Prove Evolution: Win $250,000!

Creation Science Evangelism ^ | N/A | Dr. Ken Hovind

[handk]

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer
formerly $10,000, offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.*  My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

 

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that--
1. A highly ordered universe exists.
2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being--
1. The universe was created by God.
2. The universe always existed.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

 

How to collect the $250,000:

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

 

My suggestion:

Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

* NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

[general_re]

But further down in your post, you wrote, "S it differs from the relativists in the sense that it allows that we can know the things we deduce to be true...." So now I caught you in a typo, which means you must be human. Either that or some kind of English-speaking alien.

Interestingly, one of the strategies employed by AI folks to get their systems to pass a Turing test is to have the programs occasionally throw in a common typo or misspelling. Computers aren't supposed to make mistakes, so when a human sees small, common errors in their interaction, they tend to assume that it is a human at the other end, and not a machine.

Food for thought, as you ponder the nature of my existence ;)

If you can't rely on any form of induction, then you're not left with much to deduce from.

Empirically, we reasonably believe that we can rely on the validity of induction. It's worked for us so often that it appears that the inductive principle is probably valid. But there's no way to prove that it's valid. It's not that it's unreliable - it is generally reliable, as we know from experience. But there's no way to prove that it always and everywhere must be valid. IOW, it bootstraps itself - we inductively reason that induction is itself generally valid ;)

OK, but this is the impasse that we're at: the fact that something is a matter of belief doesn't mean that it's a matter of fantasy. It can still be a fact. As G.K. Chesterton said, "Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all."

Sure, and I agree with that, as far as it goes. We believe something to be true. It might even be true. But so long as it's a matter of belief, can we say that we know it to be true?

I'd like to take it back to my original question, and simply ask you if you know that you can feel pain - never mind about anyone else just yet. Because the point I'm trying to establish is whether or not you can know something to be true (in this case, your perception of pain), without being able to prove it objectively.

I'm not sure I follow you. If the question is whether I know that I feel pain, who do I have to objectively prove it to? Myself? Hell, I believe all sorts of things that I can't objectively prove to be true, like my belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. I believe it, and inductively, I'm pretty safe in that belief, but I can't prove that the sun will rise tomorrow.

And my inductive case is strong enough that you will probably catch me saying that I "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow. But if I'm being rigorous and honest, I will have to admit to you that I don't really know that the sun will rise tomorrow - how could I "know" such a future event will occur without the omniscience that is generally reserved for God alone? Instead, I simply believe that it will, based on the evidence available to me. I'm almost certainly right - the odds that I am wrong are vanishingly small. But I can't be perfectly certain, because I can't see the future.

I'm not trying to be difficult, really - I think there's common ground here somewhere that we can find. I'm just not sure where yet ;)

[general_re]

Just FYI, but regarding this bit in my post #739:

Two, you could answer that it doesn't really come from anywhere at all. However, this is tantamount to saying that moral law is eternal and uncaused also, as God is. And then I would have to ask how many exceptions you intend to carve out to the idea of causality. As this answer is likely to be truly rare indeed - I have never heard anyone posit such a thing - and because I think that you are a clever person who recognizes that this answer opens up a whole new can of worms, I find it unlikely that you will choose to answer in this manner either. Although it is just barely possible that you would believe such a thing, you would be a rare bird indeed to hold such an opinion.

It turns out that such a belief is not particularly rare at all - what I stated here is very close to doctrinal for a particular major religion. My statements and this particular doctrine are not exactly the same, but they're pretty close. The notion that morality is eternal and uncaused because it is an aspect of God Himself is pretty standard Catholic dogma, and I should have known that - I used to know it, but I've forgotten now, obviously ;)

Anyway, this would change my inferences somewhat, but not my conclusions. It is not unreasonable to assume that you believing such is more likely that I originally assumed. But then again, if you believed that morality was eternal and uncaused because it is an aspect of God, there's little question about whether or not you think God and morality are inextricably intertwined ;)

[inquest]

Food for thought, as you ponder the nature of my existence ;)

Damn. I didn't know I was taking the Pepsi Challenge!

I'm not sure I follow you. If the question is whether I know that I feel pain, who do I have to objectively prove it to? Myself?

Yeah, yourself. Not too many other people you can prove it to, now are there? And you should be able to know it with considerably more certainty than you know that the sun's going to rise the next morning. If not, then maybe the Turing test is starting to show some cracks after all. 8-p

[general_re]

And you should be able to know it with considerably more certainty than you know that the sun's going to rise the next morning.

