Rewriting History: Holocaust Denial
by JoyOur semi-annoying, semi-enlightening commenter and sometimes contributor Thought Provoker has spent the better part of the past week valiantly attempting to defend Charles Darwin from Ben Stein's charge in the movie Expelled that Darwinism led to eugenics, and eugenics led to Adolph Hitler's eugenics laws, which led to… The Holocaust.
I admit to sensitivity on this issue, as both my Godparents were Jews, very recent immigrants from Europe. Both of them had tattoos and had lost their entire families in the Holocaust. They never had any children of their own. Can you guess why? So I got 'indoctrinated' very young in the importance of what Never Again! means.
My husband's Aunt Melba (still spry but blind at 96) was sterilized as an adolescent when she and her sister were dropped off at an orphanage back when being an orphan was considered a symptom of "undesirable genetic inheritance" in America. So both sides of this family have some eugenics horror stories in the family album and a serious commitment to making sure it never happens again.
These family stories are related. Such things were as common when I was growing up as unfortunate survivors of polio and thalidomide babies and radiation-induced cancer clusters from atmospheric bomb testing. What happened to my Godparents had its insidious roots in what happened to Aunt Melba years earlier in Oklahoma. Direct, irrefutable connections, as history amply documents in collections from Cold Spring Harbor to the Holocaust Museum.
It just hasn't been that long - the history isn't ancient. I can understand why the history is uncomfortable to those who defend Darwin himself, and who want to blame Hitler on Christianity. But that does not excuse historical revision or holocaust denial. This thread is for discussion of the actual history of eugenics, its scientific support and medical practitioners, its connection to Darwinism, the propaganda that sold it to populations in the US and Europe, and how it got turned into Holocaust by the sick, twisted mind of Adolph Hitler. Having laid out my commitments to Never Again! I expect that if you want to comment, you will do your homework first. Those archival links again are:
Cold Spring Harbor
Holocaust Museum
The Tartan: Eugenics exhibit at Andy Warhol Museum
Salon: Playing God
Pertinent quote from the ushmm Deadly Medicine exhibit -
"Support of eugenics was by no means unique to the German scientific community," explains exhibition curator Susan Bachrach. "Leading scientific voices throughout the industrialized world supported eugenics, and sterilization laws were enacted in a number of countries including the United States. However, only in Nazi Germany was eugenic sterilization implemented on a mass scale, and only there did it pave the road to mass murder."
Eugenics theory sprang from late 19th-century beliefs asserting that Charles Darwin's theories of the "survival of the fittest" should be applied to humans. Proponents everywhere argued that by keeping the "unfit" alive to reproduce and multiply, modern medicine and costly care interfered with "natural selection." Supporters, spanning the political spectrum, believed that through careful controls on marriage and reproduction, a nation's "genetic health" could be improved.
I apologize for my anger in that other thread, TP. I will make an effort to control my temper. But I'm not going to be happy to see holocaust denial per the connection between Darwinism and eugenics, or eugenics and The Holocaust. Yes, Hitler was definitely a sick and twisted man. He justified his egomania and weird racial/sexual/occult mishmash of a philosophy any way he could, drawing from every influence he could name. He was inconsistent and he lied, even to himself. A lot. But what he did to millions of innocent people required support at high diplomatic, financial, scientific, inter-governmental and medical levels, from supposedly 'sane' people - a world full of 'em. That's the plain, unvarnished truth of history. Please don't play games with it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Sometimes the truth is painful. Let's pray that the world never sees that kind of evil again. As I look at our current world, I wonder.
Comment by nobody — April 23, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I guess I'll just paste this here from the other thread. All this arguing about what Darwin did or did not say made me pick up a copy of The Descent of Man, while I was at the library. I found a few interesting passages, that will no doubt add fuel to this fire. First one:
(from Part I, chap. VII, On the Formation of the Races of Man, p.240)
The fact that Darwin referred to Aryans and Jews in the same sentence struck me as rather interesting. Absent is any value placed on the two different terms. And as far as I can tell, it's the only place where Darwin refers to Aryans. But it makes me wonder if Darwin is referring to something that was taken for granted in British society. Looking up Broca might help. Does anyone know more about this?
And then at the very end of his book, Darwin makes his opinion quite explicit:
(Part II, Chap. XXI, p.403)
That certainly sounds like a call for Eugenics, once we know more about the laws of biological inheritance.
Comment by Bilbo — April 23, 2008 @ 7:50 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
nobody:
I let TP get to me, but wow. I had to blow off steam by hiking at a brisk pace all the way to the Indian ruins on the Mount Mitchell Graphite Trail - 3 miles in, 3 out. I cried remembering Harold Horowitz (my Godfather), who used to take me on hikes to photograph wildlife. What a horror it was! How can anybody try to cover up?
Then, after sleeping on it, I realized this might be a good opportunity to open some real dialogue on the matter. Hitler was a sick man, responsible for his own twisted megalomania. But he had a whole lot of help. I get the feeling we haven't really come to terms with it. And if we haven't done that much, history will inevitably repeat itself. That's more important than my sensitivities.
