Charles Darwin - Sacred Cause - Abolitionist?

[_Chap]

Thomas Hardy published this poem in 1909; it famously was set to music by Benjamin Britten:

A time there was - as one may guess
And as, indeed, earth's testimonies tell -
Before the birth of consciousness,
When all went well.

None suffered sickness, love, or loss,
None knew regret, starved hope, or heart-burnings;
None cared whatever crash or cross
Brought wrack to things.

If something ceased, no tongue bewailed,
If something winced and waned, no heart was wrung;
If brightness dimmed, and dark prevailed,
No sense was stung.

But the disease of feeling germed,
And primal rightness took the tinct of wrong;
Ere nescience shall be reaffirmed
How long, how long?

The point here, perhaps, is that the further evolution goes, the worse the potential suffering gets ...

I do tend agree that if there is a deity who intended evolution to operate, then the old Jewish saying would apply to him:

"If God lived on earth, people would break his windows"

[_Moniker]

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.

Huckleberry, I had the opportunity to visit with two women that ventured to my home earlier to pass out literature and invite my children and I to their Presbyterian church (I'm rather fond of Presbyterians!). I usually nod, smile, and politely listen when visitors from congregations visit to pass off literature or seek to save my soul, yet, this time I actually asked a few questions. This is something I never do off the net.

These ladies became so excited and almost glassy eyed talking about God and Jesus. As I watched it appeared, to me, as if they were almost speaking of a lover and their devotion and care seemed so apparent in their mannerisms and speech. Neither were familiar with evolution, yet, didn't see why it couldn't be reconciled with the God they know and love, for they trust him, completely.

I've read CARM (and other sites) way too often lately and get frustrated too often from dealing with theists on the net. I need to remember that many Christians (and atheists) are not overly rabid in real life!

[_Moniker]

I do tend agree that if there is a deity who intended evolution to operate, then the old Jewish saying would apply to him:

"If God lived on earth, people would break his windows"

It is difficult, for me, to reconcile God with evolution, yet, not for the reasons Shades has stated.

[_critic30]

It truly boggles the mind how anyone can come up with such a warped synopsis of Stein's agenda. But then, Moniker doesn't have time to read books on the subject. It is enough, apparently, to view a youtube clip.

Moniker started this thread attempting to show what evolution belief "could" do in theory (cause people to reject racism) and then says this idea, as if it were fact, "flies in the face" of Steins "criticism" that links Darwin to Hitler. Well, wait a minute. How can it fly in its face if it is just a hypothetical? Do we know Evolution theory minimizes violence and bigotry? Of course not. Was Darwin a supporter of slave ownership before Darwinisn? No.

But how come these same arguments don't seem to convince rabid atheists that religious belief is good or beneficial for society? Clearly some religious teachings have encouraged charity, selflessness, abolitionism, rejected racism, taught an appreciaton and love for all life, etc. But that hasn't stopped them from trying to eradicate it like a virus.

Secondly, Stein is not "criticizing" Darwin or evolution. He is criticizing what he calls the modern Darwinian establishment. Those who treat it like their own infallible religion and use it to intimidate others who ask unpopular questions. He readily admits the Darwinist community that influenced Nazi eugenics is dead, and realizes modern scientists reject those negative aspects.

When informed this has nothing to do with Mormonism, Moniker ran way out to left field to come up with this ad hoc connection:

Well, doesn't the LDS Church teach that some are not as valiant in the pre-existence? Doesn't the LDS Church have doctrine that goes against evolution?

When told that her so-called Mormon connection to Stein's criticism is patently bogus, she sought to entertain the matter nonetheless.

I'm afraid the agenda here is to proselytize for atheism using evolution as a missionary manual. This is an intellectually bankrupt enterprise, as there is no logical reason to reject God based on Evolution theory. But it works for Moniker, and like the giddy Elder fresh out of MTC, she's anxious to bearing her testimony to anyone gullible enough to buy into it. Bashing Stein, even in ignorance, seems to serve as a convenient catalyst for exercising her religious duty to spread the nonsense.

I understand how artificial selection can be used, yet, that's not the same as natural selection.

