Darwin Strips Reality of Purpose?
by MikeGeneWriting in the journal, Evolution: Education and Outreach, David Zeigler has an article entitled, "The Question of Purpose." Zeigler's argument is twofold: Darwinian science teaches us that there is no purpose or meaning outside of ourselves and teachers can improve evolution education by better stressing the non-teleological nature of evolution and reality. You can read this for yourself here (pdf file). I'm hoping to comment on several aspects, but I thought you'd like to check it out first and have an opportunity to correct me if I have wrongly mischaracterized it.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Thank you, Mike Gene. Very good of you to share this with us.
I for one have no illusions about Darwinism as an ideology. It is essentially nihilistic.
Comment by Observer — March 28, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I think it is nihilistic only if you perceive Darwin from an atheistic world view. But note that Zeigler is confusing science with metaphysics to ultimately attack theistic evolution and/or a teleological reality.
Comment by MikeGene — March 28, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
"Darwinism" (AKA evolutionary biology) isn't an ideology, it's a scientific theory. If you read On the Origin of Species, you will notice that Darwin himself says absolutely nothing about purpose in nature at all. I know this because I assign the Origin for my students to read, and specifically assign them the task of finding where in the book Darwin talks about evolution being non-purposeful. After ten years of this, none of them have found it…because it isn't there.
This isn't to say that Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolution "“ natural selection "“ is necessarily purposeful. It isn't, but neither is it non-purposeful. The entire concept of purpose (defined as a pre-existing plan for some forthcoming process) is irrelevant to natural selection as it is for gravity, or for that matter all of science.
To state the case as clearly as possible, it is not necessary to postulate the existence or operation of a pre-existing plan for a natural process, including natural selection.
On the other hand, as Ernst Mayr pointed out in his essay "Teleological and Teleonomic; A New Analysis" [(1974) Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, XIV, pp. 91 to 117], natural selection is quite capable of producing entities that are purposeful. That is, living organisms (and the genomes by means of which they assemble and operate themselves) are unquestionably purposeful entities. However, the process by which they and their genomes have come into being is not necessarily purposeful.
David Zeigler, therefore, is making a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one. He is, of course, entitled to do so, but no one is required to mistake it for a scientific argument. It isn't. Indeed, as my students have discovered when I assign them to do so, it is extraordinarily difficult to even imagine what kind of empirical test one might use to verify or falsify the hypothesis that a seemingly natural process is the result of the operation of what we refer to as "purpose." Even ID makes no attempt to do this. Instead, it simply points at the outcome of biological processes and says "this can't happen without the operation of purpose". An assertion only, based on highly questionable mathematical arguments that bear no direct relationship to biological reality.
Indeed, it would make more sense to argue (as I do to my students) that the reason that Darwin chose natural selection as his primary mechanism for "descent with modification" (his term for "evolution") was precisely the fact that the question of the existence or non-existence of purpose in nature is irrelevent to his argument, in the same way as it is irrelevant to other natural phenomena.
For example, does it make sense to assert that "dropped rocks fall in order to reach the ground? This is a classically teleological explanation for the "behavior" of falling rocks, but it makes no sense to us (living as we do a few centuries after Newton banished teleology from physics as irrelevant). No, we simply say that "dropped rocks fall to the ground because of the force of gravity" and leave it at that.
In the same way, when confronted with an adaptation (such as fur in mammals) an evolutionary biologist doesn't assert that mammals have fur in order to keep warm. Rather, a biologist would say the following:
1) mammals have fur because they have the genes that code for its production during development (Aristotle's "material" cause);
2) an individual mammal has the genes for producing fur because it inherits them genes from its parents (Aristotle's "efficient" cause)
3) such genes exist in mammals because in the past, those individuals who had such genes survived and reproduced (and therefore passed on those genes to their descendants) more often than their contemporaries who lacked such genes (Darwin's "final" cause).
Again, purpose (i.e. Aristotelian "final" cause) is irrelevant, and therefore not included in evolutionary explanations.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 28, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
March 28th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
In other places, he did, however, assert an opinion or two about his a-telic view of particular biological forms: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice." This is a theological statement, not a scientific one. (And not a particularly mature one, in my opinion.)
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 28, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 5:44 am
kornbelt888:
This particular quote is from a letter to Asa Grey [1], an American botanist at Harvard, and like nearly all of Darwin's correspondence, was never made public during his lifetime. That is, it's not part of Darwin's published work (that is, published by him while he was alive).
The point here is that Darwin very scrupulously avoided the subject of purpose in the Origin of Species, and therefore for David Zeigler to assert that Darwin "annihiliated" purpose is a very, very long stretch.
BTW, the quote cited (from the letter to Hooker) would be more appropriately used in a discussion of Darwin's views on theodicy, not purpose.
[1] http://darwin-online.org.uk/co...