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Darwin popularized the natural selection concept. Subsequent developments (like for example the study of bacterial resistence) which cite selection, have been been positvely credited to theories traced to Darwin as witnessed by recent comments at this blog. If Darwin's ideas can be positvely lauded then negative feedback is fair game as well. Nothing I know about the man leads me to think he would be comfortable with the Final Solution but ideas have a way of spawning positive and negative future effects.
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I was fine with everything in this post until I came to the following sentence:
I'm wondering why exactly Joy decided to emphasize the connection to Charles Darwin in this chain. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. Knowledge is power and power can be misused. With that kind of logic I can tie the killing of millions in world wars to successes in mechanics, thermodynamics, and materials sciences, which enabled the development of powerful rifles, machine guns and artillery. Shall we blame Einstein's E=mc^2 for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
And if we are ready to put the blame on Newton, Darwin and Einstein, what should be our next step? Ban scientific research altogether?
Just asking.
Comment by olegt — April 23, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
It said Darwinism, not Darwin. Are you upset when current developments in biology are credited to him?
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:25 pm
olegt:
I emphasized the Darwinism connection because that was the 'science' connection used to sell eugenics to both the scientific communities and the public. I already addressed your physics issue in the other thread. They are responsible. So is Harry Truman, who actually did the dirty deed. There are relative levels of importance of influence, but for the individual that shouldn't count. That's the definition of self-justification by appeal to authority, and we didn't let it fly at Nuremberg, it won't fly now. How anybody rests with their conscience is not my problem. The results of bad choices sometimes affect all of us adversely.
I like science. Grew up surrounded by it and immersed in it. Believe strongly in its value, while somewhat jaded by its corruptions. Eugenics was a corruption. I don't think it's wise for your camp to try and deny it at this point.
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:32 pm
P.S. to oleg, so he'll drop this line…
Einstein's Letters to Roosevelt
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Hi Joy,
No games.
Again, I apologize for getting you angry.
I am not a holocaust denier.
In fact, the threat of another holocaust is all too real to me.
All it takes is a critical mass of organized people who think they know the Truth.
P.S. I agree that the Nazi's ability to execute the Holocaust was helped by the presence of the eugenics program.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 23, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
TP:
Or people who deny they know it but behave as if they know what's best for rest of us.
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 8:58 pm
TP:
Thanks, TP. I just couldn't fit you in my mind with the denial that's coming out of the likes of PZ and gang about this. It's way, way too evident.
The truth - big or little 't', in truth - can set us free. But only if we know what it is, and talk about it as if it matters. You know I'm not a religious fundamentalist, that I have some scientific experience, and that I have a very bad attitude towards corruption both in religion and science. Now maybe you know why (or, part of it).
We'll never come to terms with real corruption of science unless we acknowledge history in this glaring example. God knows the examples of corruption religion presents are obvious enough. Nobody's denying them (and getting away with it).
This is a serious matter. It deserves serious consideration, not forensic one-up-manship. You're too good for that on this subject.
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Joy and Bradford,
Eugenics was in the realm of public policy, as were Einstein's letters to Roosevelt. Public policy is orthogonal to science, a point Allen and I have been making on these threads for a while. I don't think we have seen an adequate response.
None of you has addressed another question I asked: if science is to blame for the society's ills, should we stop doing science? If not then what the heck is your point?
Comment by olegt — April 23, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
You're welcome and thank you for being understanding.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 23, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
olegt:
Tell it to PZ and the gang. You know, the ones who turn sponsored, supposedly "scientific" blogs into platforms for their politics and social (public) policy dreams. They're making jack asses of you all.
Nobody said science is to blame for "the" society's ills. Whose society are you talking about? Last I checked, the Nazis lost the war. Of course, they might have won some parts of South America in the negotiations, but let's face it - those guys are all dead or 100 years old now. What we need to do is make sure it never happens again. Never Again!
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Hi Oleg,
Maybe it is time for another NOMA discussion.
[hears groans in the background]
When Dawkins and P.Z. Myers reject Gould's NOMA, it is a big read flag that they are trying to declare the Truth for everyone.
Of course, the same goes for the other side.
Even though it is very difficult, we need to keep science and philosophy separated.
It is hardest when politics is involved.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 23, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Joy wrote:
ScienceBlogs are sponsored by Seed Media Group, a private science media and communications company. If you have a problem with their content, take the matter to the company.
Comment by olegt — April 23, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I have said all I need to say about this subject on the previous thread on this topic. I have attempted to make the same points at Uncommon Descent, but the majority of the commentators there seem determined to implicate all evolutionary biologists (past, present, and future) in both eugenics and the holocaust (not to mention social darwinism). To me, this is no different from blaming Lisa Meitner and Otto Hahn for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and just as wrong-headed.
The problem is not (and never was) Darwin's theory or its more modern incarnations. The problem is the misuse of science in the pursuit of hideously immoral economic, political, and social ends. That is why I always include a lecture and lengthy discussion of eugenics, social darwinism, and the terrible history of the 20th century in my evolution courses at Cornell.