Sigh. It isn't supposed to be the same. Moniker, you clearly don't understand how Nazi Eugenics became possible because of Darwinism. But real understanding would require more than "30 seconds" of youtube surfing.

That the science can be latched on to and used to advance a political position certainly doesn't mean that the theory itself is corrupt.

That isn't what Stein argued. Again, it would be better if you actually watched his movie if you want anyone to consider your criticisms worthy of attention.

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.

First of all, Stein is not saying "science" is dangerous, and he explicitly stated ID has no scientific evidence - I guess you're not even interested in listening to the video clips you present. What you're doing here is precisly what Dawkins does. He creates a division and makes the other side out to be science hating idiots. It is a game he plays because his position is so weak he has to scare his audience from listening to the opposing view. The truth doesn't seem to matter.

The truth is that while you're acting concerned about scare tactics, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris have sold tens of millions of books written for the layman, trying to scare everyday people away from religious belief. Dawkins goes on record in a grotesque film called "Root of all Evil". That pretty much says it all. I mean does it get any scarier than that? And to add insult to injury, Dennett and Dawkns both indulge this ridiculous notion that religious belief is a virus. And what does science do with viruses? It tries to eradicate them.

Scare tactics anyone? Sure, but none that Moniker will criticize. Why? Because this would be like Elder Smith criticizing his bishopric. These guys are trotting around the globe speaking to large audiences and spreading their agenda of hate, cloaked in science.

I just downloaded a debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi Wolpe. I was amazed how Harris avoided so many good points by appealing to one anti-religion slogan after another. But it got claps from those simple minds who only showed up to see someone take public swipes against religion.

Given this backdrop, Stein's movie was in many ways a response to years of onslaught by these rabid atheists. For them it isn't enough that evolution is taught in every school. They won't be happy until everyone believes as they do: that God doesn't exist. However, only one of them dares to be dumb enough to believe evolution dsproves God.

More interesting to me is that Stein showed quite persuasively the irony in their quibble. They don't even understand what religion is. If they did, then they'd understand that they have essentially turned modern Darwinism into a religion. One that has its set doctrine, established authorities, one that doesn't tolerate criticism and one that punishes dissent. WHen Harris responded to examples of bad science, he said you respond to bad science with good science, not religion. And Wolpe said, "Yes, and I would add that we should respond to bad religion with good religion." The crowd cheered and Harris was left with his foot in his mouth. But this doesn't work for these guys, because even though they manage to say with a straight face, "not all religous people do bad things," they would gladly see all religious people become atheists.

Hawking and Gould both disagree with Dawkins on the point that religious belief and evolution are incompatible. But Dawkins' books are aimed not at other scientists who disagree with him, but rather they target gullible amatuers who have been rubbed wrongly by religion. They are easy targets and Dawkins takes advantage of their mental vulnerability. And some seem to think that by following the bigoted opinions of these pop scientists, that it must speak well of their intelligence. In reality it only speaks about their willingness to be led along by the nose. The fact is there are many people smarter and more respected than these guys, and they have no problems reconciling modern science with belief in God. So why don't their opinions matter more?

Those with the proper critical thinking skills and the background knowledge required to see through his charade, understand that Dawkins is just a bigot with an ax to grind. His own atheist cohorts have said as much. He has made at least one "ashamed to be an atheist."

I think no one is disputing that the science of evolution can be hijacked

It wasn't hijacked.

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.

That isn't the issue because that isn't what he said. That is what you are trying to make of it because you hold evolution-atheism dear to your heart, and like any pious adherent you're defensive of what your religious leaders have declared a threat.

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.

How many times will you reiterate such uninformed opinion, especially after already admitting you don't know what you're talking about? You criticize what you haven't even read. And the short clip you presented, you completely misrepresent. If you were truly "ashamed" of this, then why continue in these ignorant criticisms? It seems clear to me that you begin with some anti-Stein review in mind (maybe from some atheist/skeptic website) and you then proceed to relay those unchallenged points as if they were factual, to a bunch of disinterested people eager to change the subject.

Dude: 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.

