time-traveling steampunk Darwin shot the last ape himself in 2079
...singing "I hate every ape I see from chimpan-a to chimpan-zee..."
Anthony, you didn't answer the question.
Windy, if you can read any better than your tag team partner you would see that I said that Darwin made the prediction dispassionatly, as in he didn't really care about it any more than he did the myriad of "weaker members" among the "savages" whose deaths by pretty awful means he regretted wouldn't be allowed among "civilised" populations.
You guys have to stop putting words in other peoples' mouths, or at least mine since I won't play that game.
Don't be paranoid, I did no such thing. Forget for a minute how "dispassionate" that quote seems to you, do you think Darwin wanted the apes exterminated?
Forget for a minute how "dispassionate" that quote seems to you, do you think Darwin wanted the apes exterminated?
I'll stick with what there's evidence for and leave making up stuff to you guys. Paranoia? No, just experience with the Power Rangers of Scientism and their limited repertoire of tactics and buzz words.
Thank you for the compliment, cee.
I'll stick with what there's evidence for and leave making up stuff to you guys.
Right, after inventing the whole "dispassionate" theory out of whole cloth. Darwin's opinions on slavery can hardly be called dispassionate. Are we to surmise that he opposed mistreating and enslaving people but simply killing them was a-ok with him?
I like your style Anthony. Keep it real and humble. That is the flaw of your responders.....and my nonresponders.
"Unless we, as individuals and as a society, respect the other man's point of view, no matter how far out he seems and no matter how vigorously we disagree with him, we are not going to give full expression to our own laws that insure the right of the individual to be his own man. And intolerance apparently plays no favorites. I have often said that there is more intolerance in higher education than in all the mountains of Tennessee." JOHN SCOPES
Cee:
Just curious, Cee, whether your professed high-mindedness about teaching controversies applies to teaching, say, Holocaust denial in history class, Geocentrism in astronomy, or Satanism in your local church. Or do you only support teaching controversies when the controversial subject is one you "know" to be true?
As for attacks on Expelled being unsupported, I wonder if you missed the link that Orac posted at the top of the page. Between its sleazy exploitation of the Holocaust and the expansive liberties it takes with the truth, the movie is such an obvious propaganda piece that your claims of being a "non-ideologue" ring very hollow if you fail to see this.
There really hasn't been much scientific advancement for "thousands" of years. Science as a discipline is only a few hundred years old, and the vast majority of scientific advances in history took place in the late 19th and the 20th century. Perhaps not coincidentally, the religiosity among scientists during these periods declined significantly.
And if you think that China and India, despite their vast populations and rapidly growing economies can't overtake us scientifically and technologically, then you are really in denial. Perhaps when the remainder of our manufacturing and engineering jobs have gone overseas and we start printing lots of extra currency to cover our ever-accumulating debts, you may come to see why making movies that blather about how "Big Science" is an Evil Atheist Conspiracy (TM) out to destroy our way of life isn't necessarily a good idea.
cee wrote:
I think we call that schizophrenia, and medicate for it.
Just trying to raise the level of discourse here.
Cee,
I guess I'm late to the party, however, I'll try to address your first post, as there's an argument in it several have made after seeing Expelled.
Dawkins was asked by the interviewer; under what circumstances Intelligent Design might have occurred? He responded with Panspermia. Now Panspermia has no evidence to support it and thus has never been seriously considered within science. However, Dawkins was specifically asked for which notion of ID he might remotely find plausible, so he picked one. Although Dawkins obviously opposes ID in all its forms, it should also be noted that Aliens, as the possible intelligent designer, has been explicitly acknowledged by ID advocates as a valid option.
What I find perplexing then, is that you obviously find Panspermia ridiculous and without merit, but by arguing in favor of ID being included in the classroom, you are arguing in favor of teaching Panspermia, as it can be considered a legitimate part of ID.
Of course, one can make the perfectly valid argument that ID advocates are merely lying when they include aliens as a possible designer; that they give lip service to this idea in order to avoid the legal problems inherent in identifying their position as a strictly religious one. But that hardly makes the ID position more appealing.
Darwin's opinions on slavery can hardly be called dispassionate. Are we to surmise that he opposed mistreating and enslaving people but simply killing them was a-ok with him?
