48 Responses to “PZ Myers, Francis Collins and Coral Ridge”

1. macht Says:
   August 22nd, 2006 at 3:49 pm

   Can I assume you mean Francis Collins and not Del Ratzsch?

Comment by macht — August 22, 2006 @ 3:49 pm

2. Joy Says:
   August 22nd, 2006 at 4:01 pm

   ARGH!!! You're right, the name just got stuck in my head. My bad. I have edited accordingly, and thanks, macht.

Comment by Joy — August 22, 2006 @ 4:01 pm

3. Darwiniana » “a simple walk-back” Says:
   August 22nd, 2006 at 8:14 pm

   [...] Telic Thoughts comments on 'Darwin to Hitler' documentary brouhaha Linking Darwinism to Eugenics to Hitler is such a simple walk-back that I don't know why anyone complains about it. History is history even if you don't like it. [...]

Pingback by Darwiniana » “a simple walk-back” — August 22, 2006 @ 8:14 pm

4. David Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 12:49 am

   Nice summary, Joy.

Comment by David — August 23, 2006 @ 12:49 am

5. Nick Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 9:20 am

   notice the recent resurgence as the 'New Eugenics'

   Never heard of it. Please elaborate.

   Thanks.

Comment by Nick — August 23, 2006 @ 9:20 am

6. Andrea Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 9:54 am

   Linking Darwinism to Eugenics to Hitler is such a simple walk-back that I don't know why anyone complains about it. History is history even if you don't like it. Sure. But linking Hitler to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to Christian antisemitism to Christianity is also a simple and unquestionable historical walk-back. Still, it's a stupid and simplistic one. Unless all one cares about is propaganda, of course.

Comment by Andrea — August 23, 2006 @ 9:54 am

7. Andrea Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 9:55 am

   Argh! Sorry, let me try again:

   Linking Darwinism to Eugenics to Hitler is such a simple walk-back that I don't know why anyone complains about it. History is history even if you don't like it.

   Sure. But linking Hitler to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to Christian antisemitism to Christianity is also a simple and unquestionable historical walk-back. Still, it's a stupid and simplistic one. Unless all one cares about is propaganda, of course.

Comment by Andrea — August 23, 2006 @ 9:55 am

8. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 10:35 am

   "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world"¦. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

   "”Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 6. (more"¦)

   Darwin seems to claim that whites will exterminate blacks.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2006 @ 10:35 am

9. Nick Says:
   August 23rd, 2006 at 11:06 am

   Darwin seems to claim that whites will exterminate blacks.

   A not unreasonable hypothesis given what Europeans were doing to non-Europeans in the 1800s. This is, however, a prediction of what will happen, not a prescription of what should happen. Therefore, it has nothing to do with eugenics. In the section that you deleted, Darwin also predicts that the great apes will become extinct, but there is no indication he thinks that is a good thing either. Thankfully, both Darwin's predictions were wrong. Sadly, they were too close to being correct in many cases.

   The second part of the paragraph indicates unfortunate confusion about how cultural traits like "civilization" relate to evolution, but the general sentiments would have been non-controversial for most Europeans of the time and are not an argument for eugenics.

Comment by Nick — August 23, 2006 @ 11:06 am

10. Joy Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 11:55 am

    Nick [not Matzke]:

    Never heard of it. Please elaborate.

    Well gee, Nick. A simple Google on "New Eugenics" returned 2,840,000 results. You could check the history over at Cold Spring Harbor, or peruse the Class Log at Learn to Question. There's a clickable collection at War Against the Weak complete with photos of Nazi eugenecists Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer and Josef Mengele. Genetics and Society has five links – each with sub-links to further material – on different groups advocating public acceptance of the "New Eugenics." And there's an extensive collection of links at Neo-Eugenics.

    But If I had my 'druthers and you had some time, I'd have you read all 5 pages of How I Decoded the Human Genome by John Sundman over at Salon. If you don't have an account, you can get the full article by clicking on the ad – one day free. And with that attribution I offer a short excerpt from the last page, talking about prom night at the Perkins School for the Blind:

    He's a smart but socially awkward guy, traumatized by 10 years of isolation and ostracism in mainstream schools but now perfectly at ease at Perkins, who reads fantasy books by the truckload — holding them 2 inches from his face until his eyes fatigue and turn inward.

    I asked Jakob how he felt about the idea that, thanks to the Human Genome Project, in the future, kids like him and his friends need never be born. (Although Jakob's disabilities were caused by prenatal infection and not by a genetic abnormality, that's academic. He well knows that he's just as much a mutant as any of his friends.) He thought for a few seconds, and then said in a voice dripping with irony, "Hello, justifiable holocaust."

    Jakob, by the way, is my son.

Comment by Joy — August 23, 2006 @ 11:55 am

11. Andrea Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    According to those links, the "resurgence of the New Eugenics" seems limited to fringe lunatics like neo-nazis, white supremacists etc – the kind of people who never even parted way with the "Old Eugenics", and certainly not "resurgent" in any meaningful sense.

    As for the context of the Salon quote you provide, it would seem that evolutionary biology is as much to blame for the possibility of prenatal screening for common congenital diseases as genetics, molecular biology, obstetrics and gynecology. Hardly the stuff of a "Darwinist eugenics conspiracy".

    Of course, society as a whole has a key role to play with respect to the ethical application of any medical technology, but saying Darwin is historically responsible for any misapplication of genetic technology in an eugenics context makes as much sense as saying that Mendel was.

Comment by Andrea — August 23, 2006 @ 12:29 pm

12. Joy Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 12:33 pm

    Andrea:

    Sure. But linking Hitler to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to Christian antisemitism to Christianity is also a simple and unquestionable historical walk-back. Still, it's a stupid and simplistic one. Unless all one cares about is propaganda, of course.

    That there has been Christian antisemitism is not a secret, Andrea. That Christian churches were out front in the eugenics crusades during the 1920s and 30s is no secret either. Neither is the outrageous hoax perpetrated by the Protocols a secret – it should be bashed wherever it raises its ugly head, as should hard-right Christian support of The Pioneer Fund and its racist regurgitations. ISAR gives a bit of that history -

    The Pioneer Fund was incorporated in 1937 by two American scientists: Harry Laughlin, who received an honorary doctorate from Heidelberg University in 1936 in honor of his contribution to Nazi eugenics, and Frederick Osborn, who wrote in 1937 that the Nazi sterilization law was 'the most exciting experiment that had ever been tried'.(35)

    The fund had two purposes. The first, modeled on the Nazi breeding program, was aimed at encouraging the propagation of those 'descended predominantly from white persons who settled in the original thirteen states prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and/or from related stocks, or to classes of children, the majority of whom are deemed to be so descended'. Its second purpose was to support academic research and the 'dissemination of information, into the 'problem of heredity and eugenics' and 'the problems of race betterment'.(36)

    Among the first projects discussed for 1937 was the distribution of two Nazi eugenic propaganda films to 'high schools, colleges, clubs [and] churches'." (37)

    The fund is still going strong today, and is one of the "Useful Links" offered by the Galton Institute.