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 29, 2008 @ 5:44 am
March 29th, 2008 at 5:48 am
And you're right about the "theological" view expressed in the quote. Here is the quote in its entirety:
"With respect to the theological view of the question. This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can. Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical. The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one, owing to the excessively complex action of natural laws. A child (who may turn out an idiot) is born by the action of even more complex laws, and I can see no reason why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws, and that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event and consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become; as indeed I have probably shown by this letter."
So, Darwin was "… inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws…"
That would seem to put him pretty firmly in the same camp as most of the people who post at this website, wouldn't it?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 29, 2008 @ 5:48 am
March 29th, 2008 at 6:33 am
P.S. I have now been banned from Uncommon Descent by DaveScot for posting a long refutation (including citations from Mein Kampf and Hitler's speeches) of his contention that Darwin was Hitler's inspiration for the Holocaust. Apparently he doesn't like refutations of his arguments that include direct references to the published literature.
I hope that I will continue to be treated here with the civility and respect that have characterized my relationship with you folks.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — March 29, 2008 @ 6:33 am
March 29th, 2008 at 7:51 am
While the Darwin/Hitler linkage is one which (for my money) gets abused, I think casting the accusation as 'Darwin was Hitler's inspiration for the holocaust' isn't totally accurate. It's that the nazis had a strong emphasis on eugenics in program and philosophy, that Darwin in particular and evolution in general was referenced as a support for their views, and that the programs and philosophy were far from universally condemned by the scientific or intellectual establishment at the time. In fact, eugenics - along with some nasty practices - were once all the rage, even if holocausts weren't.
I wonder if this qualifies as a show of those "values of the Enlightenment" I hear so much about. Frankly, considering the praise Peter Singer gets lauded with - and his justification of his philosophy partly or largely on evolutionary grounds - this puts one hell of a point on the criticism.
Comment by nullasalus — March 29, 2008 @ 7:51 am
March 29th, 2008 at 7:55 am
What Zeigler seems to have got hold of here is what results from following a naturalistic version of evolution through to its logical conclusion. Whether Darwin himself had that naturalistic view, or understood its implications, is moot.
So Allen, you are correct in characterizing this as a metaphysical issue. The purposelessness Zeigler points to is a real implication of one form of evolutionary theory, the naturalistic version.
Zeigler wrote,
He's right of course–there is no mention of this in our science. But meaning and purpose cannot be determined through science–they are outside its scope. The questions belong to philosophy and theology. Some complain that philosophy and theology never come to any agreed conclusions. Well, there are philosophical and theological explanations for that! More to the point, though, p & t, for all their failings, at least have tools with which to discuss the question. Science doesn't–at least not unless the Source of meaning and purpose has placed clues in nature (aka ID). In principle it's possible for science to support (hint at, point toward) a conclusion of teleology, but to say it supports an ateleological conclusion is to go beyond the empirical evidence.
Comment by TomG — March 29, 2008 @ 7:55 am
March 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Allen_MacNeill:
Non-telic paradigms are the default settings but it is important to understand what non-telic really means. It may mean nothing more than science is not a comprehensive repository for answers to the questions intelligent minds pose.
The operative phrase being natural process. As long as a functional genome, replete with a capacity for error correction and replication exists, so do the application of natural selection concepts. It is also worth remembering what Mike and others have suggested about mechanisms that could bias a selection process so that outcomes tend toward a goal or purpose. From a strategic point of view this has the earmarks of teleology. Non-teleologists would point to biological mechanisms and claim that they themselves were the outcome of a selection process. As long as such mechanisms afford a reproductive advantage how could teleology be affirmed as anything more than a philosophical perspective derived from a turtles all the way down outlook? What happens though when phenomenon do not yield to linkage with a natural process? Is it time to consider the nuclear (design) option or is this just the famed gap reaction? Incidentally how do we distinguish a gap in knowledge from evidence of a skewed intellectual approach to a problem?
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2008 @ 9:28 am
March 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Not sure why you're putting quotes around "theological", Darwin didn't in your citation. When one makes statements about what God would do or not do, that's theology not "theology."
Dunno. Anyone done a survey?
At any rate, it is odd to me how a person such a Darwin would find it hard to believe God would intentionally design an insect that sucked the guts out of a caterpillar and yet accept that God designed the laws that would (probably) lead to such things. What's the difference in the end? And what's wrong with bugs sucking matter out of caterpillars anyway? He then uses his visceral disgust at such things as evidence that eyes aren't designed. Rather sophomoric, wouldn't you say? I do commend him at least for saying that "I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect." He may be right about that.
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 29, 2008 @ 9:51 am
March 29th, 2008 at 10:50 am
The Theory of Evolution only concerns biological mechanisms, so the statement "Darwinian science teaches us that there is no purpose or meaning outside of ourselves" is overly broad. However, *other* scientific theories provide non-telic explanations of many other aspects of the cosmos, leaving the only valid teleological theories regarding the intentionality of certain biological organisms.