Windy, read The Descent of Man. While you're reading it don't pretend that Charles Darwin didn't just say what you just read. It takes a while to break that habit, I used to have it myself. Then notice that his many demurrals which follow his most outrageous statements of eminent use to eugenicists, imperialists, etc. have a way of being quite a bit less strongly put than his positive 'scientific' assertions. I say 'scientific' because quite a number of those have absolutely no data to support them, others have data of the narrative sort common in the forms of anthropology that modern life science criticizes.
You can't pretend that Darwin didn't fully expect the extinction of entire racial groups with hardly any advocacy or expectation that aid to those populations would make any difference. There were certainly many people during his time who didn't hold that idea, it wasn't uniformly held by everyone, or probably even most people, during his time.
As for his abolition, well, it's nice that he is on record as having been opposed to slavery, which wasn't an uncommon position among Unitarians, I believe some of his Wedgewood kin were Unitarians so maybe they had a good influence on him. I will point out that slavery was abolished in England somewhat early in his life, it is hardly a certainty that he kept the same position or that he held the same view as others who opposed slavery. He was clearly no John Woolman, for example. Or maybe he fell under the influence of his very close colleague and "bull dog" Thomas Huxley:
"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest.
But whatever the position of stable equilibrium into which the laws of social gravitation may bring the negro, all responsibility for the result will henceforward lie between nature and him. The white man may wash his hands of it, and the Caucasian conscience be void of reproach for evermore. And this, if we look to the bottom of the matter, is the real justification for the abolition policy.
The doctrine of equal natural rights may be an illogical delusion; emancipation may convert the slave from a well-fed animal into a pauperised man; mankind may even have to do without cotton-shirts; but all these evils must be faced if the moral law, that no human being can arbitrarily dominate over another without grievous damage to his own nature, be, as many think, as readily demonstrable by experiment as any physical truth. If this be true, no slavery can be abolished without a double emancipation, and the master will benefit by freedom more than the freed-man.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/B&W.html
So, you can see that people back then could be said to be "in favor" of emancipation for different reasons. It's not much different from the quote from Darwin in its
At the very least you wonder if there is any evidence that Darwin, who probably read this or knew about Huxley's viewpoints, ever felt sufficient disgust at it to publicly disassociate himself from this published statement. Even for his time, it was pretty cold blooded.
You might want to read what Huxley had to say about womens' education in the same piece.
I've got a strong feeling that a lot of Darwin's demurrals were made to placate his wife's reportedly more generous character. You wonder what she thought of a lot of what he wrote. Other people have wondered the same thing.
I've read recently that when Charles Darwin died the first person Huxley went to to plan the funeral was Francis Galton. The Darwin circle seems to have had no problem with his eugenics.
Make that:
It's not much different from the quote from Darwin in its assumptions and expectations.
Compared to whom, the guy who said this?
Colugo is right, you are a poseur, so I'll let you pose in peace for now.
Ah, the old 'Darwin = eugenics' and 'accepting evolution as a fact = ideologue' canards.
Truly the last vestige of the intellectually bankrupt creationists. Both are absurd and both are wholly unfounded in reason. I guess desperate times call for desperate measures, eh Andrew & cee?
With all your digressions into slavery and misconceptions/mischaracterizations of science I guess the heart of the matter remains: there is no evidence whatsoever for ID so all you are left with are weak attempts at character assassination and absurd blanket statements that wantonly mischaracterize those that believe in objectively following evidence and reason.
Jesse, seeing as how you can't get my name right it's no surprise that you can't understand my repeatedly pointing out that I accept evolution, don't believe that ID has a place in science, though it's a completely legitimate personal belief, and that I'm objecting to the distortion of the record to deny that Charles Darwin had a place in the hisory of eugenics.
It's always so interesting for someone like me, whose major focus is how the left can regain political power to, you know, prevent things like overturning the wall of separation, to come to the Scienceblogs to get a taste of scientific rigor and logical thought.
The typical, permitted viewpoint among the fundamentalist Darwinists is just as dishonest as Ben Steins. Literally no evidence will be allowed that doesn't fit in with the Darwin Day mythology.