    Bearing in mind that Eugenics was forced to retreat from the public promotion stage due to the atrocities committed by Hitler and his 'scientists', the very fact that it survives to this day and is enjoying a renewed invigoration (and public promotion) from science, I don't think it's a bad thing to take a good, hard look at reality. Society needs to have these discussions and debates. Why would anyone think it should not be discussed?

    It's way too late for PZ and the fan club to try and prevent examination of scientific complicity in eugenics. It's a matter of recorded history, there for anyone to find if they care to look. Sure, having science sharing a lice-infested bed with religious fanatics is uncomfortable, but that's a matter of recorded history as well. Telling self-serving lies about it isn't going to impress anybody.

    As I said, I haven't seen Kennedy's show and don't plan to see it. Someone will, and will hopefully give us a dispassionate review. I don't expect he's included right-wing Christianity's role in the holocaust or the sociopolitical lead-up to it, but I'm not going to assume a priori that he's overtly denying it either. PZ and gang are overtly denying what is factual history. Are you supporting that denial?

Comment by Joy — August 23, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

13. Andrea Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    As I said, I haven't seen Kennedy's show and don't plan to see it. Someone will, and will hopefully give us a dispassionate review. I don't expect he's included right-wing Christianity's role in the holocaust or the sociopolitical lead-up to it, but I'm not going to assume a priori that he's overtly denying it either. PZ and gang are overtly denying what is factual history. Are you supporting that denial?

    Of course I am not, but just scanning those threads at PZ's blog it seems that no one there is either, unless I missed something. Is there any specific comment by PZ or others you are referring to?

    What people object to is the pedestrian linking of Darwinian theories and Nazism in Kennedy's show (and in much Creationist propaganda), as if the former was directly and overwhelmingly responsible for the latter. Only a stupid and superficial, if not utterly dishonest reading of history would lead to that.

Comment by Andrea — August 23, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

14. Nick Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 1:33 pm

    Joy:

    Well gee, Joy, I thought that was a fairly simple question that you could answer in a sentence or two. Does it really require that I dig through multiple links to figure out who you were alluding to as supporters of the 'new eugenics?'

    You could check the history over at Cold Spring Harbor, or peruse the Class Log at Learn to Question.

    Doesn't seem to describe 'new eugenics.'

    There's a clickable collection at War Against the Weak complete with photos of Nazi eugenecists Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer and Josef Mengele.

    Link seems to be broken, but I assume Nazi eugenicists aren't who you meant by 'new eugenics.'

    Genetics and Society has five links – each with sub-links to further material – on different groups advocating public acceptance of the "New Eugenics."

    Appears to be fringe groups like extropians and the Ayn Rand institute — hardly a significant 'resurgence,' and it doesn't really help me figure out why you wanted us to notice who was promoting the new eugenics. What is the significance of this to a putative Darwinism-eugenics link?

    And there's an extensive collection of links at Neo-Eugenics.

    A bunch of essays by some random crank and reviews of books from various authors including some that appear to be by garden-variety racists. Also doesn't help me figure out what you meant.

    But If I had my 'druthers and you had some time, I'd have you read all 5 pages of How I Decoded the Human Genome by John Sundman over at Salon.

    Now that was the most interesting, but it doesn't have much to do with 'new eugenics' It's obvious that the human genome project would allow selective abortion of fetuses carrying identifiable Mendelian traits, but the article doesn't identify eugenicists and doesn't explain why this is inevitable, given that a large portion of the U.S. population opposes abortion. It's also clear, to me at least, that the human genome project may also be useful for non-eugenic medical treatments for various diseases, so just pointing to the HGP doesn't consititute evidence for resurgent eugenics. Even with prenatal diagnosis, many couples choose to carry affected fetuses to term, and there doesn't seem to be any organized program to convince them not to.

    My take on the situation is that 'new eugenics' is pretty much limited to pie in the sky extropians dreaming about germline modifications that are certainly not now practical and may never be.

    But perhaps you could summarize in your own words why you think the new eugenics is resurgent and explain who is behind it.

Comment by Nick — August 23, 2006 @ 1:33 pm

15. Bradford Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    Nick: My take on the situation is that 'new eugenics' is pretty much limited to pie in the sky extropians dreaming about germline modifications that are certainly not now practical and may never be.

    But perhaps you could summarize in your own words why you think the new eugenics is resurgent and explain who is behind it.

    It is standard medical procedure to conduct prenatal tets for recognizable genetic aberrations particularly for women deemed to be at higher risk due to age or other facotrs. If results are positive it is also not uncommon for a doctor to provide information about abortion procedures and the location of clinics perfoming abortions. The scope of detection is ever increasing with time due to advances in technology and increasing knowledge. Whether this is the type of thing Joy had in mind by the phrase used is unknown to me but it is clear that new possibilites exist and new ones will soon come into existence that have a bearing on eugenics. The word has a negative connotation but that's too bad. The issues connected with it are too important to be deep sixed due to sensitivities.

Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2006 @ 1:58 pm

16. Lutepisc Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 2:38 pm

    Yes, I've seen news items on "The New Eugenics."

    Here's an excerpt from an article published in 2002, by the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism, indicating that the Southern Poverty Law Center is tracking the movement:

    After falling out of favor in the 1940s, eugenics started interesting researchers again in the 1960s, said Barry Mehler, a professor of history at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Mich., and the director of the Institute for the Study of Academic Racism.

    "In the '60s, we began to see a real trend toward the new eugenics, with a whole new generation for blatantly racist work by people like (Arthur) Jensen and (William) Shockley," Mehler said.

    Jensen, a professor of education psychology at the University of California at Berkley, developed intelligence tests that led him to believe that blacks are genetically destined to be less intelligent.

    Shockley, a Nobel Prize winner for his work in physics, researched the connection between heredity and intelligence for years and came to the same conclusion as Jensen.

    As more research money became available in the last 10 years, the rekindled eugenics movement accelerated and attracted the attention of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Beirich said.

    "It's definitely re-emerging. At the early part of the (20th) century, eugenics was a very big topic of research … in the last 10 years it's become resurgent because you have the funding," Beirich said.

    The article is here. I selected it randomly from the 10,400 hits I turned up in a Google search, using "eugenic movement resurgent" (without the quotes).

Comment by Lutepisc — August 23, 2006 @ 2:38 pm

17. Nick Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    Thanks for the link, Lutepisc.

    So, this article suggests that the new eugenics is basically just the old eugenics. Its proponents don't seem to know much about genetics or evolution, they resort to the same old discredited analyses (e.g. IQ tests and head measurements), and they publish in fringe journals. From the article:

    "The ironic thing is, most of these people are not geneticists," Beirich said.

