Posted on 08/19/2006 6:39:43 AM PDT by RaceBannon
History does not rest on premises but on analysis and interpretation of the facts. It's pretty clear that Darwinian or Darwinian-inspired influences were all the rage in Germany, and Weikert marshalls a variety of sources to support for his argument. That some of these negative influences can be traced back to Darwin himself does not impact the truth of the rest of his substantial analysis, but it does cast doubt on his capacities as a moral philosopher.
From a previous post:
"That's interesting; that perfectly explains why he formulated his ideas before the release of "On the Origin of Species." It also explains why Lenin and crew employed Lysenkoism, a form of Lamarckian evolution, in place of Darwinian evolution and thus ruined Russian agriculture for years to come. It also explains how ridiculous it is to make an argument using guilt by association. Let's see the popular Reductio ad Hitlerum/Nazium argument:
Person A argues for proposition B
Person C shows that proposition B was favored by Hitler/Nazis (I guess we'll have to include Commies as well)
Thus, proposition B is false.
Let's substitute "evolution" for proposition B:
Person A argues for evolution
Person C shows that evolution was favored by Hitler/Nazis/Commies
Thus, evolution is false.
Do you see how stupid the reasoning is? Let's try "vegetarianism."
Person A argues for vegetarianism
Person C shows that vegetarianism was favored by Hitler/Nazis/Commies (In this case, Hitler)
Thus, vegetarianism is false
Guilt by association shows nothing. Is gravity false because people die when they fall off high-rise buildings? Is germ theory false because people die from diseases and because of chemical warfare? Is atomic theory false because of the bomb?
But, you know what's funny? Darwin never supported Social Darwinism and he distanced himself from it. The people you should really blame are Herbert Spencer, a fair bit of Thomas Malthus, ancient Spartan ideology of infantcide, Plato with his selective breeding of children, Franicis Galton, and others.
But you know what's really funny? It wasn't evolution that guided Hitler's footsteps, if anything, it was his perverted form of Catholicism. Forgotten "Gott Min Us?" It's funny how creationists assert that evolution is atheistic. Let's look at this logically:
Evolution is atheistic (Assumed for the sake of argument)
Hitler supported evolution to use in his fascist regime. (I'll accept that for the sake of argument)
Hitler was Catholic. Hitler used Catholicism to fuel his fascist regime. (This is actually historically correct)
If evolution is atheistic, and Hitler was a rabid Catholic that cut down anything not-Christian, why would support evolution? Methinks that creationists need to make up their minds.
Of course, it was Christianity that Hitler used, not evolution:
http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/index.php?page=Hitler
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/nazis.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_hitler.html
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm
But, of course, what else does one expect from the Discovery Institute. Like creationists they: a) quote-mine b) make use of the same arguments of "gaps in the theory" and even distort the current research c) try to shamelessly invoke Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments or Social Darwinism as if it somehow makes evolution false d) have religious motives apropos the Wedge Document e) they call biologists "Darwinists" instead of biologists.
In summary, the claim is worthless because a) it's irrelevant b) it's logically errant; guilt by association doesn't work and c) it's actually wrong.
NOTE: By creationists, I am referencing prominent IDers/creationists who have indeed been shown to quote mine, distort the research, use guilt by association fallacies, have religious not scientific motives, and call biologists Darwinists. I apologize if you take offense to it."
If anything inspired Hitler, I'd blame Luther, a bit of Wagner, misinterpreted Nietzsche, etc. Religious justification of racism existed for a long time. I don't think and it doesn't seem to suggest that Darwin had anything to do with it.
Wheels do not need intelligent intervention to spin, but they generally need intelligent intervention to be built. Organized matter performing specific functions may point to intelligence. That does not mean intelligence resides within the object as it performs a function or remains static. In cases where complex biological pathways evolve, intelligence must be involved in order for the results to be intelligible. Furthermore, the observed material must have properties to make it intelligible, properties which could very well be a product of intelligent design. If one wishes to assert the contrary, he can do so only on the basis of philosophy, not science. At bottom there is nothing inherently supernatural about intelligent design. It happens all the time, and its results are often, but not always, tangible.
No-one has ever postulated a seven-day Creation based solely on the cosmological evidence.
"Organized matter performing specific functions may point to intelligence."
I just showed how specified complexity in matter doesn't exist. Please, don't ignore the points. If CSI is true, then biochemical systems are specified for a purpose as set down by the Designer. However, H.J. Muller in *1939* showed conclusively how genes and molecular systems can be selectable for other functions that are not required in the precursor system but over successive generations eventually become part of the precursor system. IC and CSI are hence falsified.
"In cases where complex biological pathways evolve, intelligence must be involved in order for the results to be intelligible."
I just gave you a paper where a new biochemical pathway to digest sugars was formed in bacteria. Also, I can't recall the exact journal and I'll get documentation soon, but there were insects that evolved a biochemical pathway that lent it resistance to pesticides.
"Furthermore, the observed material must have properties to make it intelligible, properties which could very well be a product of intelligent design."
What such properties? IC? Falsified. CSI? Falsified.
"If one wishes to assert the contrary, he can do so only on the basis of philosophy, not science."
Strange then that I and biologists just showed how both CSI and IC are false - using scientific evidence.
"At bottom there is nothing inherently supernatural about intelligent design."
It is when the basis of the theory is a non-natural designer.
"You have never been to this building... "
I have. Mohammed is standing up there, too.