Ziegler is correct that a proper scientific understanding of biology requires understanding that evolution is a non-telic process, just as the formation of planetary systems and cometary impacts are scientifically understood as non-telic.
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2008 @ 10:50 am
March 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Only valid? So if someone disagrees with your statement, they are stupid? Or deluded?
Proper? Sounds like a clique to me. So if someone does not adhere to the "proper" understanding, should we kick him out of the social class?
Comment by MikeGene — March 29, 2008 @ 11:22 am
March 29th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Did I say that?
Teaching a field of science, requires teaching the most important theories within that field. The dominant scientific theory in biology"”by any reasonable measure"”is the Theory of Evolution. A *proper* schooling in this foundational theory requires understanding that it is just as non-telic as modern theories of planetary formation or theories concerning the movements of comets.
Did I inadvertently post my comment in the wrong thread? The only "class" I see mentioned in the article refers to science education…
You do seem to have invited comment. "Darwinian science teaches us that there is no purpose or meaning outside of ourselves" is overly broad. Only in conjunction with many other scientific and non-telic theories, such as those concerned with chemistry, gravity, cosmology, cometary impacts, volcanism, meteorology, turbulence, etc. does the statement make sense. Even then, Zeigler's point might be arguable, as "purpose and meaning" may not be well-defined scientific concepts.
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Allen MacNeill:
The actual history of eugenics has been amply discussed here, and the archives at CSH [Cold Spring Harbor] are readily accessible for anyone interested. Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton 'invented' eugenics as a breeding program toward the improvement of the human species based largely on Darwin's theory and the history of animal husbandry. It spawned Eugenics Societies in Britain and the U.S., and the British society still enjoys the leadership of Darwin family members.
But it was in the U.S. where eugenics found its most robust expression in law and popular support, until the Swedes went us a few better on the negative end. It was U.S. eugenics laws - the forced sterilization of prisoners, mental patients, the handicapped, epileptics, and orphans (as if having no parents were a genetic disorder) that Hitler copied in the first stages of his holocaust. What came later against the Jews, Rom and others was just an extension of euthanasia imposed on the same groups (and including homosexuals) the U.S. was sterilizing. Of course it was Hitler's own bigotry that turned it into the mass murder of the 20th century (until Mao and Pol Pot went HIM a few better).
The "scientific" support for eugenics did in fact appeal to Darwin for its justification. That's what Galton invented it to be, and that is precisely the science used to justify. That it went so grotesquely negative was a foregone conclusion given that it was human elitists in charge of deciding who among their neighbors and fellow citizens didn't deserve to live or reproduce. The 'New Eugenics' being popularized by folks like Dawkins, Singer, et al. carries the very same danger of grotesque corruption, particularly in the euthanasia department.
There's simply no sense denying the history that is duly documented and very clear in its associations and implications. Along a certain causal chain of events traced through the actual history, Hitler's holocaust can indeed be laid at the feet of Darwin and his family. That evil humans - like Hitler - would probably have come up with a different excuse for genocide if Darwinism weren't readily available and already in use as justification for eugenics is irrelevant. Historical revision will not make the connections go away, so this is probably not an aspect of the film that your 'side' should harp on. The truth is out there, too easily available for such a blanket denial to have any impact other than to make the DDs look like liars.
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I see you defined "social class" in Question of Purpose: Part 2. I'll take a look.
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
No, but you said, "leaving the only valid teleological theories regarding the intentionality of certain biological organisms."
Valid is a strong word. Only valid makes it stronger. So how do you explain people who are not convinced that teleology is only valid in these narrowly defined conditions?
You said, "Ziegler is correct that a proper scientific understanding of biology requires understanding that evolution is a non-telic process, just as the formation of planetary systems and cometary impacts are scientifically understood as non-telic."
So there is the proper understanding and thus an improper understanding. And the proper understanding just happens to coincide with what you believe, right? It just happens to be an expression of non-teleological metaphysics?
So you agree with Zeigler in that the proper way to school children is to stress the non-teleological nature of evolution and reality? Sounds like someone wants to teach metaphysics in the name of science.
Comment by MikeGene — March 29, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Joy:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but um, pogroms and mass-murder of the Christ-killing Jews long predate Darwin. Hitler got away with his industrialized pogroms by appealing to the Christian religion of the Germans. Don't believe me? Compare how often Hitler wrote about Jesus (often) as opposed to Darwin (never) in Mein Kampf.
Comment by Raevmo — March 29, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Allen,
I notice you take care now that you've been enlightened to make sure you say about Darwin and purpose that you are talking only about his published works and Origin…
Could you define "spontaneous" for us?
As in "spontaneous variation".
Have you been?
He said you were under moderation.
Has that been changed?
Comment by Pez — March 29, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
As usual, I'm clueless, and may be deluded, as the author suggests. But how and why does that make any difference?