    Joy, is that also your understanding of who is promoting 'new eugenics?'

Comment by Nick — August 23, 2006 @ 3:26 pm

18. Doug Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    That is priceless! Caledonian acts like Collins slapped his mother. Calling Collins a liar and a fraud is inexcusable.
    If PZ Myers was concerned about the reputability of his site he would ban Caledonian and those others who mindlessly babble lodging insults at those that disagree with him.

Comment by Doug — August 23, 2006 @ 3:47 pm

19. Lutepisc Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    Nick, wouldn't the corollary of "most of these people are not geneticists" be "some of these people are geneticists?"

    (Don't ask me to name names. I'm not that familiar with the movement. I certainly remember the firestorm that followed the publication of The Bell Curve, though.)

Comment by Lutepisc — August 23, 2006 @ 4:08 pm

20. Pez Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    Want to know if there is a new eugenics movement?
    Google, "trisomy 18 doctor recommended abortion", or substitute for trisomy 18, trisomy 21, spina bifida, or dwarfism, or any other genetic disorder.

    While doing so I quite accidentally brought up this story, titled, conveniently,
    "The New Eugenics".

    EACH YEAR IN AMERICA fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace.
    …
    Princeton professor Peter Singer drew fire for saying, "It does not seem quite wise to increase any further draining of limited resources by increasing the number of children with impairments." Bob Edwards, the embryologist who created the first test-tube baby through in vitro fertilization, has also drawn protests for predicting that "soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children."

    But these comments, far from being unthinkable, reflect unspoken mainstream attitudes and practice. Only through political gaffes (and occasional news stories) is eugenic abortion ever mentioned, such as the time in 2003 when a blundering Hillary Clinton objected to a ban on partial-birth abortion because it didn't contain an exemption for late-term abortions aimed at the disabled. Women should not be "forced" to carry a "child with severe abnormalities," she said. …
    University of Chicago professor Leon Kass, in his book Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity, writes that "at my own university, a physician making rounds with medical students stood over the bed of an intelligent, otherwise normal ten-year-old boy with spina bifida. 'Were he to have been conceived today,' the physician casually informed his entourage, 'he would have been aborted.'"
    …
    Now prenatal screening can identify hundreds of conditions. This has made it possible for doctors to abort children not only with chronic disabilities but common disabilities and minor ones. Among the aborted are children screened for deafness, blindness, dwarfism, cleft palates, and defective limbs. …
    In some cases the aborted children aren't disabled at all but are mere carriers of a disease or stand a chance of getting one later in life. Prenatal screening has made it possible to abort children on guesses and probabilities. A doctor speaking to the New York Times cited a defect for a eugenic abortion that was at once minor and speculative: a women suffering from a condition that gave her an extra finger asked doctors to abort two of her children on the grounds that they had a 50-50 chance of inheriting that condition.
    …
    Had the case gone to court, Khosla would have probably lost the suit. New Jersey has been notoriously welcoming to wrongful birth suits ever since the Roe v. Wade decision, after which New Jersey's Supreme Court announced that it would not "immunize from liability those in the medical field providing inadequate guidance to persons who would choose to exercise their constitutional right to abort fetuses which, if born, would suffer from genetic defects."

    If you don't believe these next two statements follow my previous advice and google trisomy 18 and read the stories these parents tell.

    In an atmosphere of expected eugenics, even queasy, vaguely pro-life parents gravitate towards aborting a disabled child. These parents get pressure from doctors who, without even bothering to ask, automatically provide abortion options to them once the prenatal screening has diagnosed a disability (one parent, in a 1999 study, complained of a doctor showing her a video depicting the rigors of raising an afflicted child as a way of convincing her to choose abortion), and they feel pressure from society at large which having accepted eugenic abortion looks askance at parents with disabled children.
    The right to abort a disabled child, in other words, is approaching the status of a duty to abort a disabled child. Parents who abort their disabled children won't be asked to justify their decision. Rather, it is the parents with disabled children who must justify themselves to a society that tacitly asks: Why did you bring into the world a child you knew was disabled or might become disabled?

    Sorry for going so far off-topic here. Here is the tie-in back to the original post.

    Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, coined the term eugenics in the 1880s. Sparking off his cousin's theory of evolution, he proposed improving the human race through eugenics, arguing that "what nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly." As eugenics passes through each of its stages — from sterilizing the enfeebled at the beginning of the 20th century to aborting the disabled at the end of it and the beginning of the 21st — man is indeed playing God but without any of his providence or care.

    Andrew Imparato of AAPD wonders how progressives got to this point. The new eugenics aimed at the disabled unborn tell the disabled who are alive, "disability is a fate worse than death," he says. "What kind of message does this send to people living with spina bifida and other disabilities? It is not a progressive value to think that a disabled person is better off dead."

Comment by Pez — August 23, 2006 @ 4:08 pm

21. Joy Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    Nick:

    But perhaps you could summarize in your own words why you think the new eugenics is resurgent and explain who is behind it.

    The "New Eugenics" is upon us because we never really let go of the Old Eugenics. It just got quiet for awhile after Adolph Hitler gave it a bad reputation. It most certainly has its champions, including many in evolutionary biology and Evo-Psych [nee Sociobiology] who advocate mass sterilizations and giving parents a year to decide if they should kill their children.

    This isn't a difficult subject, nor is it hard to find material. You would dearly love to think it's all fringe Randians, but it's not. Even you can do the work but you're not trying, are you?

    Is a New Eugenics Afoot?, Science, October 2001. Garland E. Allen.

    The New Eugenics, The American Spectator, June 2005. George Neumayr.

    The New Eugenics, The New York Times, July 4, 2003. Nicholas Kristof.

    The New Eugenics: Genetic Engineering, Genetic Engineering dot Org.

Comment by Joy — August 23, 2006 @ 4:13 pm

22. Joy Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    Nick:

    Even with prenatal diagnosis, many couples choose to carry affected fetuses to term, and there doesn't seem to be any organized program to convince them not to.

    Rationing of access to health care isn't an "organized program," Nick? Since when? The excuses get better, but the eugenic goals remain the same. I am not for criminalizing medical decisions or medical procedures – including abortion – but I am not so naive that I don't see abuses from both ends. I have two personal stories to offer, because they're quite revealing. They deal with two separate aspects of eugenic thinking, and how the medical/scientific community promotes the goals.

    First example: I had two children before I was old enough to buy wine. My daughter and son were a mere 14 months apart, had all their fingers and toes, blonde hair, blue eyes… regular Anglo-Aryan types despite their parents' essential nerdiness. I decided that since I wasn't a happy, healthy pregnant lady, I should get the problem fixed right away.

