On Holocaust Memorial Day…
by Joy…A New Generation Of Denial
Today - May 1 - is official Holocaust Memorial Day. Being as I am a political leftist, I got myself into a strange back-and-forth over on DailyKos that started innocently enough when someone mentioned the Godwin aspect of the Expelled movie. Given the remembrance today, and the UMC's official apology for eugenics, I innocently mentioned that I'd like to see - sometime before I die and my promise to my godparents dies with me - an official apology by science for its support of eugenics. Particularly biological and evolutionary science.
Talk about opening a can of Holocaust Denial worms! At first I got complaints that 'science' has nothing to apologize for, since science played no part in eugenics. We know that's not true, and the truth is voluminous out there for anyone to access, so I mentioned that. Quite levelly and without rancor. Yes, 'Darwinism' was indeed used to justify eugenics in this and other countries, gladly handed to Hitler as legislative models for his racial purity policies in 1934. That's history, it's well-documented.
So of course the denialists came back with the standard "there's no such thing as Darwinism" line, which absolutely doesn't apply to eugenics which Galton invented in 1883. Neodarwinism didn't come along until 1936-47. Before then it was just plain old Darwinism, 'natural selection', which was twisted into unnatural selection for eugenics purposes. Cut and dried.
So the denialists then retreated to the old "but modern scientists had nothing to do with it!" whine. Well, neither did the modern UM church. Or the modern AMA. Or the modern legislatures of Virginia, Connecticut or California. But THEY all issued official apologies for eugenics. The retort was the entirely predictable "but nobody really tried to say it was science!"
THAT is denial. It can be nothing other than denial due to the FACT that history is well-documented and easily accessible to anyone. I don't care if they're all up in arms about ID or Ben Stein or whatever, that's all irrelevant to actual history. I just had to shake my head at the newer, more intellectually important form of Holocaust Denial that our so self-important "intellectual elite" is embracing full-bore these days. Hope my children and grandchildren who will outlive me will carry on my promise - Never Again!
Holocaust denial is creepy and evil. When it comes from modern scientists and science groupies, it's not made socially acceptable. That was the very mistake made in the first half of the 20th century, and it's not something that needs forgetting.
Those who forget - or simply DENY - history are doomed to repeat it.
Never Again!
[Previous discussion of this subject here]
May 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Sadly, our world is rushing towards a repeat.
Comment by nobody — May 1, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Joy:
I am guessing you are just trying to provoke an outrage because you don't get enough attention at home or something. That would be a generous explanation for your pathological twisting of the words Holocaust denial.
Comment by Raevmo — May 1, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
"Science" is not a single entity like, say, the Catholic Church or the government of Virginia. Science does not speak with one voice. Science is a method, a way of discovering knowledge and solving problems. There is no "science" which is capable of apologizing for anything. There is no body with the ability to speak on behalf of "science." Your request is meaningless.
Sigh, the only thing Galton added to eugenics in 1883 was a new name. The concept itself is ancient. Why do you seem to deny that? You imply some new concept was born in 1883 and that is simply not true. You are denying hundreds of years of pre-Galton eugenics dating back at least to Plato.
I agree, but this bizarre desire to revise history by blaming a childishly stupid simplification of reality is, in my mind, a form of Holocaust denial. You are overstating a weak connection and thus ignoring or at least diminishing much stronger connections. The Anti-Defamation League, a group solely dedicated to your "never again" creed, agrees that your argument is incorrect.
Those who revise history might not repeat the history they remember, but they will repeat the history that actually occurred. If we blame science instead of intolerance and racism then we lessen the stigma against the truly evil in order to vilify something that has saved billions of human lives. That is a repugnant position to take, a truly shameful viewpoint that can only increase human suffering. In the words of the ADL:
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 1, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Raevmo:
Rather than go ahead and ban you from the thread this early on, I'll respond to this. As noted in the OP, this is Holocaust Memorial Day. A day for all of us to remember, those of us with specific memories to talk about it. What caused it. How the wannabe-modern 'First World' went wrong.
I still haven't seen Stein's movie and still don't plan to. I don't need to see it, since I already know the link between Darwinism of the late 19th and early 20th century, and Hitler's megalomaniacal excesses. I see the chain of corruption as Darwin > Galton > BES/AES/BCS and high finance sociopolitical movement > negative eugenics legislation US > negative eugenics legislation Scandinavia > negative eugenics legislation Germany.
We can't breed ourselves to perfection. We have no clue what perfection is, but we do know what hate is. We can always pretend we're more perfect than 'them' to justify our murderous proclivities. The targets come and go, everybody hates somebody (nationalistically and/or racially speaking).
Denying the causal chain of the Holocaust is denying very, very important history doomed to repeat itself if we won't acknowledge and try to understand it. Denial is *not* limited to the Nazi death toll (considerable as it is) in the Holocaust. It's also denial that it happened at all, denial of how it transpired, and denial of the reasons for why it happened. Trust me on that, mmm'kay?
________
No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up.
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Todd B:
I have revised nothing of the actual history of eugenics. Nor have I ever denied that ethic hatred and ethnic cleansing are as old as human tribalism. But Galton invented "eugenics" and claimed SCIENTIFIC justification under Darwinism. That grew into an elitist movement with hefty funding, and that translated into legislation to put eugenics policies into place through the legal system.