I don't understand how my illusions matter.
(Or is this just another argument for educational reform and the dissolution of teachers' unions?)
Does anything ever really "make a difference," "mean" anything, or really "matter" in a consistently ateleological perspective?
Clueless!
Comment by Rock — March 29, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Allen_MacNeill:
Raevmo:
Since when has Mein Kempf become a reliable source and since when has Hitler become credible? Was Hitler credible when he spouted his anti-Jewish crap or only when you can cherry pick quotes to indict or defend a favored cause? Hitler was a notorious manipulator and liar who would say whatever would further his personal ambitions. He promised no further territorial encroachments when Chamberlain caved in at Munich and broke the promise shortly thereafter. Here are Hitler's private thoughts about Christianity which are probably a more accurate reading of his real beliefs:
Private statements Hitler's private statements are more clear. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler's intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[18] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: "You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[19] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[20] In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-Christian tract from 362CE, Julian's Against the Galileans, saying "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this…"[21] He was reported to say that religion should die on its own accord.
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Someone might want to check out this article:
- Paul DB, Spencer HG. 1995. The hidden science of eugenics. Nature. 374:302-4.
It has also been historically documented that the gas chamber technology evolved from efforts to engage in larger and larger mercy killings of the unfit (an expression of eugenics).
Comment by MikeGene — March 29, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
valid, well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful.
Yes, that's the meaning I intended.
If they claim those ideas have a scientific basis, they are misinformed.
proper, marked by suitability, rightness, or appropriateness.
Again, I believe I chose the appropriate word. When studying the science of planetary formation, the prevailing theories are non-telic. A proper scientific understanding of cometary apparitions requires understanding that the process is non-telic. Did you think otherwise?
The Theory of Evolution is a non-telic theory, just as is the Theory of Gravity or meteorology. I didn't even know it was subject to disputation. When learning the prevailing theory in biology, you will properly be taught a non-telic theory.
The proper teaching of the prevailing scientific theory in biology has as much to do with metaphysics as does meteorology.
If you are teaching the science of the Solar System, you will certain teach children about non-telic mechanisms. If there is a question on the science quiz asking why comets appear in the sky, and the answer is that they are portents of the gods, then the answer is properly marked *wrong*.
Q. What causes lightning?
A. An angry Sky God.
Q. What causes comets to appear?
A. Portents of the gods.
Q. What causes biological diversity?
A. An unknown designer working by unspecified mechanisms.
Much too vague a word in context.
Comment by Zachriel — March 29, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Raevmo:
And Hitler would have simply used a different - less "scientifically" justified - excuse for mass murder if negative eugenics didn't enjoy great scientific and public support. So what? That's not what actually happened (though his corruption was indeed ancient as well as psychotic). The fact of the matter is that his policies were a simple extension of the negative eugenics policies of the U.S. and Scandanavia, both of which went much farther than anything the British imposed (theirs was mostly about immigration).
That people are notorious tribalists, bigots toward any and all out-groups they can self justify hating, and mass murderers of their own kind is nothing new. This is why something like eugenics was bound to be both very popular and easily corrupted by human nature. Anybody smart enough to claim elitist intellectual standing could have figured this out if they'd tried. Instead, we had elitist scientists and physicians (Virchow is a name that crosses the ocean) publicly supporting the policies as they got enacted into law and went progressively more negative.
The point is that eugenics DID enjoy scientific support, that science was Darwinism (plus Mendelism and agricultural stock breeding). That is the history, there's no point in denying it.
The link to the Eugenics Archive is here. I can look up the names of Darwin's relatives active in the Society if you like. Or you could do it. It's not difficult to find.
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Zachriel:
You forgot something.
Q. What is the cause of life?
A. Unknown, unspecified chemical pathways.:wink:
Comment by Bradford — March 29, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Joy,
Yet deny it they do. Again and again and again.
Or at least they don't want to talk about it. Which is why bringing up the excesses of scientism re: eugenics results in a frantic attempt to change the topic to something broader. Let's talk about racism! Let's talk about anti-semitism! But let's not talk about forced sterilization programs, "mercy killings", eugenics programs, and the rest. Not just because the history and evidence is awkward, but because - let's face it - the life hasn't completely drawn out of that movement yet.
Bradford,
Comment by nullasalus — March 29, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Joy:
Of course it's true that science, including Darwin's work, was abused to support eugenics. Sadly, several of my scientific heroes were eugenicists, such as Ronald Fisher and William Hamilton. But one can still admire their work, even if one dislikes their political ideas. It's also true that the Jews in particular were singled out by the Nazis because of the Christian hatred for the Jews. There's no point in denying that either.
However, the real issue here is, of course, that certain people don't like the theory of evolution because they feel it threatens their religious beliefs. Because they cannot find any valid scientific reasons to criticize the science, they feel they must resort to smearing the scientists and pointing out how their work has inspired people to commit crimes. It's like criticizing the Roman Catholic belief because so many priests have an unhealthy apatite for young boys' buttocks.