I know - depending on how stringent our definition of "know" is, of course ;) - that I have experienced pain in the past. Because I have uniformly experienced pain in response to stimuli that would be expected to produce such an effect, I induce that I am very, very likely to experience pain again in the future. But do I know that I will? The evidence for it is of the same order of the evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow ;)

Did you know that there is a class of people who, by virtue of a neurological "defect" they possess, are wholly incapable of sensing pain? That is, they cannot sense pain in any way, shape, or form. At first blush, this might seem to be a good thing, but the world is actually a very dangerous place for them as a result. Pain is an indicator of potential or impending bodily injury or damage, and they can lean up against hot things, step on sharp things, and so forth, all without realizing it - they can unintentionally injure themselves quite badly if they are not very careful in their day to day lives. I wonder if they "know" what pain is?

If not, then maybe the Turing test is starting to show some cracks after all.

It's probably cracked. One of my favorite examples of a Turing test in action is the reversal of the test that occurred some years ago. As you probably know, various AI systems are assembled and put before human testers, and a particular system is judged to have passed the test if the human testers are unable to distinguish it from a human at the other end of the terminal - humans being placed at the other end of some terminals to give some basis for comparison. Usually, testers are fairly good at picking out the computers from the humans.

But there was one system submitted a few years back that was touted as an expert in Shakespeare - it could discuss all things Shakespearian, including the ability to quote and interpret random passages of Shakespeare on demand.

So, come the end of the test, and the verdict from the testers was unanimous - this must have been a computer. Its knowledge and recall of Shakespeare was simply too extensive and flawless. And it was too fast - it recalled Shakespeare with virtually no delay at all, which one wouldn't expect from a person who was simply looking up particular passages. It was judged to have failed the test by virtue of the fact that it had far exceeded what humans were thought to be capable of. They weren't fooled by it.

Except, they were. On the other end of that particular terminal was not a computer at all, but a lady who was a bona fide Shakespeare expert, with the ability to quote entire passages from memory, act by act, scene by scene, verse by verse. If it was in Shakespeare, she knew it.

Computers cannot reliably fool us into thinking they are human just yet. But interestingly, humans can fool us into thinking they are computers without too much trouble at all ;)

[inquest]

Did you know that there is a class of people who, by virtue of a neurological "defect" they possess, are wholly incapable of sensing pain?

I've heard of them, and don't envy them a single bit. Talk about Hell on Earth.

I know - depending on how stringent our definition of "know" is, of course ;) - that I have experienced pain in the past. Because I have uniformly experienced pain in response to stimuli that would be expected to produce such an effect, I induce that I am very, very likely to experience pain again in the future. But do I know that I will? The evidence for it is of the same order of the evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow ;)

OK, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if you know that you do experience pain. In other words, do you know what it actually is? And I'm not asking for a description, because I don't think you can objectively describe it. I just need to know if you're familiar with the beast. Maybe you don't know it'll happen to you again. Maybe you don't even know for sure that it ever happened to you before. But you should still know what it is - in the sense that if someone were to mention the word to you, you would have direct knowledge of what goes along with that word. Am I coming through clearly now?

Computers cannot reliably fool us into thinking they are human just yet. But interestingly, humans can fool us into thinking they are computers without too much trouble at all ;)

"D'Ohh!", by any other name...

[general_re]

OK, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if you know that you do experience pain. In other words, do you know what it actually is?

Okay, I think I'm with you. I know that I have experienced it before, because I remember experiencing it and I assume that my memories are valid. I remember it quite clearly in a few instances - I once had a load of boiling water accidentally poured on me. I came to understand entirely new horizons in pain that day, but fortunately for me, the water all landed on my legs, and just south of the important parts, if you catch my drift. ;)

So, as a result, I think I can say that I know what pain is in the sense that it is generally intended.

[inquest]

Alright, we're almost there, dude. Don't give up on me now!

I know that I have experienced it before, because I remember experiencing it and I assume that my memories are valid.

OK, this is important. As I was trying to get at before, even if your memories aren't valid, you should still know what pain is. Because even if you feel like you have memories of pain, then you do. They may not be memories of actual events, but presently, right now, as you're reading this, you should have a clear mental "picture" (for lack of a better word) of what it is, regardless of whether or not it was triggered by an actual physical event. I would expect that you would know with absolute certainty what it is. Correct?

I once had a load of boiling water accidentally poured on me. I came to understand entirely new horizons in pain that day....

Wow, so you're, like, a pain pioneer!

[general_re]

presently, right now, as you're reading this, you should have a clear mental "picture" (for lack of a better word) of what it is, regardless of whether or not it was triggered by an actual physical event. I would expect that you would know with absolute certainty what it is. Correct?