Don't change the subject. Just admit the causal chain at issue here. Just about everybody else (except my state and 'science') already has. It doesn't hurt near as much as denial can hurt. ADL says:
"Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."
I couldn't agree more. I'm not trying to "tarnish" those who promote evolution. I've got no problem with evolution, never did have a problem with it. I'm noting for the record - and as history with its own memorial day the record will go on and on as do those at Cold Spring Harbor.
Science was as involved as medicine. As involved as the movement and its leaders. As involved as politicians, churches, schools, etc. Why some authoritative body of science - particularly as it intersects and informs the public policy arena (say, NAS) - doesn't draft a formal apology along the lines of those from governments and religious denominations I sure don't know. Historical revision of any kind is deplorable. In this matter it's highly offensive.
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
HERE
Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2008 @ 9:31 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
You claim the ideas were created in 1883, this is simply false as has been demonstrated time and time again. The idea of eugenics existed before Darwin was born and would have existed even had he never been born. Darwin specifically spoke against eugenics. The false belief that white folk where somehow superior to other races existed before Darwin was born; in fact most racial groups, tribes, religions, and governments have fostered a false sense of superiority. The eugenics movement usurped Darwin's ideas and used them in their propaganda (much like the modern ID movement usurps various science theories and applies them contrary to the authors intended meaning to promote its propaganda). You are claiming a chain of causation that is simply not supported. Just because event A occurred before event B does not imply A caused B, such an argument is obviously vacuous. By claiming cause-and-effect where none is present you are effectively providing a revision that denies the true causes.
I have not denied that the events you describe occurred in the order you specify. I have not denied that eugenics was once popular among intellectuals. I have denied that those events are primary causal agents, as you claim, of the Holocaust. You lie about the holocaust by exaggerating the importance of irrelevant events while ignoring the more direct causes. Its a form of misdirection from the true causes to unrelated events. Eugenics was not a direct cause of the Holocaust. Even if it was, as asinine as that is, it would still be childish, even moronic, to claim Darwin was somehow responsible for Eugenics.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 1, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
"The United Methodist General Conference formally apologizes for Methodist leaders and Methodist bodies who in the past supported eugenics as sound science and sound theology. We lament the ways eugenics was used to justify the sterilization of persons deemed less worthy. We lament that Methodist support of eugenics policies was used to keep persons of different races from marrying and forming legally recognized families. We are especially grieved that the politics of eugenics led to the extermination of millions of people by the Nazi government and continues today as "ethnic cleansing" around the world."
Powerful statement. The four pages of background aren't bad either, looks to me like they did their homework as well as their soul-searching. Good for the UMC.
I wonder if we'll ever see anything sort of like this from the NAS or other, more worldwide scientific body. Given the hysterical denials since Expelled came out, I'd guess not.
Which means We the People had better keep our eyes open. They won't apologize for the old eugenics, why should we buy 'New and Improved Eugenics'?
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Todd B:
No, I said eugenics was created in 1883. By Francis Galton, who coined the term "eugenics." His own self. Misrepresentation is a violation of civil discourse, and completely discredits everything that follows in your tirade.
Calling the blogger a liar is a violation of civil discourse, and discredits the entirety of your post.
I never claimed Darwin was responsible for Eugenics. Again, misrepresentation is a violation of civil discourse. Clean up your act.
You're in denial. This is easy for everyone to see, you know.
Comment by Joy — May 1, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 10:31 pm
So what then, is your argument is that the name "eugenics" and not the ideas behind eugenics are what lead to the holocaust? You said "eugenics which Galton invented in 1883" and I correctly pointed out that the only thing Galton invented was the NAME, not the idea. Galton did nothing more than support an existing and, at the time, popular idea. You are playing word games if you claim Galton invented anything of importance.
Your position only holds by resorting to these sort of blatant dismissals. You have done nothing to show any cause-effect relationship, you have nothing but opinion and one that, in my opinion, is dangerously misguided.
I am claiming that Galton and his formulation of eugenics are not a direct cause of the holocaust. The idea existed even without him, and all that was needed is racism and intolerance. You have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise. I'm glad we can both at least apparently agree that Darwin is not to blame.
So what exactly am I in denial of? List one thing which you have proven that I have denied. I haven't denied any piece of evidence you have presented, I merely correctly pointed out that your interpretation of this evidence is little more that opinion and fantasy. You are seeing correlation and assuming cause and effect.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 1, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Todd said:
Darwin also specifically spoke for eugenics.
He lauded Galton (and the scientific racist Haeckel), his research and his ideas. His stated concern was that Galton's ideas were Utopian, that they were ideal but probably unrealizable. He stated that all do men good who pursue knowledge of the laws of heredity and that legislators should act in accordance with regard to human reproduction. He outlined many ways that the reproduction of the unfit was being checked and stated that these ways must not be at all diminished and, if possible, increased. He stated that no law or custom ought to exist that allowed the unfit to reproduce at a greater rater than the fit. He listed education and shaming as additional ways that the unfit could be discouraged from reproducing.
Darwin had a habit of contradicting himself.
These are not lies.
Comment by Pez — May 1, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
May 1st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
i'm not a super genius but I think there may be something wrong with your logic.