Comment by Raevmo — March 29, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Raevmo:
I've never tried to deny it. Most of the upper echelon weren't all that concerned with godly things and what Jesus would do, but it's a tool they made use of to gain public support, just as they used science. There were many threads that led to the Holocaust. I don't deny any of them - both of my godparents had tattoos on their wrists. I made a promise… Never Again.
"Certain people." Wow. It's always all about "certain people," Raevmo. THAT is the point. I honestly don't care if there are people who don't like the theory of evolution, and I don't care about their reasons. I do not spend my life in fear of what my neighbors believe. I was taught evolution in school. My kids were taught evolution in school. My grandchildren old enough to have taken the course have been taught evolution in school. We all believe it, FAPP. None of us have invested faith in it. No need for that.
It's not difficult to find valid scientific reasons to criticize the science, but that doesn't sell a lot of seats at theaters or lecture halls or garner many blog hits or TV viewers. Controversy sells, and so does Godwin. Both 'sides' of the so-called Culture War make liberal use of it. I've seen plenty of criticism of Catholicism because of the pedophile scandals. If they can't take it, maybe they shouldn't dish it out.
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
March 29th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Here is a quotation of Edwin Black, author of War Against the Weak from an interview with Joyce Bender of "Disability Matters" -
[emphasis mine]
Comment by Joy — March 29, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:31 am
Zachriel:
Yes, if you teach Darwinian evolution, you will be teaching "evolution by natural selection results in adaptations which increase the ability of the individuals to survive and reproduce successfully in their respective environments, or as biologists would say"”adaptations increase the fitness of individuals." To teach a non-telic theory, you simply teach a theory that is without teleology. You don't need to preach there is no teleology involved, do you? So what is Zeigler's problem?
Comment by MikeGene — March 30, 2008 @ 1:31 am
March 30th, 2008 at 9:04 am
You should clearly teach that the science indicates that humanity was not the goal of evolution, that the results of long evolutionary processes involve an interplay between contingency and adaptation, and that all extant life shares a common ancestry. Just as when you teach probability, you teach that the dice are not loaded for your personal benefit, and that three heads in a row doesn't mean a tail is more likely on the next flip. These are fundamental principles in their respective fields.
Zeigler is correct that a proper education in science requires understanding that cometary apparitions are due to laws of gravity and motion, and not as portents of the gods. I do take issue with his statements on "reality". I'll try to address that in Part 2, when I have a chance.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 9:04 am
March 30th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Raevmo:
Raevmo, you are well aware that there are secular Jews who do not believe in the Torah or other teachings embodied in what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. Nevertheless they are still Jewish. If Jews collectively act (through the state of Israel for example) do you fix praise or criticism of the actions based on Jewish ethnicity or the Jewish religion or something else? If I cite the same with regard to Germans or any ethnic group with a Christian component to their religious identity you will blame Christianity. Why? It is your own thoughts about these matters that appear prejudiced and disjointed.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2008 @ 10:02 am
March 30th, 2008 at 11:12 am
The persecution of Jews was endemic in Christendom.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 11:12 am
March 30th, 2008 at 11:32 am
The persection of Jews occurs whereever there are Jews in significant numbers. The most prevalent persecution today occurs in Islamadom and the most prevalent persecution 2,000 years ago took place in Romandom. Before and after that that there were an assortment of Pagandoms to go with Assiriadom and Babyloniadom. Why the obsession with history where Christianity is concerned? You don't need to answer that because anyone blogging about ID for any length of time knows that anti-Christianity is a potent motive for many ID opponents. It's not hard to find. Just look in the comment sections. Incidentally any persecution be it in a country with a Christian influence, an Islamic influence or a pagan influence is abominable. I don't have tunnel vision though with regard to prejudice.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2008 @ 11:32 am
March 30th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Zach:
True, during notable periods. Yet for most of the time, the stateless Jews contributed to the nations in which they lived, and were well tolerated. Despite pronouncements that Jews were "parasitic" on other societies [Hitler], they were in diaspora - they had no home other than the homes they made in other natiions. The U.S. for instance is comprised almost entirely of "parasites" from other nations, natives making up a tiny portion after the genocides, and primarily restricted to reservations unless they're indentured elsewhere.
I presume you are aware that 'Christendom' spent more than a thousand years ruthlessly persecuting other members of Christendom too, as well as assorted 'others' who weren't Jewish or Christian. Your basic crazy-mean white guys doing crazy-mean white guy things. They'll use any handy excuse, always have.
Are you contending that this is the entirety of Hitler's motivation for the holocaust? Another distraction from his implementation of negative eugenics popular in the west and northern Europe, along with its ample scientific support?