Would it be asking too much to have the decency to acknowledge the foregoing, and to advocate that Jews and Christians turn the same critical eye on their own histories, and to point out the same perversions of their own traditions in the name of religious ethnic cleansing and genocide?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 23, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:34 pm
olegt:
Who said science is to blame? There was an abuse of the selection concept.
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
TP
Yup.
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Hi, olegt. You wrote:
As far as I can tell, no one is blaming science for society's ills. There is danger, however, in believing that the entire solution to society's ills lies in science alone.
I found it terribly interesting, for example, that the U.S. Holocaust Museum titled its piece on eugenics in the Weimar Republic (1919-1933) "Science as Salvation." See http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/artic...
It's worth pondering: to what do we look for the salvation of the human species? As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote: "Nothing worth doing can be completed in one lifetime; therefore we must be saved through hope. Nothing that is true or beautiful or good has complete meaning in the immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved through faith. Nothing that we have, though it be full of virtue, can be accomplished by one person alone; therefore we must be saved through love."
Do scientists know anything about this? If so, please speak up.
Comment by Lutepisc — April 23, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Allen:
This is what I've wanted to see acknowledged, rather than denied. I do not think that's a whole lot to expect. If we can agree that science can be corrupted and misused, we will have a handle on what went wrong. Because - let's face it - science carries a lot more weight in the modern world that the Pope does. It's just a fact.
No. That's not what this thread is for. I have admitted readily the sins of religion, for years and years on this subject. It's done to death, we all know what's what. I am appealing to rational people to take just as hard a look at science - and Darwinism in particular - for the sins scientists, doctors and politicians committed in its name. I think it might help to level the playing field a little bit, and that seems apropos to me at this point.
Tough titty.
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Hi chunkdz,
Did you look into it, or did you let Steven Ertelt do your thinking for you?
Here is Peter Singer's FAQ. You probably still won't like it, but at least it will be his actual views, not a strawman.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 23, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
olegt:
I know, Oleg. They hear from me regularly. They don't seem to think I count, though I am myself a sciblogger. Huh. I think science is fascinating enough to draw a loyal audience just covering science. What would I know?
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I suggest it wasn't exactly fair to compare all of science to a single person.
How about comparing all of science to all of religion?
Or, better yet, comparing the influence of the Pope to last year's Nobel Prize winner.
Let's see… Who was that… Oh yea, Al Gore.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 23, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Joy wrote:
And that was precisely what I have acknowledged, have always acknowledged, and will always acknowledge. So, do you acknowledge that not all evolutionary biologists deny the connections between Darwin's theory of evolution (as it was in the latter half of the 19th century), and that some of us (including Will Provine and myself, but also many, many others) feel exactly the same way you do about this issue?
That would go a long way toward putting my mind a little more at ease on this subject.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 23, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Hi, Allen_MacNeill. You wrote:
Gimme a break. Many of us who follow TT also follow UD, and it's obvious that the majority of commentators aren't implicating "all evolutionary biologists." Jeez.
And then you wrote:
Oh, puh-leez. On UD, I (as one poster) just discussed Luther's heinous remarks. Confirming the proposition of another poster, I replied:
"Luther's most celebrated biographer, Roland Bainton (a Quaker), writes:
"Luther's position could more accurately be described as "˜anti-Judaism' than as "˜anti-Semitism.' Anti-Judaism, it goes without saying, is disrespectful of the integrity of Judaism, and contains the seeds of disrespect for the Jewish people. But Luther's goal would have been the baptism of every Jew, not their incineration. The biological rationale undergirding "˜racial cleansing' was nowhere in his world view."¨The position he took toward the end of his life, and the tract he wrote, left a permanent stain on his reputation. And contemporary Lutherans have acknowledged and deplored Luther's words and their role in shaping modern anti-Semitism.
http://www.elca.org/ecumenical...
The world would be a better place, I believe, if those who lay claim to Darwin's heritage could acknowledge the horrible uses to which his ideas have been put."
So, Mr. McNeill, where would we find this? Thank you.
Comment by Lutepisc — April 23, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Lutepisk asked:
In everything I have ever taught or written on this subject, including my upcoming introductory textbook Evolution: The Darwinian Revolutions (currently under contract with John Wiley and Sons). If you have indeed been following the same arguments at Uncommon Descent, then you know this to be the case. Ergo, why ask here, except to give the opposite impression? You're welcome.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 23, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Allen Mc:
Dr. McNeill, I have long respected your position and your physical efforts to address all these issues head-on. In school.
I am concerned about denial in the wake of Expelled. I'm seeing way, way too much denial of a most insidious sort. I cannot let it slide.
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Hi Joy,
Are you giving Ben Stein et al a pass for abusing the suffering of millions for political purposes?
It isn't denial to say things were more complicated than suggesting if Darwin hadn't existed, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened.
You may disagree with me, but I think the root causes ran deeper than an abuse of science.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 23, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
No. Science was not misused. The science of eugenics is sound, and the technology of eugenics was used as intended. The Darwins understood that it was just animal husbandry - objectively tried and true, scientifically testable and falsifiable. It works.