Agreed. But the fact is this notion that humans could be engineered a certain way, is entirely based on the Darwinian principles of the day. Stein doesn't say science made Hitler do anything. He is just saying it provided a means for him to further his racist ideas. And it certainly did. Nazi scientists didn't hesitate to tout their work as the cutting edge of biological science.

[_Chap]

I'm afraid the agenda here is to proselytize for atheism using evolution as a missionary manual. This is an intellectually bankrupt enterprise, as there is no logical reason to reject God based on Evolution theory.

My emphasis.

I take it that by "no logical reason" you simply mean "no good reason"?

As other posters on this thread have already remarked, the discovery that human beings are here because of a very long and highly contingent process of struggle for survival over millions of years does seem less indicative of a benevolent creator-deity than the older picture of one perfect act of creation of a carefully thought out and balanced world, with human beings as the main purpose and crowning glory of that creation.

You can argue against that view if you like. But if there is any sense in arguing from the features of the world as we see it for or against the existence of a deity in the Judeo-Christian mould, then there is a lot about evolution that seems to count on the negative side.

[_Moniker]

It truly boggles the mind how anyone can come up with such a warped synopsis of Stein's agenda. But then, Moniker doesn't have time to read books on the subject. It is enough, apparently, to view a youtube clip.

Actually, critic30, I was merely showing how Stein does link Darwin to Hitler and says, Hitler is a "linear descendant" to Darwin. I haven't read the specific book mentioned in this thread, yet, I just knew, for a fact, that Stein has linked Hitler to Darwin and it appeared, to me, you were denying that fact.

Moniker started this thread attempting to show what evolution belief "could" do in theory (cause people to reject racism) and then says this idea, as if it were fact, "flies in the face" of Steins "criticism" that links Darwin to Hitler. Well, wait a minute. How can it fly in its face if it is just a hypothetical? Do we know Evolution theory minimizes violence and bigotry? Of course not. Was Darwin a supporter of slave ownership before Darwinisn? No.

Quite frankly, I just posted it because I found the article interesting and then started to think about human rights and eugenics. I just thought it was interesting to note that evolution could be viewed in a way where racism can be lessened by the understanding of the theory. I am quite aware that plenty of people use evolution to bolster racist attitudes, yet, find it reassuring that it can be looked at in a different way.

But how come these same arguments don't seem to convince rabid atheists that religious belief is good or beneficial for society? Clearly some religious teachings have encouraged charity, selflessness, abolitionism, rejected racism, taught an appreciaton and love for all life, etc. But that hasn't stopped them from trying to eradicate it like a virus.

I do not discount that there are good religious teachings and there are good religious people. Seeing that the majority of my fellow Americans and fellow humans are religious I have no problem at all stating with certainty that there are MANY amazing, moral, upstanding religious individuals. I have no desire to eradicate religion and don't even see that as a possibility in the near future. I do, though, believe that people should not dismiss historical and scientific facts because they don't reconcile with their religious beliefs. I also get squeamish when people look to God (or clergy) for answers rather than relying on facts and attempting to think for themselves the correct course to take.

Secondly, Stein is not "criticizing" Darwin or evolution. He is criticizing what he calls the modern Darwinian establishment. Those who treat it like their own infallible religion and use it to intimidate others who ask unpopular questions. He readily admits the Darwinist community that influenced Nazi eugenics is dead, and realizes modern scientists reject those negative aspects.

Right, I know he criticizes the Darwinist establishment. He seems to be all over the place. Quite frankly I don't take him too seriously. I did order the book by Weikart and when I read it maybe I'll understand more where you're coming from. I'm really sorry I even mentioned Stein!

When informed this has nothing to do with Mormonism, Moniker ran way out to left field to come up with this ad hoc connection:

Yep, just scrambled for something. No doubt about it. I've never had a problem before with posting things on evolution or just God in this forum. I was looking for something to keep it in the forum and threw out some suggestions. Burn me at the stake!

When told that her so-called Mormon connection to Stein's criticism is patently bogus, she sought to entertain the matter nonetheless.

Yes. My post about tights and capes was very serious and I hope all understood how very, very, very serious that post was. I certainly hope you understood that after I wrote that post I sat back with smug satisfaction feeling quite satisfied at my intellectual foray into the subject.