    My husband was in the Nuclear Navy at the time when I started appealing to the wannabe gynecologists (don't get me started…) working on Navy dependents. All my friends were getting full hysterectomies then, as it seemed to be the latest rage for enlisted wives who kept having kids nobody knew who the fathers were (another story…). I figured it couldn't be that hard to get a tubal ligation.

    I was wrong. The kids were already testing off the IQ charts and I got put into a whole different sort of file cabinet. They sent me on the rounds to talk to every gyn on base, and wasn't buying their offers of abortion on demand (it was still illegal then). Couldn't wear an IUD, couldn't take the way over-done pills that were all there was back then either. I still wanted it fixed, so they sent me to a shrink. Whose final question to me was, "what if your children die in a terrible accident?"

    I saw red. "Why," I answered in the most sarcastic tone I could muster, "I'll just have two more children and name them X and Y (my real children's names) and it'll be just like I never lost them, won't it?" He finally did sign zee papers, and I did get it fixed.

    That was gub'ment doctors deciding that I should keep on being a brood mare because I'd proven my (and my husband's) genetic worth. Didn't matter what I thought – the whole process took 6 years.

    Second example: My daughter found herself pregnant and unmarried nearly 18 years ago, with a nogoodnik ex-boyfriend and no money or insurance. We talked her out of abortion and promised to foot the bills, but she signed on to the Medicaid clinic because she thought it would help.

    At the time of her first ultrasound she was informed the baby had a bad case of cleft palate and she was strongly advised to abort. At 20+ weeks. She said "nope" quite calmly, cleft palate not being an abortable offense. Because she'd refused doctor's advice, they refused to see her again.

    So we got a midwife and set things up to have the baby at home. The midwife was aware of the diagnosis, but wasn't too worried. Our grandson was born with all his fingers and toes and with an absolutely perfect face, not a darned thing wrong with him. He's in high school now, as gifted as his Mom and his uncle ever were, maybe more. Plans to be a paleontologist, and will be a great one.

    Deal is, the tools for eugenics are class-specific. That takes care of most racial issues right there, without being overtly racist. Poor white folks are just as unwanted, and I've met more than a few physicians who aren't the least bit shy of exercising their undo influence toward eugenic goals in attempting to impose their will on patients.

    Today I have no doubt they'd do a genetic test and tell us the same lie if they thought our daughter shouldn't be producing children (she'd signed up for Medicaid, after all). Though back in the early '70s they sure didn't mind if we ended up poor from producing uber-babies every year. But they had that worked out too – when we'd been out of the Navy a year, a representative from Johns Hopkins showed up at our door to offer us the opportunity to put our children into a wonderful NEW program they had going. It was a boarding school for children identified early with genius IQs. We could visit them once a month, and they could spend a couple of weeks in summer. Just sign on the dotted line…

    That was the first time I ever pointed grandpa's shotgun at a human being (though not the last). THOSE are my own words. Is that good enough for you, or should I tell you what I know about medical murder too? There's a whole other end to this eugenic thing, you know.

Comment by Joy — August 23, 2006 @ 5:34 pm

23. Andrea Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 5:48 pm

    As I said, society as a whole has a key role to play with respect to the ethical application of any medical technology, from genetic screening to end-of-life treatment. However, if one just takes "eugenics" in its widest possible meaning, like some here seem to do, then it has always been with us, and always will be. For instance, eugenics is the only reason why incest, even consensual, is illegal in most countries – yet, that's hardly the stuff that makes people cry against the coming neo-Nazis limiting the free pursuit of procreation.

    If one does not want to make the issue meaningless, it has to be recognized that there are both societal and personal implications to reproduction and health, and that it is through education and not reflexive fear-mongering that people have the best chance to make good decisions, both as individuals and citizens.

Comment by Andrea — August 23, 2006 @ 5:48 pm

24. takuan Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 8:23 pm

    I must admit, this "Darwin to eugenics to Hitler" thing has a nice "nuclear reactor to energy to toaster" simplicity about it. Who knew those SNL comedy writers from the '70s would provide the model for ID science explanations in the new millennium?

Comment by takuan — August 23, 2006 @ 8:23 pm

25. MikeGene Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 8:24 pm

    Such germ-line alterations are viewed cynically by Watson, though, as a means to other ends: the wedge that will open the door to further engineering. "I think that the acceptance of genetic enhancement," he writes in his new book, "will most likely come through efforts to prevent disease."

    "“ Here

    In the first quarter of this century, nearly all geneticists were enthusiastic proponents of a movement that is now generally held in contempt. In Germany, not one geneticist criticized the interwar eugenics movements. After the Nazis came to power, genetics was invoked on behalf of ever more extreme measures of racial purification. Nevertheless, most of Germany's leading geneticists, including those who before 1933 had criticized antisemitism, actively helped build the racial state. They served on important commissions, provided opinions on racial ancestry and participated in the drafting of racial laws. More than a half of all academic biologists joined the Nazi Party, the highest membership rate of any professional group.

    - Paul DB, Spencer HG. 1995. The hidden science of eugenics. Nature. 374:302-4.

Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2006 @ 8:24 pm

26. MikeGene Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    Somewhat of a tangent: The Antismoking Nazis

Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2006 @ 8:27 pm

27. MikeGene Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pm

    Ernst Ruedin, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry in Munich, and Ernst Fischer and Otmar von Verschuer, both of whom headed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology in Berlin during the Nazi era, advised the Nazis at the highest levels. All three men had direct contact with the Nazi leadership and served on important government advisory panels"¦..According to the new report, Ruedin lobbied successfully for ever broader criteria, and on Ruedin's initiative, the sterilization came to include the "morally ill" — the Nazi term for the mentally handicapped. This category covered 95 percent of the 400,000 sterilizations carried out between 1933 and 1945. At Ruedin's suggestion, the sterilized included 600 children of black French soldiers and German women in the state of Rhineland, which the French occupied after the First World War.

    Perhaps the most significant aspect of all of this is that these policies, which now seem the product of deranged minds, were not proposed and implemented by a few mentally deranged political leaders, but were indeed proposed and implemented by at least part of the German scientific establishment.

    - Here

Comment by MikeGene — August 23, 2006 @ 8:37 pm

28. Joy Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 9:27 pm

    Now, this thread is quite likely to die out before the airing of Coral Ridge's show this weekend. For all I know the show may be awful and talk about it SHOULD die down (after it's seen and evaluated). But that's not what's happening over on PZ's blog, where there are now 4 (or six, depending on how you parse the subject) posts related to the Coral Ridge program, the WND article, Hitler, Darwin, or holocaust denial on one level or another. Or on Panda's Thumb, where there are two, one of them linking to Brayton's blog, doing a little denial tap dancing of his own.

    Whoa. You'd think this is something they're really, really scared to examine. Or, not have someone religious examine. Never thought I'd see the day when the ADL or AIPAC or any other Zionist lobby would be championed by die-hard religion-hating evangelical atheists. Wonders just never cease.