As soon as Darwin's family and friends opened the door to animal husbandry on humans (after all, Darwin's big revelation was that we're all just animals, right?), the subjective element was unleashed like pandora's box. An animal breeder can subjectively pick and choose whichever traits are desirable or undesirable. Runts can be eliminated as "unfit" or "burdensome" like pigs, or they can be kept and bred further for "cuteness", like dogs. Once humans are determined to be just animals, there is no objective reason to value one trait over another. Indeed, the problem that the Darwin family was trying to fix was that human compassion was messing up the gene pool. Compassion became the faulty trait. They recognized that animal husbandry and selective breeding can compensate for that.
So Allen, it bothers me more than a little to hear you say that science was misused. It was used perfectly and effectively. Science has nothing to say about the transcendental qualities of man. It should not be surprising then that different breeders have different goals in mind for their livestock. If the purpose of life really is just survival and producing fit offspring, then science should simply observe only that the fit survived and the unfit died.
The only thing that was misused was the term "Human". Reduce the meaning of "human" to "just another animal", and eugenics is fair game, and the scientific data is well supported. Eugenics is only abhorrent to those who recognize that there is something transcendently special about humans.
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Allen:
Christianity acknowledges the imperfection or fallen nature of man. So Christians will agree with you that people do bad things, and will continue to do bad things, regardless of which group or groups they belong to.
And, that is where they differ from secularists. Secularists generally believe in the perfectibility of man, and will justify terrible acts of violence to achieve their vision for mankind.
Its the age old question - is man born good, not good? Or do you believe that man is just born, and that good and bad are not real concepts?
Comment by David — April 23, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
You don't need to believe in transcendental powers to argue that humans are special.
Comment by olegt — April 23, 2008 @ 11:17 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
chunkdz,
You wrote…
Is this your version of using your absolute morality to pontificate your absolute Truth?!?!?
I don't know the Truth, but I happen to find eugenics abhorrent.
I also happen to find government sanctioned murder (executions) to be abhorrent and inexcusable.
Do you?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 23, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
TP,
Yes.
You're a dick. And you're rude.
"Provoking Thought"
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Spell it out. Is Stein ushering in the vast right wing conspiracy, creating an atmosphere of threatiness or something else? Where exactly is the evidence of political purpose?
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
olegt,
Well, I didn't say anything about transcendental powers, but why do you think humans are special?
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
TP:
Of course it does. It ALWAYS does. The good and the evil of human psyche always justifies itself. I am trying to address here the abuse of science. Because I think it's important for people to know that science can be abused, corrupted and abused. As easily as religion - because that's who science pretends it's in competition with these days. As usual.
Forget the past and we'll repeat it, guaranteed. Go ahead and admit the abuse of science. It doesn't hurt, honest.
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 pm
chunkdz:
Whoa. I'm just trying to get them to admit misuse and corruption. You're going straight to the heart. They're not ready for that.
Comment by Joy — April 23, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
From the link supplied by chunkdz:
Singer is repeating the pattern established immediately prior to the rise of Nazism. Murder is intrinsically wrong but Singer opens the door for unscrupulous mass muderers to walk through. Some would define infants of certain ethnic backgrounds as defective ipso facto. Who gets to decide how disabled is defined?
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Hi Bradford,
You saw the movie.
By all means, please tell the listening audience Expelled was an unbiased documentary with no political message if that was the case.
Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from an interview with Ben Stein…
"Jerry: Why did you personally agree to participate in the film?
Ben: Because I had always had very serious anger about Darwinism, because I think Darwinism led to the Holocaust. I think this belief that there are superior and inferior races, and that the superior races had a moral duty to eliminate the inferior races was one of the main building blocks of Nazism and the Holocaust, and I never thought that had gotten out enough." link
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 23, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
David asks:
"…do you believe that man is just born, and that good and bad are not real concepts?"
No. I believe that man (like all other living organisms) is "just born", but that good and bad are objective concepts that can be identified through rational thought and logical inference, rigorously applied. That's what ethical philosophers have been doing since at least the time of Socrates, and most of them have not justified their ethics by saying "it's right because God says so." On the contrary, if they have mentioned God at all, they have asserted that God is constrained to say so because it's right.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 23, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Nothing in chunkdz's post has anything to do with Darwinian evolutionary theory. On the contrary, it's all about the perversion of basic principles of animal and plant breeding, which people have been doing since prehistory. Nowhere in the Origin of Species will you read anything remotely like what he has posted here. And, you will search in vain in every textbook on evolutionary biology published in the last 50 years for anything like it as well.
What chunkdz is spewing, in other words, is character assassination and deliberate distortion of the facts for his own personal (and political) reasons. Ergo, I will never reply to any of his posts in the future, and recommend that anyone else here who is interested in honest intellectual debate refrain from doing so as well.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 23, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Joy,
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Bradford,
Why, the breeder, of course.
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Lies are even sharper, on both edges.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 23, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
April 24th, 2008 at 12:01 am
TP:
TP, nobody's claiming anything except that Expelled has a point about the Darwinism > Eugenics > Nazism connection. Please limit yourself to that subject, because you're starting to skirt the fringes here on my patience. This is a thread with a subject, and that subject is very specifically sociopolitical.