I'm afraid the agenda here is to proselytize for atheism using evolution as a missionary manual. This is an intellectually bankrupt enterprise, as there is no logical reason to reject God based on Evolution theory. But it works for Moniker, and like the giddy Elder fresh out of MTC, she's anxious to bearing her testimony to anyone gullible enough to buy into it. Bashing Stein, even in ignorance, seems to serve as a convenient catalyst for exercising her religious duty to spread the nonsense.

You're not very good at understanding what "agenda" I may have. I've never said one needs to reject God to accept evolution. Many theists do accept evolution and I have no problem with them reconciling their beliefs. I can't do it, yet, more power to those that can.

Sigh. It isn't supposed to be the same. Moniker, you clearly don't understand how Nazi Eugenics became possible because of Darwinism. But real understanding would require more than "30 seconds" of youtube surfing.

Well, I certainly understand that eugenics is not natural selection... and I didn't learn that from youtube...

Sigh.

That isn't what Stein argued. Again, it would be better if you actually watched his movie if you want anyone to consider your criticisms worthy of attention.

I wasn't starting the thread to lambaste Stein although you certainly are a fun Stein apologist and I'm glad I make it worth your while to post here!

First of all, Stein is not saying "science" is dangerous, and he explicitly stated ID has no scientific evidence - I guess you're not even interested in listening to the video clips you present. What you're doing here is precisly what Dawkins does. He creates a division and makes the other side out to be science hating idiots. It is a game he plays because his position is so weak he has to scare his audience from listening to the opposing view. The truth doesn't seem to matter.

I don't think the other side are science hating idiots - well, some are! I think Stein acts like a nincompoop to rally the uninformed and I think that's loathsome. I could find the clip of Stein saying science is dangerous, yet, I've had enough of a tongue lashing. For now....

The truth is that while you're acting concerned about scare tactics, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris have sold tens of millions of books written for the layman, trying to scare everyday people away from religious belief. Dawkins goes on record in a grotesque film called "Root of all Evil". That pretty much says it all. I mean does it get any scarier than that? And to add insult to injury, Dennett and Dawkns both indulge this ridiculous notion that religious belief is a virus. And what does science do with viruses? It tries to eradicate them.

I'm a Dennett gal and Dawkins doesn't do it, for me. I agree that both sides can use plenty of rhetoric and I admit I've done my fair share, at times when I get frustrated with theists. I understand how Dawkins uses memes and I understand his complaints with religion, yet, don't think all religion is something that needs to be eradicated.

Scare tactics anyone? Sure, but none that Moniker will criticize. Why? Because this would be like Elder Smith criticizing his bishopric. These guys are trotting around the globe speaking to large audiences and spreading their agenda of hate, cloaked in science.

Look here and see what I have to say about Sam Harris:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4407&hilit=Hitchens

I am so hateful.

I just downloaded a debate between Sam Harris and Rabbi Wolpe. I was amazed how Harris avoided so many good points by appealing to one anti-religion slogan after another. But it got claps from those simple minds who only showed up to see someone take public swipes against religion.

Can you post the debate as I'd like to watch it.

Given this backdrop, Stein's movie was in many ways a response to years of onslaught by these rabid atheists. For them it isn't enough that evolution is taught in every school. They won't be happy until everyone believes as they do: that God doesn't exist. However, only one of them dares to be dumb enough to believe evolution dsproves God.

I don't wish to strip God belief from anyone. I've never attemted to do this and I won't, probably, ever attempt to do that. I do, though, attempt to converse with theists, on the net, to help bridge the divide and show he we have some in common or to combat simple misconceptions as to who I am because I just lack a belief in God. I also just enjoy debate....

More interesting to me is that Stein showed quite persuasively the irony in their quibble. They don't even understand what religion is. If they did, then they'd understand that they have essentially turned modern Darwinism into a religion. One that has its set doctrine, established authorities, one that doesn't tolerate criticism and one that punishes dissent. WHen Harris responded to examples of bad science, he said you respond to bad science with good science, not religion. And Wolpe said, "Yes, and I would add that we should respond to bad religion with good religion." The crowd cheered and Harris was left with his foot in his mouth. But this doesn't work for these guys, because even though they manage to say with a straight face, "not all religous people do bad things," they would gladly see all religious people become atheists.

