Charles Darwin - Sacred Cause - Abolitionist?

[_The Dude]

I can assure you they are more nuanced that what you might have read in rejoinders to Ben Stein's movie. I don't think anyone, Stein included, has suggested Darwin would have approved of Nazi eugenics. Dr. Wiker explains it well,

Actually, Wiker doesn't say it well in the provided quote. He isn't clear about whether he is saying Darwin (the scientist) is linked to Hitler, or Darwinism (natural selection) is linked to Hitler. To the former I would say "maybe, if you are selective" but to the latter I would say "impossible".

And it sounds like Wiker wants to do the impossible:

That's Darwinism in action. Does that mean that Darwin would have approved? No. Does that mean that Darwin's theory provided the framework for Hitler's eugenic program? Yes.

Scientific principles can inform our morals but there must be a leap of faith between what science tells us about the natural world, and what our hearts tell us we ought to do about it. Just because we can improve human species through artificial selection (eugenics/genocide) doesn't mean we should. Natural selection doesn't say we should, no more than it says we should treat lobsters like cousins.

Darwin's theory didn't provide a framework because science can never directly tell us what we ought to do. Instead, Darwin's theory provided one excuse for something horribly immoral, something that the Nazis very likely would have done anyway because they held an independent pseudohistoric belief in a supreme Aryan race. They first had a political belief and a goal, and second went looking for justifications to carry it out. Darwinism was just an excuse.

A nuanced view would tell the whole story. Wiker doesn't do the job in this quote.

[_harmony]

"Life" is okay. "Survival of the Fittest"--which involves the less fit succumbing to debilitating disease, being ripped apart by predators while still alive, or dying of hunger or thirst is far more wicked and heartless than simply willing life into existence.

How is that any different from the world today? Children in the US (the "fittest") survive at a much higher rate than children in the Sudan or Pakistan. Few die of thirst here, yet many still die of thirst in the desert in Africa. Children rarely die of AIDS here (which is perhaps the only entirely incurable disease we have left...) yet they die by the thousands of AIDS in Africa.

By looking at the two, one would assume that Africans live a wicked and heartless existence. I'm pretty sure I don't believe that. If your scenario was the case, Africa would be unpopulated.

[_huckelberry]

Shades, what I understand in your comments is that you do not approve of death and that if God is the author of death then you think he is wicked. It might clarify that death is not exactly survival of the fittest. In reality all creatures die. There is zero survival of individuals. Survival of the fittest referrs to something else. Perhaps you genuinely think eating meat wicked but that is only partially related to survival of the fittest.

I do not think eating meat wicked. I also do not think the value of all the lives of the dinosaurs is canceled by the fact they all died.

Consider your own life, it will end in a messy painful degrading process known as death. Is your life worth it? I would expect you would say yes.

Survival of the fittest seems to be a part of the fact that we live in a context where there is pleanty of possible means of survival but at the same time effort invention and care must be exer cised by ourselves to make it happen. Making a quick generalization, that demand of survival change us from dependent children lacking freedom into adults capabel of freedom. I am hardly the only one who finds that desirable. People look for challanges and real adventures. For God to create a world without that may fit a sort of piety but not the kind I would want.

[_Moniker]

I'm so pleased posters were able to find something worthwhile to discuss from my free association thread.

Evolution isn't allll about survival of the fittest in the form of the most aggressive, strongest, selfish individuals, etc.... It's just as much about those that are just enough to survive and pass on their traits to the next generation. Could a selfless, loving, cooperative person be the most likely to survive and pass on their traits to the next generation? Certainly.

Spencer actually coined that term, Shades, not Darwin. Beyond merely understanding how we've evolved to our present state it doesn't strip away, for me, the beauty of life and how precious it is. More so, understanding how we've arrived at our current state allows me to appreciate the awesome power of nature and how we should tread carefully when tinkering with it.

[_Moniker]

Showing that all humans have common ancestry actually can make us less likely to view "others" as less than human, eh?

In theory, but clearly not always in practice. It certainly didn't give the Nazis that sense of oneness.

Have you actually read Richard Weikart's book on this matter? I doesn't seem you're very aware of the actual arguments. I can assure you they are more nuanced that what you might have read in rejoinders to Ben Stein's movie. I don't think anyone, Stein included, has suggested Darwin would have approved of Nazi eugenics.

I just spent 30 seconds on youtube looking for a video of Stein linking DARWIN to Hitler and found it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgpfuCAxczY

I think it's obviously a scare tactic being used to say that this science is dangerous. I have seen other clips where Stein actually says science is dangerous (paraphrasing) which is odd since he considers ID science.

I think no one is disputing that the science of evolution can be hijacked (or all sorts of science can be) to inflict harm. The issue here is whether there is a scare tactic going on to influence the public to be fearful of the theory of evolution because of who Darwin was and what could occur when the science can be used to tinker with nature. I have no problem, at all, with showing how humans can be dangerous when latching onto science to forward immoral platforms, yet, I don't think this is really the purpose of what is being done by the demonization of Darwin or evolutionary theory. It appears, to me, a scare tactic to move people away from the theory because we need to prop up God as being the creator, so, let's scare them with Nazis vs. a loving God.

[_antishock8]

This is God:



This is God:



This isn't loving. It's not an object lesson. It's just plain sadistic if an intelligent being designed this.

[_huckelberry]

Moniker, thanks for directly pointing out that survival of the fitist is the foundation of love and cooperation not agrressive violent Hitler types who get deposited on the reject pile.

antishock, I at least for one do not believe God manufactures object lessons. I understand him as creating the oportunity for life and death.

[_Dr. Shades]

How is that any different from the world today?

It isn't. That's the whole point: That a just and loving God wouldn't use evolution to invent things.

By looking at the two, one would assume that Africans live a wicked and heartless existence.

That's not the point. The point is that if God used evolution to invent things, then GOD is wicked and heartless.

Shades, what I understand in your comments is that you do not approve of death and that if God is the author of death then you think he is wicked.

NO. My comment is that billions of years of "survival of the fittest" is a much crueler way to invent things than simply skipping all that and willing your invention into existence.

It might clarify that death is not exactly survival of the fittest. In reality all creatures die. There is zero survival of individuals. Survival of the fittest referrs to something else. Perhaps you genuinely think eating meat wicked but that is only partially related to survival of the fittest.

That's not my point at all.

Spencer actually coined that term, Shades, not Darwin.

I know. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a neat summary of the processes Darwin described.

[_huckelberry]

Shades, I do not understand why a dinosaur would think of their life as a waste just because it was a delay in getting to the life of some other creature.

What I picture is all the participants in evolution getting an opportunity to participate in the grand adventure. Yes they all died just as you and I will.

[_Dr. Shades]

Shades, I do not understand why a dinosaur would think of their life as a waste just because it was a delay in getting to the life of some other creature.

You're STILL missing my point. My point is that hundreds of billions of animals getting ripped apart and disembowelled while still alive is a rather cruel way to invent things when an ostensibly loving God could otherwise skip all that pain and suffering by just willing His inventions into existence.

What I picture is all the participants in evolution getting an opportunity to participate in the grand adventure. Yes they all died just as you and I will.

Is it a grand adventure to be ripped apart and disembowelled while still alive?