Neither you nor I have seen the film. Thus I will not tolerate talking points from partisans that you picked up elsewhere. I have warned you. No games.
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2008 @ 12:01 am
April 24th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
I thought we already got past that previously I wrote…
"So we are all agreed that the American eugenics program misused a scientific theory for philosophical/political purposes. We all agree that this was a bad idea and are personally philosophically opposed to it."
and more recently I wrote…
"P.S. I agree that the Nazi's ability to execute the Holocaust was helped by the presence of the eugenics program. "
Now, do you agree or disagree with Ben Stein's position that "Darwinism led to the Holocaust"
Or more specifically, do you think if Darwin hadn't existed that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened?
P.S. Joy, I will say goodnight before I irritate you any further.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 24, 2008 @ 12:01 am
April 24th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Yes I did and you did not which calls into question your judgement in making evaluations of it.
I've already stated more than once that I thought the main theme centered around freedom- freedom to believe and speak about one's beliefs without fear of retribution. The holocaust sub-theme is there but if that is political how is it characterized? Centrist, liberal, conservative? To what philosophical camp does it belong?
He clearly has strong feelings on this matter but if I did not know his background I would be unable to determine his political philosophy based on this quote.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2008 @ 12:03 am
April 24th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Allen:
Since ethical philosophers have been doing this since the time of Socrates, there's no shortage of objective definitions of "good" and "bad" rigorously defined through rational thought and logical inference. But, which is the right set of definitions? Who gets to decide? You?
And what if someone disagrees with you? Well, I guess that makes them irrational, illogical, and subjective. Is that what you believe?
I could go on, but the point I'm trying to make is that Christians have no trouble accepting your assertion that Christians have done really bad things. It is defined in their moral code. People are inherently bad, according to the Christian world view. They will always do bad things.
And they always do, don't they?
On the other hand, you believe, quite wrongly, that people are perfectible through their own efforts, as long as they just think rationally and logically and objectively. You didn't say that directly, but you implied it. If you don't think that people are perfectible, then I would ask that you reconsider your position regarding the ability of man to objectively define concepts such as "good" and "bad." I don't think you can have it both ways.
I suspect you'll rationalize your response by saying, we discover "good" and "bad" through trial and error. That the objective definition is always limited by our visibility and experience, but that over time, we learn and improve the definition so that after some period of time, we arrive at very reliable, usable definitions that can guide our actions.
But ultimately, that view shares the same flaw. Who (or what) gets to decide? What mechanism is there to ensure that the selection process leads to a definition of "right" and "wrong" that is truly objective? I think you can see how such a view could easily lead us towards a Brave New World
Comment by David — April 24, 2008 @ 1:14 am
April 24th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Allen,
I doubt that.
Not directly, no.
Yes, people have been doing it since prehistory. No, my post is not about perversion of animal and plant breeding.
And nowhere in my post will you read me making this claim. It is clear that you are arguing not with what I said, but with some imagined preconception of what I must be thinking.
So let me begin with this:
Charlie Darwin was not a eugenicist. He did not agree with eugenics. He did not agree with slavery. He was a compassionate man. He did recognize the transcendent specialness of mankind. In my estimation, he was a decent, honest man, a great biologist, and "Origins" was a well researched and compelling thesis.
Charlie also was not the first to imagine that man is just one of a myriad of animals descended from lowly origins. This idea had been around for some time. What Charlie did was to offer a compelling explanation for this assertion. He didn't know whether life sprung from one or several original forms, but it was implicit in "Origins" that man was an animal just like all the other animals. But Charlie still felt that mankind was special, possessing "God-like intellect".
But while the animal history of man was scientifically supportable, the "specialness" of man was not. Charlie did a great job demonstrating that man was an animal of lowly origins, but couldn't do much to prove that man's intellect was really "God-like".
But now the world had an explanation for man being simply an animal. It was now only a small matter for Cousin Francis to wonder if humans could be bred for intellect the same way a horse is bred for strength. Animal husbandry and herd culling was unthinkable on specially created humans, but on human animals it completely made sense. Of course, it would only be positive - for the benefit of the race. You can connect the dots from there.
The perversion, Allen, was not of animal husbandry, or of Darwin's theory. The perversion was not even of science. The perversion was the definition of what it meant to be human. When man became a mere animal, it was only a matter of time til he was treated like one.
Prove it.
Comment by chunkdz — April 24, 2008 @ 2:23 am
April 24th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Hi Chunkdz,
Nice restrained response. It beats the ones I've been writing and throwing away in your ( not needed ) defence.
By the way, Allen MacNeill says, contrary to your claim about Darwin, that Darwin did favor (positive) eugenics. http://www.uncommondescent.com...
Kudos professor for your honesty and many informed and helpful posts (of which your response to Chunkdz is not an example) but razzberries on your call to shun.
Comment by Pez — April 24, 2008 @ 2:55 am
April 24th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Allen_MacNeill opines:
Remember, you're merely expressing your personal opinion, which isn't a whit weightier than chunkdz's - or Peter Singer's.
What _you_ are "spewing" is every bit as personally and politically motivated as what the person who disagrees with you is "spewing."