I'm always glad to leave you guys to wallow in your mutual congratulations and reinforcement of your recived viewpoint, if only you wouldn't try to inject it into politics to the benefit of the creationists and those who use them to gain power.
The typical, permitted viewpoint among the fundamentalist Darwinists is just as dishonest as Ben Steins. Literally no evidence will be allowed that doesn't fit in with the Darwin Day mythology.
...and yet you claim to 'accept evolution'. My bullsh!t detector just exploded.
Since you're oh-so-intelligent and we're all oh-so-mistaken, please share with us EXACTLY what evidence has been presented and ignored because it doesn't fit with 'Darwin Day mythology'.
Jesse, if your bullshit detector was set off by what I said it is as defective as your knowledge of modern evolutionary science would appear to be. Bit I've always noticed that most of the Scienceblog traffic was generated by wannabees.
You know, I can get down and dirty with the rest of you guys but I sort of thought Orac liked to keep it respectful. If someone being able to back up what they say with citations - providing links- and being able to string a sentence of more than seven words together is pretentious, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Another ideologue responds, thanks for participating Jesse. You can retreat to the debate tactic of trying to reframe the argument, it is your right. I will demure. I prefer John Scope's attitude about intellectual discourse. I regret we differ on that point.
Those who see the many problems with the belief that life on Earth was a result solely of Darwinian evolution (natural selection) from a spontaneously forming self-replicating, self-repairing, information storing molecule and propose to discuss alternative theories have ideologues on their side as well. I appreciate the visceral reaction of the naturalist ideologues, but feel such reactions are not helpful or rational.
Like Anthony McCarthy discusses on his blog, choosing the radical ideologue, Richard Dawkins, as the face of Darwinian theory is a poor choice. I believe he has caused more reasonable people to look at ID as a valid belief compared to atheistic ideology and so perpetuates the demogogic, irrational and pointless battle EXPELLED covered.
Telling people they cannot study a point of view makes them curious about that point of view. The anger and vitriol some intellectuals produce when confronted with the words, "God," "creation," or "ID" also suggests something deeper is going on and motivates the seeker to look at the alternatives to what authority is proclaiming. Interest in ID will continue because of this defensive stance made by effete intellectuals who have lost any shread of humanity and have embraced hubris as a way of life.
Time to move the conversation over here, folks:
Bioethicist Art Caplan: The Darwin-Hitler claim is a form of "Holocaust denial"
Enjoy!
Telling people they cannot study a point of view makes them curious about that point of view.
Where did I 'tell people they cannot study a point of view'? So I guess you need to make stuff up,too?
Interest in ID will continue because of this defensive stance made by effete intellectuals who have lost any shread of humanity and have embraced hubris as a way of life.
Right because there's no arrogance whatsoever in claiming to have the answers because they are in the bible despite any evidence to back up these claims.
You can whine and complain and make ridiculous, unfounded statements all you like. Interest in ID will continue because of this defensive stance made by effete intellectuals who have lost any shread of humanity and have embraced hubris as a way of life. It comes down to this: if you want to be taken seriously, you need scientific evidence- not quotes predicting what may happen in the future- to back up your claims.
Once there is a single piece of scientific evidence for ID, you'll have a leg to stand on.
Until then, you and Anthony will be nothing more than farts in a tornado.
My 2 cents -- it's a waste of time to respond to someone who can seriously make a comment like this:
In one short burst of insipidity, we have absurd paternalism (were it up to McCarthy, he'd hide the truth from the world for their own good), a cheap shot at scientists (they're only in it for the fame!), and the requisite sanctimony.
Jesse, Davis, I don't care what you call me. It doesn't matter.
Orac, the attempts to make Darwin the source of the Holocaust is dishonest, the attempts to deny that Francis Galton and Leonard Darwin are the ones who place him as the source of their eugenics is also dishonest. If you have sources closer to Charles Darwin who denied and refuted their repeated claims about Charles Darwin, with whom it's impossible to imagine people with a more intimate relationship, please, cite them.
Please address the passage about the dysgenic effects of vaccination in the general population that Darwin made in the passage I quote above. I've found no scientific data from the 1870s that support it nor of any from today that would. As far as I can tell it is a speculation without any basis in science.