The argument that the theory of evolution logically leads to the Holocaust conclusion has a big problem. Evolution works by natural selection. Natural selection is an process void of any deliberate intervention. Hitler's sick acts were deliberate, cognitive intervention, right? Eugenics is a program of deliberate, cognitive intervention. Therefore, the guy who invented eugenics was making an attempt to make a scientific conclusion and failed because he misunderstood evolution. Therefore blaming the entire field of science, or even just the theory of evolution by natural selection, for any part of the Holocaust doesn't make a lick of sense.
By the way, that deliberate, cognitive intervention thing…that's artificial selection….or as the Discovery Institute calls it, intelligent design. So am I trying to blame intelligent design for the Holocaust? No that's silly. I'd blame the hundreds of years of Antisemitism in Europe marked by its proud proclamations like "On the Jews and Their Lies" by Mr. Protestant himself, Martin Luther.
Oh I talked to science about your post. Don't worry. It's not bitter. Science is still going to provide pharmaceuticals, vaccines, pesticides, electricity, clean water, safe food, computers, modes of transportation, etc to you and the rest of mankind and science doesn't even want a thank you because it knows its not perfect and still it promises to continually try to improve all those things it's been working to give you and the rest of the world to improve the lives of everyone for the past 400 years.
Comment by AaronSTL — May 1, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 am
I am sorry Joy but I, for one, cannot see that Todd is in denial.
Anyone can pick almost any idea or person which they dislike and find a pattern to link it to the holocaust. Shall we blame Henry Ford for inventing mass production which so easily led to the idea of mass killing? Or the negiotiators of the Versaille treaty which put Germany into such a parlous state? Hitler's own writings were such a chaotic blend of half understood science, religion, mythology, art etc that there is no problem in finding something to support almost any concept - e.g. vegetarianism.
The are only a few ideas for which the link is indisputable and these are, sadly, very old ones that have been embedded in human nature for thousands of years: nationalism, anti-semitism, racism. We should focus on these and not be distracted by trying to demonstrate that our pet aversion is also involved.
Comment by Mark Frank — May 2, 2008 @ 3:04 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 am
Galten fed off of Darwin and clearly so did his own son…
Where would Leonard Darwin get such an idea? If not from his father that some people were unfit to reproduce?
Margaret Sanger, creator of "Planned Parenthood," fed off of eugenics for the "fit" and "unfit."
All of these people fed off of Darwin's fit and unfit, competition, survival of the fittest. The seeds of intention were there in Darwin's own statements, from his son and from many that at that time believed was the true calling of their time. Darwin claimed superiority over other races.
Darwin clearly was biased, thinking scientifically when he believed his race to be superior to the "savage" African race, which he assumed would one day due to his theoretical constructs and superior reasoning; that they being the weaker "species" would not last. He obviously failed in his prediction. This should have given the scientific community pause.
People read his opinions, it filtered down like many scientific ideas, a paradigm shift and people utilized the information for their own greedy purposes. But they could build upon it from his base of scientific reasoning.
Even the title of his book gives us some clue, often left off for sake of saving space?
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Comment by TeleAboveGround — May 2, 2008 @ 7:39 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 am
Joy,
Why don't you get in touch with science's pr representative and ask if you can get an interview with science so you can ask science why it won't apologize for eugenics.
Comment by Aagcobb — May 2, 2008 @ 7:50 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:05 am
Oh how the son does follow the father…
worth repeating I think, ""eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, as Galton had hoped, but a "˜paramount duty' whose tenets would presumably become enforceable."
The son admires the father…
again, "his father's admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection…" "and prevent it among the worst(humans)."
Or animals, mamals, evolved from apes which "negroes" are only slightly higher than. Thus why not follow "father's admonition" and reduce the "stock" of the unfit?
If that is not proof of social policy by Darwin, then what is? Did his son lie about his father's admonition? Would he start a Eugenics Society without his Father's blessing?
Denial is right Joy.
Quinn, P., The Gentle Darwinians: What Darwin's champions won't mention, Commonweal 134(5), 9 March 2007
hattip: Creation on the Web
2 second yahoo search for: darwin believed eugenics.
Comment by TeleAboveGround — May 2, 2008 @ 8:05 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:17 am
I think asking for an apology from some of the leading scientific organizatoins in the world, especially those involved with Eugenics Society and movements from the past is appropriate.
Joy has pointed out ample information on Eugenics programs in America. It was wide spread. Certainly if the UMC can apologize, so to can science organizations that have such a history. Afterall, not all pastors or members of UMC agreed with eugenics, yet they apologized as an overall organization.
Note: that have such a history.
IF they do not such a history, then no apology required.
Comment by TeleAboveGround — May 2, 2008 @ 8:17 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Science is not an organization, but a methodology.
That's appropriate. Organizations and individuals complicit should apologize and make amends. If a corporation causes injury, it is held responsible for its actions, even if the individual shareholder acquired their share after the actions occurred. Nor can they expect to keep ill-gotten gains or continue without change. A new citizen of the United States shares the burden of national liabilities and enjoys the fruit of national assets"”even if those liabilities and assets were acquired over many previous generations.
corporation, a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession.