Comment by turandot — April 24, 2008 @ 3:12 am
April 24th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Hey Chunkdz,
This is my perception as well as I've said before the scene in the movie that brought home the connection for me between Darwinism and the holocaust was not the long quote from Darwin or the archived Nazi footage it was Provine's explaining that his understanding of evolution allowed him to see that life was meaningless and his contemplating taking his own life.
It appeared that he thought of it as something akin to putting a sick dog to sleep. If that is what he truly thinks it is an attitude he shares with the Nazis and it's heart breaking.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 24, 2008 @ 3:22 am
April 24th, 2008 at 3:43 am
turandot wrote:
I meant to write: What _you_ are spewing is every bit as personally and politically motivated as what you accuse the person who disagrees with you of "spewing."
It seems to me that chunkdz summed up the Darwinism / Hitler
link quite honestly, and David's and fifth monarchy man's comments are also insightful.
Why are so many Darwinists convinced that life is cheap?
Dr. Provine's comments are heart-breaking. I hope he will come to believe that life really is meaningful and _he's_ meaningful to the people who love him and to the students who respect, admire, and care for him….
Oh, btw, I expect you'll be rushing to Martin Luther's and the Pope's defense … any minute now.
Comment by turandot — April 24, 2008 @ 3:43 am
April 24th, 2008 at 7:11 am
chunkdz said:
There is a problem with logic here, chunkdz. Biology does tell us that humans evolved from apes. But your further assertion rests on the assumption that belief in special creation is necessary for maintaining social order. That's not the case. For instance, animals maintain social order without even thinking about it. Social organization can emerge with time as an advantageous trait and can be stable against infractions because deviating from it is not beneficial to the group. Did it ever occur to you that human social order may be of the same type?
I am not saying we have a 100% proof of that, but you seem to dismiss such a possibility from the outset. And that is a loophole in your argument. So no, discovering that we are animals need not lead to social chaos.
Comment by olegt — April 24, 2008 @ 7:11 am
April 24th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Hi David,
You wrote…
I suggest that no one knows the Truth and, therefore, each one of us ultimately decides what is right and wrong.
Some people choose to externalize the responsibility rather than suffer the uncertainty that comes with making and defending a personal decision.
Whether the proxy of personal responsibility is given to a scientific, religious or political agency, history has shown that when it occurs on a large scale the results are horrific.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 24, 2008 @ 8:17 am
April 24th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Allen MacNiell wrote:
I commend you for this, but it's a drop in the bucket. What do you suppose it would take to get a statement of acknowledgement and repudiation passed by a recognized national or international organization of evolutionary biologists?
No, I'm not holding each and every evolutionary biologist responsible for the Holocaust, any more than I'm holding every Lutheran responsible for Luther's remarks. But the adoption of a position statement like this would be a socio-political act which would permit some reflection on the matter, raise the awareness of the membership, send a statement to the general public, and allow those who stand in Darwin's lineage an opportunity to repudiate and distance themselves from the horrendous uses to which his theory was put.
What do you suppose it would take to get a statement like this passed? A movement? A groundswell? In any case, more than a single evolutionary biologist making statements in a textbook or in class. It's a start, though…
Perhaps such a statement has already been passed. If so, please point us to it. I would find it tremendously reassuring, and I think Joy would too.
Comment by Lutepisc — April 24, 2008 @ 8:24 am
April 24th, 2008 at 9:44 am
David wrote:
This is a reasonably good start at how I think we come to discover what "good" and "bad" are. In my personal experience (and personal experiences are all each of us ever has, IMO), I have experienced conflicting emotions when presented with situations to which the concepts of "good" and "bad" are traditionally applied. From my parents and teachers (and other people in my social group) I have learned (usually by example) what they define as "good" and "bad". Using my own internal emotional and logical processes, I have compared their evaluations with my own. Often they have been congruent (we are a social species after all, and have had millions of years of selection shaping our internal emotional guidance systems), and then the only task has been to conform my behavior to what both my peers and my own motivations and experience have told me is the "right" thing to do.
However, when they conflict, then the hard work of reasoning out the "right" course of action begins. Once I have decided on a course of action (which, depending on the level of social coercion in play, may be congruent or divergent from that of my peers), I pay close attention to the consequences of my actions, and then either continue on the same course or change my course to more closely reflect the values of my peers.
This, I believe, is how everyone regulates one's behavior, including religious believers, who simply add the dictates of their deity(s) to the sources consulted when determining the "right" course(s) of action. Personally, I have rarely if ever observed that the dictates of any particular deity have been entirely divergent from that of the social group for whom that deity exists.
It appears to me that the ultimate decision is one's own, though guided by the deliberative processes I briefly outlined above.
I believe that I have outlined such a mechanism above, and that it conforms pretty well to what people in the real world (including, but not limited to, religious believers) do when trying to decide on what kinds of behavior are "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong".