Comment by Joy — March 30, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Raevmo - here's the list:
"¢ Charles Darwin's cousin (shared Erasmus as a Grandpa) Francis Galton invented eugenics in 1883, established the British Eugenics Society [BES] in 1907 and served as its first president.
"¢ In 1911 Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles and Emma Darwin, took over the presidency of BES when Galton died, and retained the post until 1928. He remained honorary president until his death in 1943.
"¢ Lady Maud Darwin, widow of Sir George Howard Darwin (son of Charles and Emma) became a BES fellow in 1925.
"¢ Mrs. Bernard Darwin, wife of Charles' grandson Bernard became a BES fellow in 1937.
"¢ Sir Charles Galton Darwin, grandson of Charles became a BES fellow in 1930, director and VP in 1939, and president in 1953.
"¢ Lord John Maynard Keynes, BES director 1937-44, vice president 1937.
"¢ Mrs. Geoffrey Keynes [Margaret Darwin], granddaughter of Charles and mother of W. Milo Keynes, member BES 1937.
"¢ William Milo Keynes, great-grandson of Charles, BES fellow 1948, vice president 1966, director 1989.
The British Eugenics Society became the Galton Institute in 1989. Members of the Darwin family serve as officers and council members to this day, including secretary Milo Keynes and librarian David Galton.
[Eugenics Watch]
Comment by Joy — March 30, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Some justification.
What obsession? I pointed to a very long history of persecution by Christians, not to show that only Christians persecute Jews, but to show that Hitler was working within a long tradition of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism wasn't something new. It was something borrowed. This tradition includes blaming and dehumanizing the Jew. It even includes making them wear special insignia.
Absolutely not. But the roots are very deep.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Bradford: The persection of Jews occurs whereever there are Jews in significant numbers.
Justification for what? Telling the truth?
Bradford: Why the obsession with history where Christianity is concerned?
Yes, borrowed from anti-Jewish peoples who preceeded both Christianity and the German nation. Why don't you say persecuted by Germans? That is a more accurate depiction of what happened during WWII. After all the Brits and Americans et, al. came from predominantly Christian influences too. But that would not be PC would it? We don't betray out ethnic bigotry. It would not be right would it Zachriel? But anti-Christianity? That's in vogue. Pose a few Elmer Gantrys before us and you even have a stereotype that's PC.
Which is a horrible deningration that merits legal retribution and moral outrage. Just don't bother telling me Hitler was a follower of Christ. He hated everything Christianity stood for.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
- Adolf Hitler
- Adolf Hitler
- Adolf Hitler
Comment by Raevmo — March 30, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Zachriel:
So you believe science has the ability to detect goals across deep time. What goal-detecting method did science invent and please share the research which clearly demonstrates a failure to detect using this method.
Comment by MikeGene — March 30, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Zachriel:
I see. It's not enough to teach that cometary apparitions are due to laws of gravity and motion. You think teachers need to editorialize and also ADD "not as portents of the gods." Sounds like you want to use the education sytem to spread your metaphysics. Zachriel a mirror image of the DI? Who would have thunk it?
Comment by MikeGene — March 30, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Raevmo, did you believe Hitler when he called Jews Untermensch or only when you find cherry picked quotes designed make a master manipulator look like something he was not?
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Raevmo,
How do you explain the fact that more than a half of all academic biologists joined the Nazi Party, the highest membership rate of any professional group?
Comment by MikeGene — March 30, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Yes, Hitler borrowed from a long tradition with very deep roots.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Indeed. Historians can trace those roots to ancient history.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
So, why's Hitler there desperately explaining that National Socialism isn't against the Church? Could it be that there were charges of it being the case, even at the time?
Face it, Herr Raevmo. Some of the most monstrous political philosophies of the 20th century were borne out of the zeal of a science-enamored worldview. Forced sterilizations, killing the sick and weak (those useless eaters!), etc. Why, that's what happens when you start ditching those backwards views held by the primitive religious. Feeding the poor? My word, man, do you have any idea what that's doing to our gene pool?
But keep right on providing those cherry-picked quotes. After all, they're probably convincing to people with zero knowledge of history, or a desperate emotional attachment to a certain religion. I mean, "worldview".
Zach,
Yeah - "Enlightenment Values".
Comment by nullasalus — March 30, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Maybe, just maybe, the Solar System was created in toto six thousand years ago, with all the planets given the necessary push to form their current orbits. But there is no such evidence. Rather, we see what appears to the result of the collapse of a stellar nebula, like many others we can observe. Similarly, we observe patterns in biology as expected from a long process of contingent evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Does anyone study physics without learning about Newton? Or Halley? As the predictions of comets were historically seen as contrary to those sorts of beliefs, and as the teaching of science often involves learning the history of how discoveries were made, then yes.
In any case, the quote only says understanding. If students leave a class on the Solar System thinking there is scientific support for angels pushing planets on crystal spheres, then they didn't learn their lessons.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
In other words, it looks like there is no goal (quack, quack). I thought since you were appealing to science, you had a method and experimental results.