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2008 @ 9:54 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 am
Science need not apologize for eugenics. The science behind eugenics is absolutely sound and testable. Animal husbandry works quite effectively on animals, and we are animals after all.
The person who needs to apologize is the first person who decided that he should be the farmer and the others were the livestock.
Who was that person?
Comment by chunkdz — May 2, 2008 @ 11:19 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Joy wrote:
To me, the words causal chain in regards to "Darwin > Galton > BES/AES/BCS and high finance sociopolitical movement > negative eugenics legislation US > negative eugenics legislation Scandinavia > negative eugenics legislation Germany" suggest that removing Darwin from the chain would prevent Holocaust. I don't think you can make such a strong claim.
Comment by olegt — May 2, 2008 @ 11:21 am
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Would there have been a eugenics movement, and especially a Hitlerian one, without Haeckel and Galton? Galton was a wealthy adventurer writing books about travel in the 40s and 50s. Galton turned to eugenics after reading Origin…
http://www.indiana.edu/~intell...
http://arjournals.annualreview...
Comment by Pez — May 2, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Zach:
I agree, I think a denunciation of eugenics and an apology for NAS/NRC complicity and direct support is warranted. Surely they must have issued one at some point, so I went to the NAS website. They describe themselves as
"Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine" and have held that authoritative position since the association was chartered by Abraham Lincoln in 1863. Their About page states…
"Since 1863, the nation's leaders have often turned to the National Academies for advice on the scientific and technological issues that frequently pervade policy decisions. Most of the institution's science policy and technical work is conducted by its operating arm, the National Ressearch Council, created expressly for this purpose. These non-profit organizations provide a public service by working outside the framework of government to ensure independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine."
That's nice. Instituted to represent 'Big Science' for the purpose of advising state and federal government in policies involving science, engineering and medicine. So… what did they have to say about their strong advocacy of eugenics?
A search on the NAS site itself wouldn't proceed. So of course I googled. Found an article in Human Life Review, fall 2000 by Mary Meehan. Pro-life slanted, of course, entitled What's wrong with the science establishment?
According to more than a few returned snippets, NAS/NRC still advocates eugenics. An abstract for the paper Carving up Population Science: Eugenics, Demography and the Controversy over the "Biological Law" of Population Growth [Edmund Ramsden, 2002] from JSTOR talks about how differing views of 'proper' eugenics works out…
If you know of any formal statement by NAS/NRC denouncing eugenics and apologizing for their role in promoting US eugenics policies, please link.
Comment by Joy — May 2, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
olegt:
Sure I can. Galton pimped his eugenics very specifically with his cousin's scientific theory. Had he not been able to do that successfully - say, Darwin and his family had complained loudly and insisted otherwise - it would have been just another elitist dream of genocide for the masses, sans cake crumbs, bread and circuses. Fact, oleg. Not denialist fantasies.
Now, do you agree that NAS and its subs should issue a formal statement of denunciation of the eugenics it very much supported in the 20th century, and an apology for what it inevitably became in the hands of a bigoted madman? The UMC did. Other groups have done so. What's wrong with the science establishment?
Comment by Joy — May 2, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Haeckel to Darwin:
Did Haeckel get Darwin wrong? Not as far as Darwin was concerned:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6....
Comment by Pez — May 2, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
We seem to be conflating different aspects of eugenics. Nearly everyone agrees that people should have the right to personal genetic information in order to make informed reproductive choices. But the eugenics movement that we were discussing involved coercive tactics.
You seem to be misreading the abstract, which is concerned with the historical origins of demography. The author notes that as science progressed, there was a shift in view from biological to social mechanisms, but that the "attack on the biological laws" was incidental to the scientific shift. Descriptive, not prescriptive.
The cite doesn't support your view that the NAS advocated coercion. However, they should certainly face whatever skeletons they have in their closet.
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Joy wrote:
No, you can't. The Holocaust would not have happened were it not for the strong anti-semitism in Germany. That certainly was a cause. Somehow it is missing from your "causal chain." What does that tell us? That the chain is not a good model in this case, it is more like a river with many tributaries of different sizes. You are blowing things out of proportion by focusing on Darwin. That's a willful misrepresentation.
As to whether an organization should renounce eugenics, my answer is that it should if it endorsed it in the past. I'm a bit rusty on the subject, so please feel free to point me to pertinent information.
Comment by olegt — May 2, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Hi OlegT,
Joy didn't focus on Darwin. She commented on science, of which Darwinism provided the justification handed to Hitler. His program wasn't aimed solely, nor first, at the Jews. He wished to improve German breeding stock based upon current scientific knowledge by eliminating all manner of unfit: the disabled, the mentally handicapped, the ethnically inferior, etc.
Nor did she deny the many tributaries:
She points out the obvious fact that as a group (and seen on this blog for weeks now) Science Defenders, alone, stand against history and culpability. This denial, and the lengths to which the deniers will go in ignoring the truth, is dangerous.
Of course anti-semitism was a crucial factor. But anti-semitism has been ubiquitous in history and was throughout the west up to and including during the War (and since). But anti-semitism was different in the decades following Darwin. It was a scientifically-justified racial position (the term applies more aptly to this racial view than it does to previous anti-Judaic religious prejudice). As seen in the Haeckel quotes above there is another reason that anti-semitism may have been more extreme and virulent in Germany than elsewhere:
Germany, and yes, even its churches, was marked by a greater approbation of these ideas because of its lack of conservative religious belief. Hitler was a product of this scientific, philosophical, historical and yes, even theological milieu which was shaped, at least in part, by Darwinism and its popularization.