Consider the doctrines of heaven and hell. What are these but additional rewards and punishments, the contemplation of which are simply added to the "moral calculus" I outlined above? The fact that both of them are considered by believers to be absolute and eternal is simply a way of biasing the calculation (see "Pascal's Wager" for a good demonstration of the use of such biasing). The problem, of course, is that very few people believe completely in these doctrines. Indeed, most people believe that they can "work the angles" in the same way that a gambler believes he can "work the system", and with generally the same dismal results. And because very few people are completely "one-minded" about all of this, people tend to act mostly in their own self interest, rather than in ways that conform to social or religious norms (which, IMO, are generally congruent).
So, there is no "magic fix" for any of this, including no "magic force" provided by a supernatural law giver (tempting as such a belief is to people who don't want to do the hard work of figuring all of this out for themselves). And it isn't sufficient to say that one's perspective will always come out on top as long as one chooses the "way of the angels." In another thread someone tried to assert that the reason that the Allies won in WWII was because they had God on their side. Well, the Russians certainly didn't feel that way, but a very strong argument can be made that the Russians won WWII (with a little bit of help from their friends, of course).
Anyway, what ultimately won WWII was not moral authority, but rather overwhelming violent force on the part of the Allies, directed in the end mostly against civilian populations. Ask any resident of Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Tokyo. They may believe that they "deserved" to be bombed, and therefore to lose the war, but that's simply a rationalization that makes having lost what they once thought was an invincible conflict.
We are now in the position of the Germans and Japanese following WWII. Let's hope we learn just a little of the self-restraint and commitment to peaceful resolution of conflicts that our former enemies have exhibited for the past half century.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 24, 2008 @ 9:44 am
April 24th, 2008 at 9:49 am
TP:
This is a snippet of an interview response quote mined for your purposes, which are spurious. Ben Stein can think whatever he wants. I think Hitler was very much influenced by Darwinism and its horrendous misuse in the first half of the 20th century in the so-called "civilized" world. This is quite clear from his thinking, as expressed by him in his writings.
I think if Adolph Hitler never existed, the Holocaust would not have occurred. And another 20 million people (or so) killed by the war would not have died in war. Japan and China probably would have had their spat anyway, though.
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2008 @ 9:49 am
April 24th, 2008 at 9:54 am
American Society of Human Genetics: Eugenics and The Misuse of Genetic Information to Restrict Reproductive Freedom … Therefore, the Board of Directors of the American Society of Human Genetics reaffirms its commitment to the fundamental principle of reproductive freedom and unequivocally declares its opposition to coercion based on genetic information.
AMA: Principles of medical ethics. I. A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.
AMA: Confronting eugenics. Does the now discredited practice have relevance to today's technology?
Most modern scientific and medical organizations have ethics policies. By the way, Plato's Republic advocated government control of reproduction on the Spartan model. It's all his fault.
Comment by Zachriel — April 24, 2008 @ 9:54 am
April 24th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Hi Allen,
You write:
Why isn't your outline actually one of a subjective right and wrong? That's what it looks like to me. TP says we each decide right and wrong as well. How is this not relativism rather than objectivism? Do we define objective truths as differing personal opinions in other disciplines?
Comment by Pez — April 24, 2008 @ 9:54 am
April 24th, 2008 at 10:52 am
There is a logical problem but it lies with your view olegt. You do not need to link special creation with the necessity for maintaining social order. Millions who do not believe in special creation nevertheless make a distinction between the treatment of humans and the treatment of animals. The point is obvious but if it is difficult to see then take a trip to a kennel. Those conditions (imprisonment without trial and sale to the highest bidder) are perfectly legal.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2008 @ 10:52 am
April 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Allen Mc:
Nonsense. We are mere animals, we have no freedom of will to do anything but follow the dictates of our selfish genes, remember? So how in the world could any human do anything objectively "good" or "bad?" Your selfish genes will quite likely come into conflict with my selfish genes over that last puddle of oil. That's why we have wars. Is that not what you believe?
Too late. We allowed our boy-king to emulate Hitler's militarism and dreams of empire, we have lost whatever 'moral' standing we once held, rightly or wrongly - if there is such a distinction. About a million Iraqi civilians are dead in the period of our "occupation" and another 2 to 3 million have fled as refugees from the homeland we now occupy. There are no plans ever to give it back. I think it was about that last puddle of oil, but of course it was sold as something quite else. Politicians are pathological liars.
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2008 @ 10:53 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I haven't bothered to read this thread, sorry. Normally I wouldn't post in a thread I haven't read, but I can't stomach any more of this crap. All I want to know is if Charles Darwin is responsible for eugenics then how exactly is it that Plato advocated eugenics in his famous work The Republic? You remember that whole "gold soul" verse "bronze soul" thing he talked about? Or the breeding of Guardians? Plato even argued that the government should carry out eugenics in secret to avoid upsetting the commoners. Yeah, obviously Darwin had a flux capacitor installed in the Beagle, not sure how he got that puppy up to 88 mph though. The word eugenics might have been invented by Darwin's cousin, but the concept is ancient.