I didn't call you anything, I said your comment was a paternalistic, absurd, sanctimonious cheap shot. But I'll go ahead and call you sanctimonious, since you're exhibiting the requisite behavior.
The funny thing is, I don't deny that Darwin's work encouraged the eugenicists, and that he may have been in favor of the idea (I really don't have the background to dispute it). I just find it obnoxious that you manufactured this as a point of contention in this thread (apparently because it's your hobby-horse): you were the first to raise the issue, and you did so in the most inflammatory way possible. Here is the first appearance of "eugenics" anywhere in the thread (emphasis mine):
You provided no evidence for the "lie" claim (disputing it is not the same as lying about it); what conclusion should I draw, other than that you intended to pick a fight rather than contribute to the discussion?
Even when your posts are well-written, this sort of behavior is usually called "trolling." There, I've called you a troll, too. Feel free to point out where I am in error.
The whole title was: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). (Mein) KAMPF was a direct translation from that 'Struggle'. There was, supposedly, not enough Lebenstraume. That's why in the industrial revolution in England 12 year old proletariat girls had to work over 100 hours a week. Malthus set the paradigm that is today very relevant even to Islamist terrorists. They believe that unconscious myth that there is not just enough space for us all.
Stein is under heavy attack for 'exaggerating' or 'going easy' on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I.
Catch 22: Haeckel's 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled for the 'public understanding of science' (PUS) in most biology text books until this millennium, although Haeckel's crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS - and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it.
Some edited quotes from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a 'bit'):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf
The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between "white" and "colored races" was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).
The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould's scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87).
So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the 'Up' of the ancient city from Plinius' Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17). Today, Swedish state church is definitely the most liberal in the face of the world.
Hitler's formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the "Nordics", a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel's position on the 'Judenfrage' was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?
In 1917 the immigration of "defective" groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the "nordic" balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).
Richard Lewontin writes:"The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded." (1977, p. 13.) Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the "yellow" group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.
Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.
Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do's and dont's. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, 'legally'. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.
I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.
pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm
pauli-
You could have saved a lot of time and effort and just written:
"I'm incredibly moronic and think Expelled is not only great, but truthful."
Then, no one would have to waste their time on the delusional rants of a creationist with a terrible grasp of the English language.
I've wondered if a scientist discovered that the earth was going to be vaporized in two days if he would make his short lived, world wide fame or if he would keep it to himself so people might not have two days of horrible experiences. My guess would be most would opt for the fame, though I hope I'm wrong about that.
You are beyond moronic. You have some sort of odd vendetta against science and those actively engaged in it. Please, take your nonsensical rants, unfounded ideas, and absurd opinions somewhere else.
You are beyond moronic. You have some sort of odd vendetta against science and those actively engaged in it. Please, take your nonsensical rants, unfounded ideas, and absurd opinions somewhere else.
Actually, if you bothered to look, I had citations, most of your pals just had assertions with nothing to back them up. Not that you would bother to look anything up and not that you could look past your predigested prejudices to have a new idea if someone spoon fed it to you.
Oh, the poor put upon scientists. They get no respect at all.
Jesse, you are a silly billy. The thin skinned ScienceBlog boys can dish it out but they can't even take a joke unless it's at the expense of someone else.
Actually, if you bothered to look, I had citations
Earth to batshit-crazy lady: No, you didn't.
Darwinists lie about what he wrote, his obvious ties to eugenics, through no less than his own son, his cousin and colleague, Galton, numerous other Darwinians, etc.
Davis called you out on it, but I've yet to see a 'citation' regarding these gems.
Not that you would bother to look anything up and not that you could look past your predigested prejudices to have a new idea if someone spoon fed it to you.
Hmm. Sounds like someone's been feeding at the Trough of John Best. What, are the 'new ideas' you speak of? Where is the evidence- that you have failed to provide- that Darwin is 'linked' to eugenics?
Despite what you say, you have failed to form a cogent hypothesis here. One minute you say Darwin and eugenics are linked. the next you say it's 'dishonest' to make the claim that Darwin and eugenics are linked. You've done nothing but speculate about someone's character, the truest sign that honesty won't curry your notions any favor.
Oh, the poor put upon scientists. They get no respect at all.