    All this brash defensiveness is a bit overblown, it seems to me. I've charted here in this blog the generational participation of Charles Darwin's cousins, sons, daughters, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in the Eugenics 'movement' right on up through WW-II and beyond, continuing to this very day. There have been some makeovers and redirections, but it's all still there, and the tactics haven't changed that much. They still consider involuntary sterilization to be "positive" eugenics (because the victim isn't killed), but nobody wants to talk much about infanticide and euthanasia right now, despite the FACT that these things have been championed by evolutionary biologists/psychologists in public for years.

    The philosophy and tools of eugenics haven't changed, it's just distanced itself from Adolph Hitler (until just lately). And they're not relying so much on religious organizations to help further the goals these days either, probably because only the way radical wingnut cultists would claim it in the name of Christ. What I'm wondering is where the tie-in with someone like PZ's utter contempt for people of faith fits into the agenda. Here's a guy who has publicly advocated sterilization of religious people, removing children from religious parents, "re-education" gulags for believers, and Secularist indoctrination summer camps for those seized kids. How much farther a leap is it to Auschwitz? Is he really just a crazy man? When will we be allowed to suspect there's a reason PZ's is the #1 science blog on the planet, so we can begin to take his 'threatiness' seriously?

Comment by Joy — August 23, 2006 @ 9:27 pm

29. Joy Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    Andrea:

    For instance, eugenics is the only reason why incest, even consensual, is illegal in most countries – yet, that's hardly the stuff that makes people cry against the coming neo-Nazis limiting the free pursuit of procreation.

    Gee, Andrea. The prohibitions on incest in my tradition are as old as the Patriarchs. But that never stopped Egyptians, Mesopotamians and assorted white guys from marrying close relatives. The Darwin-Wedgewoods were rather notorious for in-breeding. They make life here in Appalachia look not quite so Deliverance-like.

    If one does not want to make the issue meaningless, it has to be recognized that there are both societal and personal implications to reproduction and health, and that it is through education and not reflexive fear-mongering that people have the best chance to make good decisions, both as individuals and citizens.

    My point exactly. Why did it take six years for me to talk a bunch of knife-happy misogynists into tying my tubes? Why did a bunch of suction-happy misogynists lie to my daughter so they could kill her baby?

    Point being that y'all seem to want to be a whole lot more important and sage-like than most of us are willing to believe. The distrust of the people didn't arise on its own unbidden, and isn't without cause. Now we're supposed to believe that all this hasty backpeddling by wannabe ideological genocide-popularizers like PZ means he's suddenly grown a moral/ethical conscience and is ashamed to be associated with Adolph Hitler via the inbred Darwin family & friends.

    I'm not buying it for a second.

Comment by Joy — August 23, 2006 @ 9:47 pm

30. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 9:50 pm

    Joy wrote:

    Whoa. You'd think this is something they're really, really scared to examine. Or, not have someone religious examine. Never thought I'd see the day when the ADL or AIPAC or any other Zionist lobby would be championed by die-hard religion-hating evangelical atheists. Wonders just never cease.

    Yep. This same crowd who was silent on Dario Ringach, were posting away in defense of Eric Pianka (another eugenecist of sorts).

    If you'll indulge me, here is some information relevant to all this. Regarding the American Eugenics Society, here are some facts:

    Hitler's Debt to America

    One such agitator was a disgruntled corporal in the German army. In 1924, he was serving time in prison for mob action. While there, he spent his time poring over eugenic textbooks, which extensively quoted Davenport, Popenoe and other American ethnological stalwarts. And he closely followed the writings of Leon Whitney, president of the American Eugenics Society, and Madison Grant, who extolled the Nordic race and bemoaned its "corruption" by Jews, Negroes, Slavs and others who did not possess blond hair and blue eyes. The young German corporal even wrote one of them fan mail.

    In The Passing of the Great Race, Grant wrote: "Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilisation of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race."

    One day in the early 1930s, Whitney visited Grant to show off a letter he had just received from Germany, written by the corporal, now out of prison and rising in the German political scene. Grant could only smile. He pulled out his own letter. It was from the same German, thanking Grant for writing The Passing of the Great Race. The fan letter called Grant's book "his Bible". The man who sent those letters was Adolf Hitler.

    Hitler displayed his knowledge of American eugenics in much of his writing and conversation. In Mein Kampf, for example, he declared: "The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of clearest reason and, if systematically executed, represents the most humane act of mankind. It will spare millions of unfortunates undeserved sufferings, and consequently will led to a rising improvement of health as a whole."

    Mein Kampf also displayed a familiarity with the recently passed US National Origins Act, which called for eugenic quotas. "There is today one state in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but [the US], in which an effort is made to consult reason at least partially. By refusing immigrants on principle to elements in poor health, by simply excluding certain races from naturalisation, it professes in slow beginnings a view that is peculiar to the People's State."

    Hitler proudly told his comrades how closely he followed American eugenic legislation. "Now that we know the laws of heredity," he told a fellow Nazi, "it is possible to a large extent to prevent unhealthy and severely handicapped beings from coming into the world. I have studied with interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

    The article mentions Madison Grant. Here is Wiki's description of Madison Grant mentioned above. Madison Grant

    Madison Grant (November 19, 1865 "“ May 30, 1937) was an American lawyer, known primarily for his work as a eugenicist and conservationist. As a eugenicist, Grant was responsible for one of the most famous works of scientific racism, a 1916 book which was later used by officials in Nazi Germany to justify their racial policies of compulsory sterilization and compulsory euthanasia, and played an active role in crafting strong immigration restriction and anti-miscegenation polices in the United States. As a conservationist, Grant was credited with the saving of many different species of animals, founding many different environmental and philanthropic organizations, and developing much of the discipline of wildlife management.
    "¦.
    Grant's intellectualized ideas of Nordic and Caucasian superiority stem from ideas of Social Darwinism, a popular philosophy at the time that claimed that the fittest humans should enhance and perfect their genes through selective breeding while the unfit should not be permitted to breed at all, thus allowing the further evolution of the species. Originally conceived by the Englishman Herbert Spencer, this built on Darwin's theory of evolution, which included acknowledgement of differences in intelligence between individual humans as well as the different human races. Grant, as well as others, claimed that the Caucasian races, in addition to their obvious cultural superiority, respresent the highest pinnacle of evolution and are superior in intelligence as well.

    According to Grant, Nordics were in a dire state in the modern world, where they were close to committing "race suicide" by being out-bred by more inferior stock. Nordic theory was strongly embraced by the racial hygiene movement in Germany in the early 1920s and 1930s; however, they typically used the term "Aryan" instead of "Nordic", though the principal Nazi ideologist, Alfred Rosenberg, preferred "Aryo-Nordic" or "Nordic-Atlantean". Stephen Jay Gould described The Passing of the Great Race as "The most influential tract of American scientific racism."