"Absolute certainty"? That's probably stronger than I can sign up for. How about this - I know it with at least as much certainty as I know anything else. I am as certain of this as I possibly can be. Hopefully you can still get where you want to go with that...

Wow, so you're, like, a pain pioneer!

Nah. I have little doubt that there is much territory in the land of pain where others have been but I have not. And that I have no particular desire to explore - the trouble with pain is that it hurts. It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't ;)

[inquest]

"Absolute certainty"? That's probably stronger than I can sign up for. How about this - I know it with at least as much certainty as I know anything else. I am as certain of this as I possibly can be. Hopefully you can still get where you want to go with that...

Harrumph. Well, we'll see where this goes. For my part, I can say that I am absolutely certain that I have knowledge of pain, just as I am absolutely certain that at this moment, I have a clear visual image of a computer screen in front of me, with a cursor going across the screen leaving words in its wake; and that I have a tactile sensation of typing those words; and even that I am generating these words in my mind (or at least that they're passing through my mind before I see them on the screen).

Seeing as how I can know what pain is, I can also know that IF others feel it the way I do in the relevant sense, THEN it would be wrong to inflict it on others. That is a moral judgement that I am absolutely certain of - and of course, it's but one facet of the truth that humans are able to explore.

I have little doubt that there is much territory in the land of pain where others have been but I have not. And that I have no particular desire to explore - the trouble with pain is that it hurts. It wouldn't be so bad if it didn't ;)

Actually, the worst part about it that I'd see isn't that it hurts, but that the things that cause the more esoteric varieties of pain would tend to turn my body into something rather "esoteric" itself. Otherwise, well, I still probably wouldn't want to explore, so scratch that idea.

[general_re]

For my part, I can say that I am absolutely certain that I have knowledge of pain, just as I am absolutely certain that at this moment, I have a clear visual image of a computer screen in front of me, with a cursor going across the screen leaving words in its wake;

Interesting choice of words. You have an image of a computer screen in front of you, or an actual computer screen? Are we traveling back to the land of potential disjuncts between perception and reality? ;)

and that I have a tactile sensation of typing those words; and even that I am generating these words in my mind (or at least that they're passing through my mind before I see them on the screen).

I'd venture to guess that they're probably even coming from your mind, rather than just passing through on their way from somewhere else...

Sorry - that's enough silliness for now ;)

Seeing as how I can know what pain is, I can also know that IF others feel it the way I do in the relevant sense, THEN it would be wrong to inflict it on others.

Well, okay, but your big "if" is...an awfully big "if", isn't it? Do you know that others feel pain the way you do? Can you know that others feel pain the way you do? And even if you can and do know that much, how do you know that others feel about pain the way you feel about it? What are we to do with masochists, in short?

And more seriously, is this a moral judgement, or a pragmatic one? You do not wish to experience pain, so there's a certain practical benefit to defining it to be "wrong" for me to inflict pain upon you, don't you think? And by extension, you assume that I feel the same way about you inflicting pain on me.

You don't like pain, you further assume that others feel as you do (which they mostly do), so by defining pain as "bad" and "wrong", you reduce the chances of experiencing pain at the hands of another, don't you?

Same idea, just a slight change of foundations ;)

[inquest]

Are we traveling back to the land of potential disjuncts between perception and reality? ;)

Well, when it comes to pain especially, the perception is the reality, n'est-ce pas?

Well, okay, but your big "if" is...an awfully big "if", isn't it?

Well, sure. Moral judgements are ultimately about whether or not a particular consequence of your actions is wrong. When it comes to determining whether or not a particular action will result in a particular consequence, then you need to apply logic, which admittedly may be incomplete (I mean, I guess I can't "know" for sure that hitting the wrong button on my keyboard won't cause a nuclear bomb to go off somewhere). But it would be* utterly usesless without the initial framework provided by moral law.

And more seriously, is this a moral judgement, or a pragmatic one?

It's definitely a moral judgement. It's not about preventing myself from feeling pain (though that's not a bad idea either); it's about knowing that it's wrong if someone inflicts it on me, and therefore it would be wrong for me to inflict it on another. I mean, what motivates the human spirit of self-sacrifice for others? If it's "survival of the species", why should I care more about that than about simply doing right by my neighbor?

[general_re]

It's definitely a moral judgement.

"Definitely" seems awfully strong. It seems to me that a pragmatic judgement gets you from A to B just as well, and that therefore calling it a moral judgement might very well be arbitrary. More on this to come...