Well, there are some atheists that do desire that religion was poofed away. I see clan mentality as the issue with most of the conflicts and problems with our world and see religion as just an aspect of human cultures and it can be coopted to be quite dangerous. I do think some religious thought and teachings are problematic and I take issue with.

Hawking and Gould both disagree with Dawkins on the point that religious belief and evolution are incompatible. But Dawkins' books are aimed not at other scientists who disagree with him, but rather they target gullible amatuers who have been rubbed wrongly by religion. They are easy targets and Dawkins takes advantage of their mental vulnerability. And some seem to think that by following the bigoted opinions of these pop scientists, that it must speak well of their intelligence. In reality it only speaks about their willingness to be led along by the nose. The fact is there are many people smarter and more respected than these guys, and they have no problems reconciling modern science with belief in God. So why don't their opinions matter more?

I don't know why you're ranting about this, to me...

Those with the proper critical thinking skills and the background knowledge required to see through his charade, understand that Dawkins is just a bigot with an ax to grind. His own atheist cohorts have said as much. He has made at least one "ashamed to be an atheist."

Agree or disagree, he's an intelligent man and he thinks he has some answers. I don't fault him for that even if I don't fully agree with him.

~I'm snipping the rest -edited this morning because I was very sleepy last night~

[_EAllusion]

Since I replied in another thread concerning race, I thought I'd give a more serious reply here.

Charles Darwin was a staunch abolitionist. This was not an uncommon position for a secular, liberal intellectual like Darwin to have. However, the work he is famous for had little to do with the abolitionist movement. On the Origin of Species was published in 1859. That's very late in the game for the abolitionist movement, so it didn't have much time to have impact one way or another.

As far as the causal argument goes, it does not follow that because races are closely related to one another, that one must favor political equality or even think that the races are coequal moral or cognitive dimensions. This is what my lobster joke was getting at. Indeed, as Social Darwinism took off in the US, it was a widely held belief that "white" races were superior to "black" races and it was only a matter of time that blacks were defeated in the struggle for survival. It was thought that white dominance over the blacks was just nature taking its course. This is not something that follows from Darwin's scientific work, but it was an idea that seeped into some subcultures nonetheless.

[Guest]

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

Weikart.

You also have to understand that the Nazis existed within a context long held and much more profound history of religious antisemitism that existed throughout the European continent. That's the principle source antisemitic beliefs that Hitler and those who too willingly followed him were informed by. It was fueled even worse by the influence of Martin Luther over their particular area. You won't see the creationists talking much about that when trying to link Darwin to the Holocaust. It's also worth noting that the dominant views that evolutionary theory replaced - namely the great chain of being - also had the same problems with people using them to justify views and actions based on racial superiority.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Don't know if it's been mentioned here, but Charles Darwin was, by today's standards, an appalling racist who was interested in eugenics.

His brilliant disciple and cousin, Francis Galton, was very much a eugenicist and, by today's standards, a racist.

Now, I don't think that that demands that we totally reject Darwin and all his works. I don't believe that sharing a common contemporary moral blind spot completely discredits a great person of the past. But it should be a cause for reflection.

[_EAllusion]

Don't know if it's been mentioned here, but Charles Darwin was, by today's standards, an appalling racist who was interested in eugenics.

Darwin's major flaw in thinking about races was to think that specific cultures and races were the same thing. It was a common error in his timeperiod, racist in its ignorance, but beyond that there's not much racism from Darwin. He's usually quotemined in such a way that people imply he wanted savage races exterminated, but that's misleading at best. Weikart does that.

Could you be more specific by what you mean by "interested in eugenics?"

Galton coined the term Eugenics by the way. It doesn't make sense to say any one individual founded eugenic thought, but if you are looking for a founder, he'd be your #1 candidate. Your latter comment is like saying Karl Marx was a staunch Marxist.