Comment by MikeGene — March 30, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
There is an empirical difference between a directed process and one that is due to contingency. In science, we propose hypotheses, and then test their entailed predictions. Planets orbit as would be expected from the spontaneous collapse of a stellar nebula. We can observe other stellar nebula in various stages of collapse. The known mechanisms are robust and there is a conspicuous absence of evidence indicating teleology. Gravity is the scientific explanation. If there are angels and crystal spheres, they are well-hidden.
There is a great deal of scientific support for Natural Selection and its role in historical evolutionary change.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Sure. Like I said, it looks like there is no goal. There is no need to dress this point up.
Comment by MikeGene — March 30, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
If by "it looks like there is no goal", that all the scientific evidence supports a robust theory of evolutionary processes, then yeah.
Comment by Zachriel — March 30, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Bradford:
No True Scotsman, eh?
No cherry picking needed. There are tons of quotes out there of Hitler professing his Christianity. Oddly, I can't find any quotes with Hitler praising Darwin's work.
The Master Manipulator did manage to convince a cardinal of his Christian faith:
- Cardinal Faulhaber
Comment by Raevmo — March 30, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Mike Gene:
Closely followed by physicians among others. How do I explain it? I can only guess, but maybe biologists really liked the Nazi ideas. Or maybe it was good for business to join the party. Oskar Schindler felt the same way.
What's your explanation? Do you also know how many of those biologists were Darwinists?
How do you explain the fact that 100% of all Adolf Hitlers were painters?
Comment by Raevmo — March 30, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
So it's true, only if "it looks like there is no goal" means "actually I'm not talking about whether there are goals at all".
Raevmo,
He also managed to..
* Convince Stalin he wanted peace with Russia.
* Convince Chamberlain he had no greater aims for expansion.
* Convince the West in general that he simply wanted a reunified Germany, and peace.
* Convince scientists and lawmakers that his eugenics programs were a good idea (this one was easy!)
..And the list goes on. Herr Raevmo, you are aware that Germany's prime advocate of a "science-informed" public policy had a reputation for being something of a persuasive speaker, yes? Charismatic with a tendency to lie when it suited his aims? Shocking, I know.
Bradford's provided quotes and references from Hitler's private life indicating one hell of a disconnect from Christianity. Your response is to pull up what amount to campaign quotes. Riveting.
Attached to this 'No way did nazis advocate eugenics and draw heavy inspiration from evolutionary theory' belief to the point of blindness, aintcha? Heckuva religion you got there.
Comment by nullasalus — March 30, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Hitler wasn't always an antisemite - no, it took some active Christian indoctrination:
- Adolf Hitler
Nullasalus:
The desperate last resort: bring the opponent down to one's own level. Sorry, it doesn't work - I'm not religious. But don't worry, I understand how the shame of sharing the same religion as Hitler and countless antisemites with him can cloud your judgment.
Comment by Raevmo — March 30, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Raevmo (to Bradford):
Still trying desperately to revise history, eh? Come on, this isn't hard. Why, you could even go ahead and blame Americans (and their multinationalist financiers) for the Third Reich. Rockefellers, Carnegies and Bush/Harrimans. A twisted tale of robber barons, international finance and arms dealing, export of laissez-faire as "evolution in action" helped along by negative eugenics policies invented and perfected by secret academic societies at prestigious universities and national laboratories and the scientific, agricultural and diplomatic arms of the U.S. government, backed specifically by Oliver Wendell Holmes and the U.S. Supreme Court.
More from Edwin Black, whose book War Against the Weak just happened to win the Book of the Year award in 2003 from the Great Lakes World Affairs Council ["It began on Long Island and ended at Auschwitz... yet never really stopped"] -
Or, consider a comment about Black's book by William Seltzer of Fordham University, former director of the UN Statistics Division and author of Population Statistics and the Holocaust -
I am someone concerned with using the "presumed findings of science" to guide policy, social action and reform in the 21st century, because we do not appear to have internalized the lessons of the 20th century yet. An awful lot of people - many of them scientists (as you and PZ Myers so glaringly illustrate) - are still living in abject denial.
Comment by Joy — March 30, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Last resort? Nah, I'm just tweaking you. Emotional people are fun.
You're an evangelical atheist, Raevmo. You're quite religious. Hell, go ask the (often, atheist themselves) apologists re: Stalin and the rest - 'They may have been atheists, but they were still religious because of their commitment to their philosophy.' Considering the clear link between eugenics, nazism, and scientism - well, I suppose it's understandable you'd be a little frantic.
By the way, that Cardinal you quoted has an interesting wikipedia entry. Some choice bits.
Or my personal favorite,
This is your ace in the hole, Raevmo? Frankly, the cardinal's record is shaky. He clearly had an attitude of minimal risk. But I'll still take him over those enthusiastic supporters of Hitler's eugenics programs.