It's not about preventing myself from feeling pain (though that's not a bad idea either); it's about knowing that it's wrong if someone inflicts it on me, and therefore it would be wrong for me to inflict it on another.

Ah, but now I've got to lay bare the assumptions inherent in this statement. Why, precisely, is it "wrong" for someone to inflict pain upon you? Why, precisely, is it "wrong" for you to inflict pain upon another person?

If it's "survival of the species", why should I care more about that than about simply doing right by my neighbor?

Assume for the sake of argument that I accept your notion of "doing right" for a moment. You don't have to care more about survival of the species than about doing right by your neighbor - if you do right by your neighbor, survival of the species follows as a consequence. It's not an either/or proposition ;)

[inquest]

It seems to me that a pragmatic judgement gets you from A to B just as well, and that therefore calling it a moral judgement might very well be arbitrary.

That would rather depend on what you define to be points A and B, wouldn't it?

Why, precisely, is it "wrong" for someone to inflict pain upon you? Why, precisely, is it "wrong" for you to inflict pain upon another person?

As to the first question, I can no more objectively describe what makes it wrong than I can objectively describe pain in the first place. The question more or less answers itself, for anyone who understands what pain is. If someone does it to you, you know why it's wrong. And the answer to the second question is but a very quick extrapolation of the answer to the first.

You don't have to care more about survival of the species than about doing right by your neighbor - if you do right by your neighbor, survival of the species follows as a consequence.

Speculation, wishful thinking. It may be true in most cases. And sure, helping the species survive is of course one way of doing right by your neighbor. But not all things that promote optimal survival prospects for the species from a purely utilitarian perspective, would necessarily involve doing the right thing to people. Fascists wanted society to be arranged like the human body, with defective "cells" regularly eliminated. Maybe such a plan, if people were to accept it, truly would have made for a more durable society. But they weren't willing to accept it - and nor should they have, as you seemed willing to agree earlier.

[general_re]

That would rather depend on what you define to be points A and B, wouldn't it?

A) pain exists. B) pain is wrong. Like that ;)

As to the first question, I can no more objectively describe what makes it wrong than I can objectively describe pain in the first place.

No, no - wait a moment. Forget the semantics of it for a moment, forget about the ambiguities present in such a thing. I'm not asking for an objective definition, where you express it in such a way as to cause me to fully understand and know it in the sense that you know it. Forget about persuading me for a moment - I promise that I will take whatever you say at face-value in this. Forget about me understanding why it's wrong for someone to inflict pain on me, just tell me why it's wrong for someone to inflict pain on you.

Don't worry about explaining it to me or persuading anyone of the truth of what you say for a moment. Instead, give me your subjective take on it, your own explanation of why it is wrong for someone to inflict pain upon you. Don't worry about what I think, just lay it out in a way that seems plausible to you - IOW, forget "obective" for a moment, and just give me your subjective opinion.

I don't care if you can "prove" the truth of what you say, I'm just interested in what you have to say. So, let me rephrase a bit - Answering in any way you see fit, why do you feel that it is wrong for someone to inflict pain upon you?

Speculation, wishful thinking. It may be true in most cases. And sure, helping the species survive is of course one way of doing right by your neighbor.

That's not quite what I meant, that we do right by our neighbors when we promote the survival of the species. What I meant was that by most conventional understandings of morality, survival of the species results from the practices contained therein.

IOW, by following those proscriptive rules of morality (setting aside where exactly those rules come from for a moment), the survival of the species is promoted. Don't steal. Don't be envious. Don't murder one another. And so forth - when you do right by your neighbor in that completely conventional sense, survival of the species is promoted as a result. That's what I want to get at - you don't even have to think about something abstract like "survival of the species". It inevitably follows from morality itself, barring external events, of course ;)

Fascists wanted society to be arranged like the human body, with defective "cells" regularly eliminated. Maybe such a plan, if people were to accept it, truly would have made for a more durable society. But they weren't willing to accept it - and nor should they have, as you seemed willing to agree earlier.

Perhaps people weren't willing to accept it because it was hazardous to the survival of the society - certainly it was hazardous to many of the individuals within it. It's kind of hard to build a viable society that is predicated on mass-murder, as we have seen (too) many times.

[general_re]

forget "obective" for a moment

"Obective" is probably not too easily forgotten, but you can forget "objective" instead ;)

[DennisR]

Do we know this for a fact? I have heard this from Christians for years and years, but have never seen any references to where this is documented.

[desertcry]

The correct, and fair question that should ask is: Prove that God did not use the process of evolution to creat Man.