You want to talk about historical revisionism, its blaming Darwin instead of the more obvious culprits of racism and religious intolerance.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 24, 2008 @ 11:11 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Zach:
Not to worry, Zach. Doctors can't coerce anyone they never meet. Though quite a few of them are overly fond of playing god regardless of what their 'organizations' say to the public (statistically, nurses are worse). Medical rationing ensures that we aren't going to be revisiting eugenics on the breeding front any time soon. I imagine the world food shortage will cull the herd by a few billion at least within the next 5-10 years. Warfare (inevitable as the shortage gets worse - there are already food riots in a dozen countries) can help.
That "Green Revolution" turned out to be not very green.
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2008 @ 11:17 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Humans are animals. Any valid ethical system should be able to tolerate the truth. As to whether they are "merely" animals may depend on their ability to rise above their animal natures.
Humans were legally imprisoned without trial and sold to the highest bidder for centuries before Origin of Species. The Southern States even seceded from the U.S. in an attempt to preserve their peculiar institution.
Comment by Zachriel — April 24, 2008 @ 11:25 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I thought someone would make this point. I just didn't know who. Glad you pointed this out though. It reinforces the point that abuse involves dehumanization of the target group. Blacks were viewed as less than human IOW, more like animals.
Comment by Bradford — April 24, 2008 @ 11:29 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Thank you, Zachriel. I applaud the statement of the American Society of Human Genetics. Its statement is clear and unambiguous. I also liked the lengthy explanation which accompanied its statement. I hope it's a very large society.
The "Principles of medical ethics" link you gave, though, is worded so ambiguously that it's not quite clear to me what is being repudiated. No doubt Dr. Kevorkian would see himself as operating within its guidelines (not that he isn't). I'm guessing Nazi physicians would likely see themselves as adhering to the guidelines as well (not that they did).
The "confronting eugenics" link you provided says:
I don't find that especially comforting.
Comment by Lutepisc — April 24, 2008 @ 11:37 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
olegt
No , I made no such assumption. I only assert that humans are special in a way that science currently is not prepared to address.
Yes. I would tend to agree with this assertion.
I don't look at the holocaust as "social chaos". Actually it was cold, efficient, and precise social ORDER - of the highest degree.
Oh, and you never answered my question. Why do you think humans are special?
Comment by chunkdz — April 24, 2008 @ 11:40 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Todd B:
Crap? THIS is crap, my dear:
Try reading the thread next time, you might even find out what the subject is.
To all you DarwinDefenders - The subject of this thread is the connection of Darwinism (in the hands of his family and followers) with eugenics as it was practiced under color of law in the first half of the 20th century, gifting Adolph Hitler with the justification, propaganda machinery and scientific/medical support necessary to murder 6+ million citizens of his own country and his conquests, in service to his Master Race.
The subject is NOT humanity's ugly, murderous nature or any of the wars and genocides conducted prior to the 20th century. Rationalism and science were supposed to cure our ugly, murderous nature, or at least that was the selling point. That was just another lie too, as what happened under its auspices in the 20th century glaringly spotlights.
Please stay on topic.
Comment by Joy — April 24, 2008 @ 11:43 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Zachriel,
This is exactly what eugenecists believe they are doing.
Comment by chunkdz — April 24, 2008 @ 11:46 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Again, that's public policy, not science. There's no there there.
Comment by olegt — April 24, 2008 @ 11:47 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am
From their blurb, The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG), founded in 1948, is the primary professional membership organization for human genetics specialists worldwide. I'm sure many other scientific and scholarly organizations have similar statements. Bioethics are important in many fields.
Indeed, there are many ethical challenges due to rapid advances in technology. Individual choice is usually considered the most important value, but this runs into abortion, cloning and other complicated situations. Arguments over the known facts of biological evolution distract from the critical issues surrounding impending artificial evolution.
Comment by Zachriel — April 24, 2008 @ 11:48 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:50 am
mod help please
Comment by Zachriel — April 24, 2008 @ 11:50 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Yes, I agree. Such value judgments are subjective.
I've always been rather fond of humans. As a matter of fact, some of my best friends are humans.
Comment by Zachriel — April 24, 2008 @ 11:53 am
April 24th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
Would that be other SCIENTIFIC disciplines or other PHILOSOPHICAL disciplines.
I consider religion and its search for a universal moral code to be a philosophical discipline?
I have noticed that most earnest philosophical discussions start with the foundations set by the first Western Philosopher, Socrates, and the concept that it is a wise man who knows he doesn't know the Truth.
I think, therefore I am, is probably the closest I can come to knowing an objective Truth philosophically.
Once again, it comes down to how one reacts to Gould's NOMA treatment of science and philosophy.
Allen provided a fuller explanation to my overly simplistic summary. However, allow me to repeat it along with one more provocative thought…
Some people choose to externalize the responsibility rather than suffer the uncertainty that comes with making and defending a personal decision.
Whether the proxy of personal responsibility is given to a scientific, religious or political agency, history has shown that when it occurs on a large scale the results are horrific.
"I was just following orders" is a poor excuse regardless of the whether or not the orders came from a source that is knowledgeable, elected or divine.
P.S. It is the last part that I suggest makes this comment topical. In WW II personal responsibility was given up to multiple sources, including supposedly scientifically knowledgeable ones, IMO.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 24, 2008 @ 11:59 am
April 24th, 2008 at 12:12 pm