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 23, 2006 @ 9:50 pm

31. takuan Says:
    August 23rd, 2006 at 10:15 pm

    "Here's a guy who has publicly advocated sterilization of religious people, removing children from religious parents, "re-education" gulags for believers, and Secularist indoctrination summer camps for those seized kids. How much farther a leap is it to Auschwitz?"

    Well, before PZ can become the new Hitler, he'll have to spend more time refining his chops public-speakingwise"”a blog is one thing, but Nuremburg-style rallies… that's a whole 'nother kettle of genetically-modified fish-farm fish!

    Then there's coming up with a really good symbol for all those armbands and flags and banners and everything. And figuring a way to seize political power while keeping the military in check 'til he can abolish the various branches of government and secure his dictatorship and… I dunno, if I were him, I'd stick with the teaching gig.

    (Talk about "threatiness!")

Comment by takuan — August 23, 2006 @ 10:15 pm

32. edarrell Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 7:36 am

    It's interesting that you say Darwin's work is unquestionably linked both the specious policies of Herbert Spencer and to the Holocaust, when history shows quite the contrary. Spencer had published before Darwin, remember. "Survival of the fittest" is Spencer's line, not Darwin's. Darwin refused to use the term for years, at last being convinced that the term alone did not carry the evils Darwin saw in the social policy.

    And to claim that Darwinian theory undergirded the rise of Naziism and the onset of the Holocause is a denial of economics and history considerably larger than Mt. Everest. You mean, you've never heard of World War I? You've never read Hayek, or Freidman?

    And of course, you've also not read From Luther to Hitler, which the CRM and Richard Weikart's book appear to be a wan parody of. One wonders why they don't simply dissect all the other historians' work, if indeed they have a case.

    But of course, this CRM program is based on a book out of the stable of fiction writers at the Discovery Institute! No fact is left untwisted, no real cause ever examined . . . there is a trend there in the academic procedures, missing peer review, ignoring contrary evidence, and it seems to be spreading across disciplines.

    It is fair to note that Darwin wondered in print about the effects of artificial selection being practiced on humans. It is unfair, inaccurate, and a distortion of the facts, to claim Darwin advocated anything that could be construed to be supportive of the Holocaust. If you guys aren't troubled by the errors of biology in the CRM special, I would hope you'd at least get worked up about the gross errors in history, economics and theology.

Comment by edarrell — August 24, 2006 @ 7:36 am

33. Bradford Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 8:44 am

    It is fair to note that Darwin wondered in print about the effects of artificial selection being practiced on humans. It is unfair, inaccurate, and a distortion of the facts, to claim Darwin advocated anything that could be construed to be supportive of the Holocaust. If you guys aren't troubled by the errors of biology in the CRM special, I would hope you'd at least get worked up about the gross errors in history, economics and theology.

    Noone has claimed that Darwin intentionally advocated anything supportive of the holocaust. Rather the argument appears to be that some seized on an idea and twisted it for their own ends. As for the errors in biology was this program already aired? What were the specific biological errors? What were the theological errors?

Comment by Bradford — August 24, 2006 @ 8:44 am

34. Mesk Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 10:05 am

    Noone has claimed that Darwin intentionally advocated anything supportive of the holocaust. Rather the argument appears to be that some seized on an idea and twisted it for their own ends.

    Although there is certainly rampant confusion about exactly what is argued in the program itself, the argument here and elsewhere frequently goes further than this – rather, the claim is that the theory of evolution provided the fundamental intellectual platform on which Nazi eugenics rested, and indeed that the Holocaust would have been unlikely to have been instituted had evolution never been proposed.

    I'm no historian, so I have no intention of commenting on the role of the theory of evolution in Hitler's thinking (although historical ignorance doesn't seem to hinder many other people around here). Instead, I'll ask an open question: assuming that Hitler did draw inspiration from Darwin's theory, what implications should this have for the treatment of modern evolutionary theory now? If evolution does indeed have implications that inspired (and still inspire) eugenic arguments, is that a compelling reason for scientists to abandon or scale down research into biological evolution? Is it sufficient reason to abandon or alter the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools?

Comment by Mesk — August 24, 2006 @ 10:05 am

35. MikeGene Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 10:36 am

    Instead, I'll ask an open question: assuming that Hitler did draw inspiration from Darwin's theory, what implications should this have for the treatment of modern evolutionary theory now? If evolution does indeed have implications that inspired (and still inspire) eugenic arguments, is that a compelling reason for scientists to abandon or scale down research into biological evolution? Is it sufficient reason to abandon or alter the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools?

    My answers would be none, no, and no. One could just as easily argue that the Holocaust would not have occured without technology, yet no one seems to be criticizing technology and the crucial role it played.

    It's actually quite unfortunate that Kennedy is muddying the water by making this yet another anti-evolution/anti-Darwin issue. So once again, people get distracted by defending and attacking evolution/Darwin when the real concern for the future is eugenics. There is a lot of solid evidence for evolution, so if the debate centers around its validity, the eugenicists get to remain in their Trojan Horse as they defend science, Darwin, and evolution. Kennedy plays right into their hands.

    Anyway, I commented on new eugenics over a year ago here and here.

Comment by MikeGene — August 24, 2006 @ 10:36 am

36. Joy Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    Mesk:

    Although there is certainly rampant confusion about exactly what is argued in the program itself, the argument here and elsewhere frequently goes further than this – rather, the claim is that the theory of evolution provided the fundamental intellectual platform on which Nazi eugenics rested, and indeed that the Holocaust would have been unlikely to have been instituted had evolution never been proposed.

    These same sort of arguments have been lobbed back and forth from both sides for 60+ years. Hitler was a Christian/Catholic, so the holocaust was standard Christian death-dealing. Hitler expanded on US eugenics laws, so the holocaust was Darwin's fault. This is, I suspect, more of the same old same.

    Religion too easily lends itself to corruptions of pride and power. Reinhold Niebuhr wrote a great series of lectures specific to Hitler and fascism as it was happening (The Nature and Destiny of Man). Darwinism too easily lends itself to eugenic zeal. The very fact that Darwin's family has been so closely allied to eugenics since its beginnings testifies to the easy extrapolation. And given Hitler's notable example, there are significant lessons we should have learned.

    When a die-hard DarwinDefender who regularly and publicly advocates eugenic solutions to the existence of religious people spends a lot of energy denying the Darwinian link to eugenics (and the eugenic link to the holocaust), it's reasonable to notice the gross inconsistency. Holocaust denial of any sort isn't a particularly progressive political stance, and PZ Myers wants to be a progressive political spokesperson as much as he is a Neodarwinist and atheist spokesperson. It would just be another fringe weirdo spouting a-historical crap if PZ's forum weren't the #1 science blog on the planet.