[inquest]

A) pain exists. B) pain is wrong. Like that ;)

I fail to see how a "pragmatic" argument could lead to the conclusion that pain is "wrong". Wrongness, by definition, involves a moral judgement (at least in this context).

Don't worry about explaining it to me or persuading anyone of the truth of what you say for a moment. Instead, give me your subjective take on it, your own explanation of why it is wrong for someone to inflict pain upon you. Don't worry about what I think, just lay it out in a way that seems plausible to you - IOW, forget "objective" for a moment, and just give me your subjective opinion.

Well, I guess in order to talk about what is wrong, I should first talk about what is right. While still avoiding any talk about religious details of our origin, I should think that someone with even the mildest of religious stirrings (be they monotheistic, pantheistic, or something even less defined than that) would understand right away that regardless of how we were created, or even if we were "created" as such, our existence is a sacred thing, an end in itself. It's not just a condition, like a computer being on or off, or an atomic electron being in an excited state or a ground state. Our existence is the source of everything that we could possibly find worthy - every sense of joy, fascination, and yes, even pain (to the extent that it's not deliberately inflicted), are such immeasurable gifts that flow from it. There can really be no higher earthly purpose than to preserve such gifts, and to enable them to be used in as much freedom as possible. This is where morality begins. Certainly people's understanding of it can be liable to going off in several directions from there, some of which may be sound, some of which may be delusional. Certainly it may have to be compromised in certain situations that we call "necessary evils" (such as fending off invasion). But this is the foundation, and it is real.

Perhaps people weren't willing to accept it because it was hazardous to the survival of the society - certainly it was hazardous to many of the individuals within it. It's kind of hard to build a viable society that is predicated on mass-murder, as we have seen (too) many times.

So how do you say "circular argument" in Latin? ;*P The reason, in the case of the Nazis, why it was so hard for them to build such a society is that people fought it. They didn't accept it. It certainly wasn't that depopulation simply reduced their numbers to the point where society couldn't function; there were still plenty of people left over, so that wasn't the issue at all. If not for people's unwillingness to accept it, there's little reason that I can think of why it wouldn't have produced a very formidable society. So morality really can't be understood in terms of what promotes social survivibility. It can only be understood in terms of the inherent goodness of life, as I described above.

[inquest]

"Obective" is probably not too easily forgotten, but you can forget "objective" instead ;)

Yeah, OK, Mr. Turing. You know, fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...

[general_re]

I didn't forget about you - really ;)

I fail to see how a "pragmatic" argument could lead to the conclusion that pain is "wrong".

It's essentially just a restatement of what I said above. I do not wish to be harmed. In a society where people are free to harm one another, I am likely to be harmed. The consensus view is that most people agree with me in not wishing to be harmed. Therefore, we define causing pain to others as being off-limits, by defining the causing of pain to others to be "wrong".

I should think that someone with even the mildest of religious stirrings (be they monotheistic, pantheistic, or something even less defined than that) would understand right away that regardless of how we were created, or even if we were "created" as such, our existence is a sacred thing, an end in itself.

Wellnow, that gets back to the subject of evolution in a way, doesn't it? It seems to me that if evolution via natural selection is the correct description of how we came to be, then it doesn't make much sense to define us as an "end" at all, in much the same way that no other form of life is really an "endpoint". We may define our current existence as sacred and an end unto itself, but if we step back and look at the big picture, that's purely an arbitrary decision.

The next question I would ask you then is - why is life sacred?

If you accept, a priori, that life and human existence has some grand meaning, then your argument makes sense. But if it is not the case that we are particularly special, the rationale for morality in this sense falls by the wayside.

So how do you say "circular argument" in Latin? ;*P The reason, in the case of the Nazis, why it was so hard for them to build such a society is that people fought it. They didn't accept it. It certainly wasn't that depopulation simply reduced their numbers to the point where society couldn't function; there were still plenty of people left over, so that wasn't the issue at all. If not for people's unwillingness to accept it, there's little reason that I can think of why it wouldn't have produced a very formidable society.

Except that this is almost exactly what I said - I think you and I are not far apart at all here. People didn't accept the Nazi regime, for whatever reason, and so the society was not viable in the long term. Saying that if not for people's unwillingness it would have worked just fine may be true, but it doesn't mean much in the world as exists. If slaves accepted their status, slaveholding societies would be perfectly viable also, but they don't and they aren't.

So, then, the question is why don't they accept such societies? Pure pragmatism? A sense of universal morality? Something that only appears to be a sense of universal morality, but is in fact based on pragmatic principles produced over millions of years of evolution?

Guess which one appeals to me ;)