Comment by Pez — May 2, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hi, Pez,
In line with that, here's this.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — May 2, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
olegt:
Well, Fathom has a pretty good one, Eugenics Before the Nazis from Cambridge University Press. It does have an apologetic tone.
There's also a well cross-linked Wiki article on scientific racism, complete with a section on scientific racism and eugenics.
But that's all basic history, names and deeds of the most influential scientists involved. I don't know what the official NAS policy toward eugenics was at the time. If there are position statements, they aren't accessible to public search. I don't know how many scientific supporters and functionaries belonged to the NAS or one of its affiliates. I don't know how many NAS scientists testified to state legislatures in favor of coercive sterilization/miscegenation laws. Perhaps you as a current academic scientist have more access than I do to such records.
I've said I'd like to see an honest mea culpa from some authoritative representative body of science for scientific complicity and promotion of eugenics in the US. NAS was advising the US government and states since before the end of the Civil War through today, and eugenics laws were passed with language specifically touting scientific grounding and support.
Where was NAS on all this? When did they issue their scathing denouncement of eugenics and why can't I get it from their website search? At what legislative sessions did they offer clear scientific evidence and advice to counter the push for involuntary sterilization, and how did 'outsider' scientists manage to override them?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Comment by Joy — May 2, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Thanks for the link, Joy. From that page:
Linnaeus was, of course, a creationist.
The page on Arthur de Gobineau is very interesting too:
Sounds like Gobineau was rather more of an influence than Darwin on the Nazis, given that they actually used his texts.
You should also check out the Wiki entry on Louis Agassiz to see what creationist Christians advocated in Darwin's day (though a rather different form of creationism to today's).
Perhaps we should call on creationist organisations to apologise for these racists.
Comment by The Pixie — May 2, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojal...
Comment by Pez — May 2, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Religious organizations have apologized for racism and racists.
That was Joy's point.
Comment by Pez — May 2, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Pez:
This sort of holocaust denial is so insidious. Yet just look at how staunchly this denial is defended, to this very day! It's not that they don't know. It's not even like they don't WANT to know. It's that they simply cannot let the knowledge into their minds, because to do so they would have to accept that science (and Saint Darwin) was used to justify racism, eugenics and genocide. In their small little minds all that sort of evil must belong exclusively to religion.
It's no wonder that we don't see any mea culpas from science for their role in this ugly period of history. As a collective of teachers, practitioners and True Believers, it's all just a blip on the screen for them - they still believe. Nothing has changed, they've just had to lay low for awhile. They keep sending up trial balloons to see if humanity has forgotten yet, so they can go forward again without restriction.
I have not forgotten yet. Many others have not forgotten yet. They might as well put their racism/elitism back on the shelf for another generation because all those piled up bodies are still barricading the pass. More are supplied every day.
Comment by Joy — May 2, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Joy:
Yep, we're addicted to genocide. We're laying low until the last survivor of the Holocaust is dead at last. Then we can finally get back to business as usual, killing as many unfit as possible. I can't wait. It's so boring to do science, making stupid discoveries that are useful to mankind. To suppress the urge to invent clever ways to kill and maim those who do not belong to the elite. I'm so glad it won't be long now.
It's a shame Joy found out about us. Now we must eliminate all readers of this blog.
Comment by Raevmo — May 2, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
So you are saying that when science is usurped for purely political means the result is often evil? Well, that fits my views on the Discovery Institute, so maybe you're right. By the way, I have never claimed that science has not been used to justify evil acts. All I have claimed is that the causal chain you outlined is ridiculous. I can't recall anyone on this forum ever claiming science has never been abused for evil purposes. In fact many of us frequently accuse the DI of abusing science for evil political objectives. The very reason that that DI infuriates me is that they are repeating the crimes of the eugenic supporters by using bad pseudoscience to advocate political objectives that do not follow from reasoning. If you want to prevent a repeat of these past crimes than prevent the abuse of science rather than supporting it.
When science has been abused it has always been to serve a dogma, such as nationalism, religion, racism, etc. Should you blame science or should you blame the dogma? Due to your bias you choose to blame science, I choose to blame the dogma itself. Dogma possesses the capacity for evil, science can no more be "evil" than any other tool. Can a shovel be evil? If someone uses that shovel to decapitate kittens is the shovel evil or is the person wielding the shovel evil? This is why I claim your argument is spurious, you are blaming the shovel and in the process exonerating the wielder.
By the way, if the NAS can be linked to supporting eugenics then I agree that they should offer an apology. I even support the efforts of creationists to dig into the history of the NAS to find that evidence even though they have an obvious ulterior motive of slandering science. Unlike "science" the NAS is an actual entity and thus subject to responsibility.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 2, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Todd,
What pseudoscience was used to support eugenics?