    If evolution does indeed have implications that inspired (and still inspire) eugenic arguments, is that a compelling reason for scientists to abandon or scale down research into biological evolution?

    No, but it's a plenty good reason for scientists who don't share PZ Myers' oversized ego and political ambitions to denounce him loudly and regularly for corrupting science with his twisted ideology. Had more scientists denounced eugenics as a corruption of science at the turn of the last century, Hitler would not have been able to claim his genocidal policies were justified by science.

    Because so long as evolution is overtly linked in the public mind with the calls of rabid haters for genocide, the public has every reason to resist strongly. I don't know how any intelligent person could believe otherwise. Evolution may be dispassionate biological fact, but if it threatens life and liberty as well as future generations, it's not something anyone needs to embrace. Humans have great capacity for evil, but that doesn't mean humans should embrace evil. It just means we should learn to recognize it when we see it so we can turn purposefully away from it.

Comment by Joy — August 24, 2006 @ 1:52 pm

37. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Mesk asked:

    Instead, I'll ask an open question: assuming that Hitler did draw inspiration from Darwin's theory,

    As someone who hads been part of the month long Kennedy video series (see: Crocker, Sisson, Cordova, Chenette: TV special on ID in Higher Education (Coral Ridge Hour), and someone in the same denomination (though different Presbytery) as Kennedy's, I'll volunteer some answers.

    what implications should this have for the treatment of modern evolutionary theory now?

    Public tax dollars need not be invested it. Research funds can come from private individuals, and should not be collected on a compulsory basis from people who reject the theory on a scientific and moral basis. I have no problem with scientists pursuing the theory, but they'll have to do so with someone else's money, not mine….I prefer money be invested in other scientific disciplines like space exploration or super-colliders which requires a large critical mass of money to make breakthroughs.

    If evolution does indeed have implications that inspired (and still inspire) eugenic arguments, is that a compelling reason for scientists to abandon or scale down research into biological evolution?

    Not in and of itself. I would have science scaled down only because its bad science, not because it might tell us something we don't like or because it has a metaphysical implication we don't like. Truth is immutable and not subject to our biases.

    Is it sufficient reason to abandon or alter the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools?

    No. However, I think allowing scientific criticisms to be aired in public schools is the proper thing to do, though not politically expidient. Even if the motivation for teaching the controversy may or may not be religious, if evolutionary theory has scientific holes in it, it is sceintifically irresponsible to sweep scientific issues under the rug.

    I have pointed out geneticist John Sanford has made a very good case from his field of expertise regarding evolutionary theory. Scientific issues like those he raises should be allowable in public schools. (Incidentally, Sanford was an advocate of eugenics prior to becoming an ID proponent).

    As far as Kennedy's program, the audience he appeals to filters truth according to its moral consequences. If an idea (be it scientific or otherwise) is at variance with moral values, moral values will take precedence. In their mind, something immoral cannot be founded in truth. I do not quite have the same epistemology, and I'm not sure Kennedy does either. However, he is cognizant of the way his audience makes their inferences about reality, and he adjusts his message accordingly. When I taught a Bilble study 4 years ago to those in the PCA church (same as Kennedy's), I found out the hard way to most people filtered truth in terms of social and moral issues, not empirical and theoretical issues. I found the average person does not have the scientific/logical epistemology which comes so naturally to most of us participating in these discussions. Its like pulling teeth to get them to study ID or creation science from the standpoint of science alone!!!

    For the record, since people might be curious, apart from the Nicene Creed and the PCA's Westmistern Confession of Faith which I am in agreement with (except possibly for the issue of work on the Sabbath), I have no opinion on any of his other supposed ideas. He has been accused of believing a lot of things, and I simply am not interested in pursuing the matter further….

    And finally, it was the 16 pages in his book Why I believe that got me started studying ID because of his chapter on origin of life. I was always impressed with his willingness to refer to the works of those who did not share his theological views.

    He will be introducing Behe, Johnson, and Wells to his congregation and listeners. I hope this will further interest in the topic of ID in the PCA. I suggested this is a good thing in my essay ID continues to invade creationist culture.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2006 @ 2:39 pm

38. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Joy or other TT authors,

    Somehow my editing above got messed up. Feel free to edit out the dupicate portion at the beginning. The portions from the bottom up have the correct editing changes. Sorry for the trouble.

    Sal

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 24, 2006 @ 3:08 pm

39. Joy Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    Um… looks fine to me, Sal. Am I missing something?

Comment by Joy — August 24, 2006 @ 3:21 pm

40. Guts Says:
    August 24th, 2006 at 3:38 pm

    Thats because i fixed it But I messed up and worked my way from the top down. Sorry about that. Feel free to repost if you need to clarify anything and I'll delete the original one above.

Comment by Guts — August 24, 2006 @ 3:38 pm

41. edarrell Says:
    August 25th, 2006 at 5:41 am

    Mr. Cordova said:
    

    Public tax dollars need not be invested it. Research funds can come from private individuals, and should not be collected on a compulsory basis from people who reject the theory on a scientific and moral basis.

    Thus does Mr. Cordova go on the record, opposed to the eradication of the Argentine fire ant from North America, in favor of the cotton boll weevil and against the U.S. cotton industry, opposed to Kansas wheat farming, in favor of malaria, etc., etc.

    What about blood banks, Sal? Opposed to them, too?

Comment by edarrell — August 25, 2006 @ 5:41 am

42. Mesk Says:
    August 25th, 2006 at 5:47 am

    Mike and Joy,

    Thanks – all food for thought.

    Salvador,

    You seem to contradict yourself. On the one hand:

    Research funds can come from private individuals, and should not be collected on a compulsory basis from people who reject the theory on a scientific and moral basis.

    …yet on the other:

    I would have science scaled down only because its bad science, not because it might tell us something we don't like or because it has a metaphysical implication we don't like.

    So should morality play a role in determining research funding, or not?

Comment by Mesk — August 25, 2006 @ 5:47 am

43. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    August 25th, 2006 at 10:31 am

    Mesk said:

    You seem to contradict yourself.

    I was referring to the implications of a field of study like evolutionary biology. I was saying if the implications of a field of study disproved a metaphysical hypothesis, that should not be reason to scale it down. For example, I have no probelm with some guy trying to look at gene sequences to guess a phylogeny.

    There was the implicit stipulation that a research program would not use unethical methods to achieve its ends. For example, testing drugs on people without proper consent, or willfully deceiving them about their role in medical research. I did not mean to suggest ethics could be violated.

    So should morality play a role in determining research funding, or not?

    If its coming out of my pocket, it will.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 25, 2006 @ 10:31 am

44. Smokey Says:
    August 25th, 2006 at 11:59 am

    Sal wrote:
    "As far as Kennedy's program, the audience he appeals to filters truth according to its moral consequences."