*sigh* you still don't get it. We *do* get respect for uncovering truths. We get annoyed when wingnuts have to face the empirical evidence but just cover their eyes and ears and claim it's not true.
Jesse, I'm afraid you don't understand that the historical record is the only one that is relevant to beating the charge that Darwin was a figure in eugenics. What science would you propose using to demonstrate that Francis Galton and Leonard Darwin were wrong that their eugenics activity were inspired by Charles Darwin.
John Best? Since the things I cited were by Charles Darwin, Francis Galton, Leonard Darwin not only with citations but links, and, unfortunately, Charles Davenport, which your pal Davis was as lazy as you are in looking at, you are still being a silly billy. What do you think I should consult to find out what these folks said and did? PZ? You guys should learn the first step in looking at history, going for the primary documents instead of the pop-science shelf.
No wonder you're helpless in a political fight like this one, you're clueless twits.
Anthony,
"Oh, the poor put upon scientists."
"The thin skinned ScienceBlog boys"
"you're clueless twits."
I bet you'd get more respect and have more credibility if you limited your insults to those insulting you. When you paint with such a broad brush like this, it makes me wonder if you have a vendetta against ScienceBlogs or something.
Also, Francis Galton was most inspired by Darwin's chapter on artificial selection in pigeons, which makes perfect sense, because artificial selection is basically eugenics, and natural selection has nothing to do with eugenics, unless you consider having lots of grandkids the height of perfection.
"No wonder you're helpless in a political fight like this one'
Anthony, what do you think is the main factor(s) causing opposition to modern science/support for creationism?
Here's an interesting article on Francis Galton by anthropologist Roger Sandall.
http://www.rogersandall.com/Spiked_How-Eugenics-Began.php
"Oh, give me a break. Everyone picks and chooses the quotes they use, including Dawkins. "Quote mining" is the phoniest charge there is always available to anyone who wants to avoid answering any citation. Short of quoting the entire work of someone it's a charge that anyone can make."
For actual information on quote-mining, see for example wikipedia or Talkorigin's enormous Quote Mine Project, which has more examples of creationist quote mining than any sane person would ever want to see.
I should say, though, that I don't think that Anthony's intentionally trying to help creationists, despite constantly reinforcing creationist talking points ('Darwin cult,' 'Darwinism', etc., etc.), attempting to pooh-pooh the concept of quote-mining (even though - while done across many domains - it's such a common creationist tactic that it seems to have been first given a name in that context), etc. Rather, I think he's so unfamiliar with the actual fight, and so carpingly angry at sciencebloggers/ 'neo-atheists'/19th Century eugenicists or somebody as to be just . . . I also get the impression that he's entirely willing to toss the pro-science movement under the bus for short term political gain, on the grounds that one needs to get better politicians (officials, judges, etc.) in power in order to do anything . Same argument's made by others re: reproductive rights. Has a logic to it, to be sure, but I fear that it's a bit like the word "banana" - how do you known when to stop?
(Banananananananananananananananana . . .)
Shiritai, if the ScienceBlog folks want to avoid the broad brush, they should call their fellow Sci-pals on their being jerks. I've had a few tell me that they know if they do they'll get swarm attacked. Look what happened to Chris Mooney for going beyond the limits of the officially authorized limits of "free thought" on his blog last week and he's a lot got more cred than most of the Sci-Bloggers.
Dan S. I don't have enough evidence to rank factors in the opposition to modern science so I don't know what the first of those is. I wouldn't want to have the authority to pretend I did know. I'd think that things like arrogance and the culture of scientism don't help. We happen to live in a country where people vote other people into power. Insulting the majority of people in order to fuel a gratifying level of conceit only proves that the people doing it are, how do you say it? Stupid as well as conceited.
I know if so many people hadn't said to me "PZ says" or "Orac says" to refute things I could back up instead of refuting them with facts, you wouldn't have to put up with me here now. By the way, I think Orac is a lot more mature and sensible than PZ, I don't even bother going to PZ's shrine to look unless I put on waders. He's a bigot with a swelled head that could fill most major cathedrals.
I know you have read me on other subjects Dan S. so I hope you realize that I'm usually more measured than I have been here. But it's my experience that when dealing with bullies you have to be more aggressive to let them know you won't be pushed around.