Comment by chunkdz — May 2, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
This is quite insightful, but…
Biased views of race with the attendant distortion of data. Exaggeration of the fundamental differences between human groups because of superficial variations. The idea of a "superior" race. The Aryan super-race. The conflation of gene purification with evolutionary advancement…
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Todd B:
Yup. Science may just be a methodology without practitioners, in which case it would belong to anyone who cares to use it. As opposed to serving power, which is what science does, and its practitioners often work for governments (one way or another). Always have. That's how we get WMDs and milled anthrax and Tuskeegee and stuff.
I'm not the DI. Don't belong to the DI, don't know anybody in the DI, haven't read any of the DI fellows' books. I'm sure if you go to their website there's a contact link you could use to complain to them.
Now see, this is denial of actual, well-documented history and it sure as hell seems really psychologically disturbed to me. Darwin published the theory, cousin Francis invented the sociopolitical program, Darwin's son and grandson (et al.) helped, and because the Rockefellers and Mellons and Harrimans and Carnegies and Kelloggs and Fords thought it was a fine idea, laws were passed and people were harmed. More than 60,000 in this country, 100,000 or more in Scandinavia, and 8 million (at least) in Germany and its vassals.
In the name of Aryan supremacy, racial purity, modern rationalism and "good science." Denying it won't work. No one will believe you no matter how much you believe it yourself.
One more time…
1. If you're not denying it, then for goodness' sake stop denying it!
2. I don't care what the DI does. This thread is about The Holocaust. Stop whining about the stupid monster under your bed. I'm talking about reality, not your childish phobias.
Add 'atheism' into the dogmas science is abused for and you might come across as unbiased. THAT abuse is happening right now.
Oh, don't worry. I blame atheism quite pointedly. Along with the bigoted gremlins and gnomes that do the abusing of science in service to this dogma.
Perhaps if you occasionally READ my posts, you'd get a feel for what I'm saying. As opposed to what you insert from the depths of your own prejudice and pretend I said. I blame everybody involved. From Galton and L. Darwin through the guy who pulled the lever on the gas jets disguised as showers. And everybody in between, in science, medicine, public service, politics, religion, military and even the guys who made sure the trains ran on time.
Most of the corporate entities (religion, medicine, politics in several spheres) have publicly apologized, even though those doing the apologizing weren't even alive at the time. Science should long ago have done the same thing, still hasn't bothered. Why do you suppose that is?
I'm not aware of any creationists digging into the history of the NAS to find evidence of complicity with eugenics. Heck, Cold Spring Harbor's own archives are damning enough for most purposes of showing scientific complicity, and there are reams of historical data. I'm also not aware of any scientists digging into the history of the NAS to find evidence of complicity with eugenics. Who is doing that investigation?
I think the NAS should issue a statement quite like the one the UMC issued yesterday, from their end, for the gross corruption of science. They were the NAS during that time. They could have authoritatively prevented the whole program if they'd chosen to. Their silence is deafening.
Comment by Joy — May 2, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Zach,
Actually, this was good science for the day, considering that we had no way to sequence a genome, or even discover a genome. Much of biology was done through comparative phylogeny and observing behavior. You'll have to cite where the data was distorted if you think it was willfully altered, but it looks to me like it was good science for it's time.
Just because something is falsified doesn't make it pseudoscience. In fact, it's one of the hallmarks of the scientific method. The superior fitness of a particular race is a perfectly testable hypothesis, just as we test one type of bacteria for superior fitness vs. other strains of bacteria .
The Aryan experiment went pretty well until D-Day, at which point the hypothesis began to look like it might be falsified.
Perfectly compatible with the data from thousands of years of animal husbandry experiments, including recognition of the need for occasional outbreeding. Not pseudoscience at all.
Eugenics was, and is, good science. It's testable, and makes specific, distinguishing empirical predictions.
Comment by chunkdz — May 2, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Natural selection is an process void of any deliberate intervention. Hitler's sick acts were deliberate, cognitive intervention, right? Eugenics is a program of deliberate, cognitive intervention. Therefore, the guy who invented eugenics was making an attempt to make a scientific conclusion and failed because he misunderstood evolution.
There is a form of mental incompetence to the philosophy of naturalism which causes those stupid enough to try to adhere to it to both deny and accept intelligent agency as a causal factor. They are inconsistent because there is no such thing as intelligent agency given their view, yet they act as if there is.. Darwin was inconsistent on this point just as many eugenicists were. All the so-called "artificial" selection that you and Darwin refer to is merely an artifact of natural selection and natural processes if everything about organisms can be explained in such a way, the only misunderstanding here is your own. No program of "deliberate, cognitive intervention" exists given a Darwinian philosophy and many eugenicists were more consistent than you are being on that point, like Hitler they merely considered themselves "selected" by Nature, natural laws and/or an impersonal type of Providence which provides such laws and no longer "tinkers" as Darwinists tend to put it.
Robert Lifton notes of this pattern of naturalism that scientists "…may do [evil] things with the conviction that they are 'in accord with the natural history and biology of man,' and that one is acting as healer and savior." (The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide
By Robert Jay Lifton :491)
By the way, that deliberate, cognitive intervention thing"¦that's artificial selection"¦.or as the Discovery Institute calls it, intelligent design. So am I trying to blame intelligent design for the Holocaust? No that's silly.