    It's clear that truth has no moral significance to them.

    "If an idea (be it scientific or otherwise) is at variance with moral values, moral values will take precedence."

    Ah, but we are also talking about facts, not merely ideas.

    "In their mind, something immoral cannot be founded in truth."

    That doesn't explain their behavior. What does explain their behavior is the hypothesis that truth has no moral relevance to them.

    "I do not quite have the same epistemology, and I'm not sure Kennedy does either. However, he is cognizant of the way his audience makes their inferences about reality, and he adjusts his message accordingly."

    Are you saying that his message is dishonest?

    "I was referring to the implications of a field of study like evolutionary biology."

    But you can't limit it like that, because MET impacts every field of biology. How do you feel about cell biology, for example? Is it immoral?

Comment by Smokey — August 25, 2006 @ 11:59 am

45. g arago Says:
    August 25th, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    Let me just add two things and another question:

    Mesk wrote:

    "assuming that Hitler did draw inspiration from Darwin's theory, what implications should this have for the treatment of modern evolutionary theory now?"

    It would lead us to investigate the social scientific relevance of evolutionary theories, including the legacy of social Darwinism, which constitutes not only a past but a present situation both in America and 'abroad.'

    Salvador Cordova wrote:

    "Even if the motivation for teaching the controversy may or may not be religious, if evolutionary theory has scientific holes in it, it is sceintifically irresponsible to sweep scientific issues under the rug."

    O.k., if you are saying the phraseology of 'teach the controversy' is religiously motivated, that's at least putting the cards on the table. I wonder then, would you say *which evolutionary theories* you think have holes in them and that should be investigated? I.e., you have said here previously that computers 'evolve,' and that technology 'evolves' – it seems you are just attacking Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian Evolution. Is this an accurate portrayal of your views? Should money then legitimately go to scientifically studying how technology 'evolves'?

    Question: Did Adolf Hitler study any natural science(s) at a level of higher education?

    Arago

Comment by g arago — August 25, 2006 @ 12:41 pm

46. Joy Says:
    August 25th, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    Mesk asked Sal:

    So should morality play a role in determining research funding, or not?

    Sal responded:

    If its coming out of my pocket, it will.

    Gee, you two! I'd go much farther. Because the truth about eugenics law and practice in this country and Germany (in particular) is that privately funded research was the backbone of the 'movement' and the scientists who benefitted didn't bother to ask about moral/ethical considerations – they just signed on to the fraud.

    Fact is, American science (publicly funded academic science as well as executive agency policies drawn from it) informed the lawmaking efforts, assisted greatly by grants for research from private endowments such as the Rockefeller and Carnegie Foundations. Appealing to the racist and prejudicial proclivities of the elites who both established the eugenics fraud in the first place and populated its "think tanks" throughout the 20th century to this very day, the most amazingly despicable things were done.

    It was a felony in the state of Virginia for a white person to marry anyone with even one drop of Indian, Asian, Negro or other nonwhite blood (this law served as the model for the Nuremberg laws) until the law was overturned by the US Supreme court in 1966. The AMA's ophthalmology section crusaded to "identify all those with vision problems and their extended families, and then to prohibit their marriage, confine them to concentration camps, and forcibly sterilize them." These top ophthalmology leaders concocted, with the knowledge of its national membership and the assistance of Columbia University's dean [Stone], legislation introduced in New York's state legislature in April of 1921 [Bill Number 1597]. It didn't pass, but ophthalmologists reintroduced it year after year. [Origins of Hate, The American Lawyer, September 2003]

    Note: Curiously, Black appears to have omitted entirely from his research and examination the US policy to sterilize orphans as a class targeted for eugenics. Perhaps no one mentioned these thousands of innocent victims to him. An odd omission, IMO.

    For a good run-down on the most prominent application of the "New Eugenics" right now in 2006, I urge you to read The Power to Classify, Reform Judaism, Winter 2003. And everything included in Edwin Black's deeply researched book War Against the Weak Which begins…

    How American corporate philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States, helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele "” and then created the modern movement of "human genetics."

    This is information the public should know, because the new version is being ratcheted up a notch every few weeks in the sociopolitical world of the 21st century and more of us get classified as targets for victimization every day. It's still a great fraud, it's still largely corporately controlled and financed, and it's still claiming that it's science.

    Things like this don't get fixed because elitist bigots, wannabe social engineers, medical monsters, scientific frauds and laisse faire capitalists suddenly start sprouting consciences. They get fixed when We the People insist that our political leadership do something legally forceful to cut it off at the root – or change our political leadership to install representatives who will do our bidding. Stop funding it, stop lending it legitimacy through law and lax oversight, stop dancing to the grim reaper's gold-plated tootling. Just stop it.

    According to PZ and his ilk, the prime thrust must be re-targeted at citizens with religious moral/ethical sensibilities because those people have enough power-of-numbers to stand in the way. Do we wait until they come for us?

Comment by Joy — August 25, 2006 @ 3:06 pm

47. Joy Says:
    August 25th, 2006 at 8:42 pm

    Edwin Black: "It is true that one would think that this is just a couple of backyard racists somewhere in Mississippi. In fact one-third of sterilizations at any given time were done in California. Connecticut was a hotbed of this genocidal program. In fact, in 1938, at the time when Jews were being turned into refugees across Europe, the Carnegie Institution was planning with the governor of Connecticut to create domestic refugees for the people of Connecticut who did not measure up to the eugenic expectations of Harry Laughlin who was the Carnegie Institution's man.

    "I think what we have seen throughout history that these great men are capable of great fraud in the name of great science. This was an international movement which was applied locally. And the individuals behind its international movement represented the brightest and the best in the American establishment, the judges, the bank presidents, the wealthy people.

    "It shows exactly how prejudice and racism works, and it comes down to this formula, this important formula that I call A+B. A is the fear of the out group, that somebody is different from you, and B is a sense of arrogance that creates a discriminatory feeling. What elevates that discriminatory urge from just a personal animosity to something more powerful? That's where we come in with C.

    "We come in with money because money purveys power. And so consequently, the money of the …money of the Carnegie Institution, of the Rockefeller Foundation, elevated with backyard and back parlor racism and pseudoscience into a genuine movement of institutional accepted and settled science and knowledge. It was all fraud. It was all based on nothing. We must guard against this in the future.

    "We must always ask ourselves why and we must never be convinced by credentials when it comes time to diminishing the quality of life of our neighbors." [emphasis mine]

Comment by Joy — August 25, 2006 @ 8:42 pm

48. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    August 26th, 2006 at 12:45 am

    Joy,

    Apparently you are becoming quite famous.

    President of Discovery Institute Recognizes Joy

    

    Salvador

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 26, 2006 @ 12:45 am