Show me.
Logically, something can't be thought true if it can't be proved false.
Off topic, but your name really makes me laugh!
susie
Hmmm...I don't recall saying that....
susie
It is when the basis of the theory is a non-natural designer.
Again, the distinction between natural and non-natural is superficial, arbitrary, philosophical, and scientifically useless. Intelligent design can, and has been directly observed. Organized matter performing specific functions is a hallmark of the same. The universe is replete with examples, dynamic development of new biological pathways notwithstanding.
That's irrational, and points out how atheism is religious in nature.
I will go out on a limb and assume that you, like me, are a fairly intelligent person in a technical field. You might be familiar with tri-state electronics. Atheism is not the high-Z state. It is the zero state, and theism is the one state (reverse them if you like).
To use another example, atheism is the absence of a check in your browser's "settings" checkbox. It is not the checkbox grayed-out - that is the fallacy of pretended neutrality. No one approaches the subject from a neutral perspective.
Atheism is the logical conclusion of Darwinism.
One will build his life around that belief i.e. it is a religion or worldview.
One MUST therefore grasp and defend the basis of those perceived realities. To do otherwise, as yours and others' persistence illustrates, implies a radical moral re-evaluation of all of one's prior thoughts and actions in life. That is why, in my opinion, these threads become so heated (I do hope I have not contributed to that...)
To answer your point about science making presuppositions: I agree! That's the point. And those presuppositions make most sense in an ordered universe. And the premises themselves are not subject to scientific inquiry - you can't put an idea under a microscope. You can merely test a hypotheses, asking "what if..." and making a judgment based on the outcome. The very principles by which the universe is ordered (or orders itself, if you prefer) themselves point to an overarching intelligence that governs all. To deny that is to ask someone to believe in the irrational.
Please show the logical steps that lead from Darwinism to atheism. Be careful not to confuse lack of faith in the bible with atheism. AFAIK not even Dawkins has ever made this deduction.
Another has said quite well that he could not imagine a more cruel and inhumane mechanism for a just and merciful God to bring about life in its many varied forms.
I am at work now so apologize for the lack of precise source. If you doubt what I'm saying I will gladly find the book and post formal citations.
No it didn't, and yes it can (and has been).
The order of the universe does not point to a lawgiver.Again: Why should we assume that an atom or energy quanta or whatever fundamental building block is able to decide that it wants to do something other than what's built into it by its nature in the first place? Everything we know about the world tells us that the ability to act in a way that doesn't seem to directly flow from the constituent parts' previous positions & velocities takes a complex, partially chaotic/partially organized system - like a brain.That's irrational, and points out how atheism is religious in nature.
But atoms & molecules (as far as we know) don't have brains. So why should an atom or a molecule ever behave in opposition to the physical laws of nature? You don't need to postulate an external traffic cop, nor legions of angels to yell "Gee" or "Haw" at the molecules when they stop to smell the photons.
Your default assumption, IMO, is completely backwards. (Flip the battery terminals. Then you'll be thinking right. :-)
I will go out on a limb and assume that you, like me, are a fairly intelligent person in a technical field. You might be familiar with tri-state electronics. Atheism is not the high-Z state. It is the zero state, and theism is the one state (reverse them if you like).
To use another example, atheism is the absence of a check in your browser's "settings" checkbox. It is not the checkbox grayed-out - that is the fallacy of pretended neutrality. No one approaches the subject from a neutral perspective.
Hmmm... well then I think religious mysticism is like assuming that an unconnected CMOS input actually improves a digital circuit's performance because it's tapping into "higher truths" for its input. :-)
Atheism is the logical conclusion of Darwinism.
That is just plain false, at least in my case. Evolution never contributed into my atheism. It does, of course, hurt specific assertions about the details of creation put forth by various religions. But if God exists, and is this all-powerful, all-knowing person living in this timeless realm, I can only imagine that he's been utterly alone, and utterly bored for an infinite length of time, and he knows he's fated to remain utterly alone & bored for an infinite length of time in the future.
To such a God, the best hope he can have for some companionship or entertainment is to create a vast (by our standards) universe with the maximum capacity to surprise him. Evolution fits right in with such a universe, and I think that such a god would create precisely the kind of universe that's capable of such a complex process as evolution.
I had never read Darwin's autobiography; I will now check it out from the Library and read it! Thank you for posting that passage ... it is indeed a sad thing to see so deeply into the design of the universe of the Creator as Charles Darwin did so brilliantly, then decide to reject the Designer.
You were doing so well!... Then you just had to insert this bit: "This indicates an unintelligent Designer, not an intelligent one." I was so disappointed to read that assertion after you had so admirably listed many of the design specs Science has discovered in this extremely complex matrix of meaningful change from random events.
Agreed. I wasn't trying to debunk Darwin by citing Hitler, and I don't think Weikert is either.
Anybody who thinks Hitler was a Catholic is repeating stupid propaganda ably refuted by an idle web search. How dare you name yourself after Dante.
"Evolution fits right in with such a universe, and I think that such a god would create precisely the kind of universe that's capable of such a complex process as evolution." Beautifully stated. And I agree because I choose to start with the premise of a Creator. Everything that follows is wondrous, don't you agree?
That's funny, I didnt see much of a rebuttal here, just people making an attack against the poster.
Now, go back and cite quotes from the 3 links provided and counter points from the 3 links.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.