Your logic is based the hypocritical nonsense that has been typical to Darwinists and ironically was typical to eugenicists. But at any rate, if cognitive intervention and intelligent design was possible then and is possible now then what role has it played throughout evolution? Why do Darwinists often seek to reduce organisms to natural selection if organisms actually have a capacity for intelligent selection? Darwinists are still trying to say that science must be blind to intelligent agency at the present so that they can imagine things about the past and then go on to imagine that they have "explained" something, so their current pseudo-science is little different than their old forms of eugenics.
I'd blame the hundreds of years of Antisemitism in Europe marked by its proud proclamations like "On the Jews and Their Lies" by Mr. Protestant himself, Martin Luther.
That would be incorrect. For instance, Alan Steinweis notes: "Old-fashioned antisemitism, Hitler argued, was insufficient, and would lead only to pogroms, which contribute little to a permanent solution. This is why, Hitler maintained, it was important to promote 'an antisemitism of reason,' one that acknowledged the racial basis of Jewry."(Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany by Alan Steinweis :8)
Lifton's interviews show that the key to Nazi thinking was the notion that their views were rooted in biology, not historical prejudices. For example, "S. became a missionary for this biomedical vision… As for anti-Semitic attitudes and actions, he insisted that "the racial question"¦ [and] resentment of the Jewish race"¦ had nothing to do with medieval anti-Semitism"¦" That is, it was all a matter of scientific biology and of community." (Lifton :130)
Oh I talked to science about your post. Don't worry. It's not bitter.
Oh, I thought you would talk to your Mommy Nature about things. Darwinists typically have an urge to merge that seems to make them neurotic when it comes to certain patterns. In fact, when it comes to the notion of a Father God they're often psychotic enough to try to crawl back in the womb of Mother Nature. It seems like a cosmic Oedipus complex motivates them, metaphorically speaking.
Perhaps you should just be clear and say that Mommy Nature whispered things in your ear the other day, as you seem to feel that Nature defines "science."
Science is still going to provide pharmaceuticals, vaccines, pesticides, electricity, clean water, safe food, computers, modes of transportation, etc to you and the rest of mankind and science doesn't even want a thank you because it knows its not perfect and still it promises to continually try to improve all those things it's been working to give you and the rest of the world to improve the lives of everyone for the past 400 years.
Ironically engineers utilizing principles of intelligent design and the conceptual thinking which underlies the notion that transphysical minds can imprint logical code onto matter is responsible for much of what you write of. The charlatans and propagandists of Darwinism have sometimes wondered at how many engineers are what they would lump together as "creationists," perhaps it has something to do with being acquainted with logic and logistical realities in the real world.
Comment by mynym — May 2, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
chunkdz:
Taking this seriously would be tantamount to assuming you're stupid. But just in case: eugenics is *not science*, it's a *philosophy* with the aim of improving the genetic quality of humans. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be bad when, for example, it is forced upon people.
Comment by Raevmo — May 2, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
mynym:
Annoying, isn't it, that the mentally incompetent are so successful? It's so undeserved. Why doesn't God stop them?
Comment by Raevmo — May 2, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Raevmo,
You wouldn't be so stupid as to use the Wikipedia definition over the definition from Francis Galton, the guy who actually invented eugenics, would you?
But just in case….
Comment by chunkdz — May 2, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:29 pm
chunkdz:
Actually, I would. Just because someone calls it a science, doesn't make it so. Do you think Creation Science is a science?
Comment by Raevmo — May 2, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
mynym wrote:
Raevmo responded:
I love the smell of pwnage in the evening…
Mynym, how on earth did you reach the conclusion that naturalism denies the existence of intelligent agency?
Comment by watchmaker — May 2, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Raevmo,
Eugenics is a science, AND a philosophy. Just like some other sciences I know of.
Ahh, but who needs dictionary definitions and professional journals when you can arm yourself with Wikipedia and a few choice insults?:mrgreen:
Comment by chunkdz — May 2, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:23 pm
You might as well blame God too, after all he created this whole mess. I am trying to suggest that it is more productive to focus on the primary issue of racism than to form a lynching party to go after Hitler's barber. But if you want to wax metaphysical then you could project back in time blaming every spec of matter and energy within the past light cone from the beginning of the holocaust. Anything within that light cone might have contributed to the holocaust.
You are forcing me to repeat myself. Please read this very slowly so that maybe it will sink in this time. I have not denied any of the historical events you have mentioned, nor do I deny they occurred in the order you say. I have not denied that the connections you point out exist. I am denying that they are direct causes of the holocaust. Racism and anti-semitism existed in Europe for hundreds of years before these events you describe. Even if Dawrin and Galton had both never been born the holocaust had all the fuel it needed to burst into flame. You are taking minor factors and claiming they are primary causes. Chaos theory gives us the analogy that a butterfly flapping its wings might cause a hurricane, in your case you are naming the specific butterfly you feel is guilty of causing the storm!
I agree that atheism can become dogmatic, and I agree that this could be harmful. Creationism isn't the only abuse of science I protest against. For example, I also complain about weak correlation studies being presented as if they prove cause-effect as is often the case in many climatology studies too. I happen not to agree with your conspiracy theories about evil "Big Science" as you like to call it.
I also support equality between religious and secular social organizations.