Bradford gave away the goods. Going by Hitler's own words, the words of his confidants, his actions, his policies - he was no christian. He loathed the religion, loathed its ideals, and wanted it removed and replaced. The only response you have is "Going by these campaign advertisements, he liked Christianity!" And obviously George H. W. Bush never raised taxes. I mean, he clearly said 'Read my lips - no new taxes!', right?
Comment by nullasalus — March 30, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I will apologies up front for posting when I don't have the time to follow up.
However, I have been reading with interest the various claims Nazism, "Darwinism" and religion.
First of all, I hope there aren't too many TT readers who are actually question "how so many good Christians could follow a man like Hitler?"
I had a college proctor pose this question to a class I was in. I pointed out that only a couple of weeks previously, we were studying the Christian Crusades (I don't think she liked me very much after that exhange).
However, this was way back before the historic revisionism in this particular subject was in place. Raevmo is right, there is no lack of Hitler quotes where he is praising God and very few, if any, where he praises Darwin. It appears that those interested in apologetics are forced to allege Hitler privately hated Christianity in spite of his public pronouncements.
Guess what? That doesn't make Hitler non-religious. There are plenty of Islamists who hate Christianity. And I don't even have to go to that extreme. One of the largest, if not THE largest, religious group to persecute Christians are Christians. Of course, the label "heretic" is usually involved when that happens.
Don't ask me to explain the illogic of people who believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and God (be it Muslims or Hitler) persecuting Christians, but it happens.
Now I understand the need of people like Nullasalus and Bradford to support the Christian apologetic view, but I am not sure of Mike Gene's motivation in this.
Joy's take on this is somewhat different. In the past, she and I have argued over which more dangerous, unbridled science or unbridled politicians.
I agree they are both dangerous, but I tend to be more anti-religious. I see scientists making the powerful tools whereas the politicians control their use.
Organized religion is politics.
It matters little to me whether Bush or Hitler are/were actually religious. Their political power base came from a religious-based moral authority, an appeal to a clear, unquestioned sense of right and wrong.
To me, using authority that comes from a sense of absolute morality is what organized religion is all about.
Whether this authority comes from God, Allah, Bible or Koran it stifles individual decision making and responsibility.
How could "good Christians" support a preemptive war (i.e. Iraq) and think it was the right thing to do?
As an American, I feel a PERSONAL responsibility for not only the 4000 US soldiers killed but also for the hundreds of thousands of living, breathing fellow human beings who died as a result of my inability to stop my country from engaging in an unjustified act.
History has shown the power of religious/political rationalization.
If you are still questioning how good Christians could follow a man like Hitler, this may explain why history has a habit of repeating itself.
Comment by Thought Provoker — March 30, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Raevmo:
And there are the quotes made by Hitler in private to his cronies damning Christianity which I posted and you ignored even though they are the most credible quotes. Hitler claimed the Jews stabbed Germany in the back and that is why they lost WWI. Since you are quoting Hitler as an authority do you believe his claim that the Jews stabbed Germany in the back? Since you claim Hitler was a Christian do you believe that Hitler believed in the Beatitudes. As someone who claims to know who believes in Christianity I presume you know what the Beatitides are. Maybe you can simply acknowledge your own bigotry and honestly explain what got you to this point.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
TP:
Why forced? That's where the evidence leads. Why would you call someone a liberal who does not believe in liberalism? Why call someone a civil libertarian who believes in oppression. Why call someone a Christian who believes in values that are polar opposites to those advocated by Christ? Christ laid out what is required to believe in Christianity. Christians are not defined by simply walking through a church door on Sunday or saying what the German massess want to hear so they will grease your war machine.
All this is explained by a central tenet of Christian doctrine. People are naturally inclined toward evil. That includes atheists by the way whose sins have not been as well renumerated in this thread.
Comment by Bradford — March 30, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
TP:
Yeah. The really amazing part is that it keeps repeating itself with the same names, belonging to the same families who so strongly supported eugenics in the 20th century version, and still strongly support eugenics in its 21st century version. Of course, the money to be made running guns factors in there somewhere, I'm sure… ask the Carlisle Group (or did they recently declare bankruptcy? Does that make the Bush family now 'expendable' as economic/genetic trash, or do they - like their Nazi friends - get to inherit Paraguay?) §;o)
By the way, anybody yet figured out what's so mainline Christian about the Moonie cult and a guy who somehow managed to stage an actual coronation as "Ruler of the Universe and Christ Incarnate" in the halls of the U.S. Congress? God, those politicians are such whores!
Comment by Joy — March 30, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
March 30th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
TP,
Ah, TP. I was wondering when you'd show up. There are some words and views here that need twisting!
I certainly am not alleging that Hitler "wasn't religious". I fail to see where Bradford was either - and considering your standard is..