I'm not aware of any still-existing scientific organization that officially promoted racism under the guise of eugenics and refused to apologize about it. If you find some evidence instead of just blowing hot air then I would join you in calling for them to issue an apology. But as seems so common, you are willing to form an opinion without collecting any evidence.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — May 2, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Yes, it was just coincidence that whomever was making the claim just happened to be a member of the superior race. Just a coincidence and no bias whatsoever.
There is no such thing as a singular "super-race" in evolution. Evolution leads to imperfect fits of competing populations in changing environments. If there is a "super-race", it's bacteria.
More precisely, a technology based on the science of heredity.
Comment by Zachriel — May 2, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Zach,
Science has to deal with bias all the time. There are ways to minimize it through scientific rigor and critical thinking. But having a biased perspective doesn't make your perspective wrong, or pseudoscientific.
Yes, Darwin recognized that fitness was only with respect to a given environment. However it is not unscientific to postulate that one particular breed is the most fit breed for a given environment. Breeders use this principle all the time.
Well, you are welcome to make up your own definition. I prefer the accepted ones. See above.
Comment by chunkdz — May 2, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
May 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 am
Joy wrote:
So you have no idea whether NAS endorsed eugenics but you still want them to renounce a position that they may not even have held! You're throwing a tantrum, Joy. Cool down.
Comment by olegt — May 3, 2008 @ 1:40 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
Apparently, they failed to deal with their bias.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2008 @ 10:39 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
olegt:
They very much supported it and hosted 'symposiums' on the issues through the 1980s (that I could find), and apparently still support it - or I'd be able to find a renunciation and apology. Check out the presentation of Edmund Ramsden on a historical note,
Confronting the Stigma of Perfection: Genetic Demography, Diversity and the Quest for a Democratic Eugenics in the Post-War United States
and…
Shockley used the work of [Charles] Davenport (Kallikaks and Jukes] to advocate for sterilization for criminals and mentally defective. [Frederick] Osborn had sought to link eugenics with the scientific and political mainstream, Shockley rapidly adopted the identity of a persecuted minority. These were also concurrent members of AES [American Eugenics Society].
Congress called - via NAS/NRC - a Commission on Population Growth and the American Future [CPGAF] in 1970. When the report was published it was decided that the damage to the term "eugenics" was irreversible. So the AES renamed itself the Society for the Study of Social Biology, following the confessed failure to "restore the name to public and scientific esteem."
You might also be interested in another of Ramsden's presentations linking NAS with AES and members who were active in eugenics research and policy,
Between Quality and Quantity: The Population Council and the Politics of "science-making" in Eugenics and Demography, 1952-1965
Or Social Demography and Eugenics in the Interwar United States
Unless you as a defender can produce a clear NAS renunciation of eugenics and apology for its role, I must presume that the lack of such a statement readily available to the public reflects the fact that NAS still supports the eugenic dreams of its committees, subdivisions, research councils and members.
American Philosophical Society Library: A Guide to the Genetics Collections
Comment by Joy — May 3, 2008 @ 11:18 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 am
William Shockley was a member of the NAS because he invented the transistor. He is the responsible party for his views. Not the NAS, which offers an open forum for its members. He was castigated by other members of the NAS for his views, and his recommendations were not adopted by the organization.
You still seem to be conflating different aspects of eugenics. Nearly everyone agrees that people should have the right to personal genetic information in order to make informed reproductive choices. But the eugenics movement that we were discussing involved coercive tactics.
From the abstract: This, the article argues, contributed critical intellectual and material resources to the development of social surveys of fertility behavior and contraceptive use, surveys that are more commonly perceived as having undermined eugenics through challenging the biologically deterministic assumptions upon which it was based.
That argues against racism.
Comment by Zachriel — May 3, 2008 @ 11:38 am
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
I'm not aware of any still-existing scientific organization that officially promoted racism under the guise of eugenics and refused to apologize about it.
And that's just it, people are ignorant because scientists and scientific organizations generally weave the grand myth of Progress around past mistakes or simply ignore them instead of actually dealing with them with humility like other organizations have. Given such ignorance it is only a matter of time until scientists generally feel comfortable making false and arrogant claims about the knowledge they supposedly have and its supposed link to Progress again. (After all, there are already good examples in this thread.*)
Apparently you're not aware that eugenics generally merged with genetics, so of course there are such organizations. For example, Edwin Black names a few:
Annoying, isn't it, that the mentally incompetent are so successful?
Successful at what, propping up pseudo-science like eugenics or Darwinism in general? I fine the process fascinating and I'm not necessarily annoyed by either, although individual people may be annoying because the patterns involved seem to draw in effete passive aggressives who like giving little lectures about science and so on. Typically something along the lines of: "The other day Science told me about Progress and then gave me a pat on the back."
It's actually rather humorous that people who tend to be ignorant on a wide range of topics often become blinded by hubris based on the little bits of myopic scientia/knowledge which they think they have.
*E.g. For instance, "Science is still going to provide pharmaceuticals, vaccines, pesticides, electricity, clean water, safe food, computers, modes of transportation, etc to you and the rest of mankind and science doesn't even want a thank you…"
That's ignorant drivel. Progress isn't linked to "science" alone, engineers, construction workers, religious teachers and so on and so forth also have much to do with it. You wouldn't even be able to define the "Progress" th