Print
The simple falsehood at the heart of Expelled
by PZ Myers, Pharyngula
Reposted from:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the_simple_falsehood_at_the_he.php
I have to make this really, really simple for the "Hitler was an evolutionist" dimwits.
There is a central, incredibly obvious fact in Darwin's insight.
It isn't razzle-dazzle genius. Any idiot can figure that one out — and many idiots have. Farmers have known it for millennia, when they set aside particularly fruitful seed stock or especially robust farm animals for breeding, and eat the rest. Nazis used this elementary logic when they decided to exterminate Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Eugenicists used it when they wanted to argue for shifting the distribution of certain properties in a population.
It ain't "Darwinism". It's self-evident, obvious, selbstverständlich, apparent, évidente, transparent. The KKK knows it, farmers know it, dog and horse breeders know it, the Nazis knew it, they didn't need Darwin to spell it out for them. Blaming that on Darwin is awesomely stupid.
Darwin's real contribution, the one that had everyone smacking themselves in the forehead and wondering why they didn't think of it first, was the realization that the natural environment does the killing — that natural selection shapes heredity. The idea of culling populations is not only so easy that a hate-mongering cretin can think of it, but that weather, bacteria, viruses, parasites, predators, etc. have been doing it for eons, with no intelligence required, and that mindless microorganisms have been far greater agents of hereditary change than the worst the Nazis ever accomplished; does Charles Darwin also get the blame for that? Darwin realized that the environment has consequences and can shape the generation-by-generation passage of hereditary traits in populations, and that examination of the natural world reveals that it has been doing exactly that. He realized that ubiquitous forces that are so simple we take them for granted have been quietly and slowly sculpting our heredity since the beginning of life on earth.
When clueless creationists argue that Darwin led to Hitler, or worse, throw away buckets of money making elaborate propaganda films arguing such nonsense, it's worse than inane. It's as if they have completely missed the point of the idea they are damning.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/the_simple_falsehood_at_the_he.php
I have to make this really, really simple for the "Hitler was an evolutionist" dimwits.
There is a central, incredibly obvious fact in Darwin's insight.
If members of a population die or are killed off, they will leave no descendants for subsequent generations.
It isn't razzle-dazzle genius. Any idiot can figure that one out — and many idiots have. Farmers have known it for millennia, when they set aside particularly fruitful seed stock or especially robust farm animals for breeding, and eat the rest. Nazis used this elementary logic when they decided to exterminate Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals. Eugenicists used it when they wanted to argue for shifting the distribution of certain properties in a population.
It ain't "Darwinism". It's self-evident, obvious, selbstverständlich, apparent, évidente, transparent. The KKK knows it, farmers know it, dog and horse breeders know it, the Nazis knew it, they didn't need Darwin to spell it out for them. Blaming that on Darwin is awesomely stupid.
Darwin's real contribution, the one that had everyone smacking themselves in the forehead and wondering why they didn't think of it first, was the realization that the natural environment does the killing — that natural selection shapes heredity. The idea of culling populations is not only so easy that a hate-mongering cretin can think of it, but that weather, bacteria, viruses, parasites, predators, etc. have been doing it for eons, with no intelligence required, and that mindless microorganisms have been far greater agents of hereditary change than the worst the Nazis ever accomplished; does Charles Darwin also get the blame for that? Darwin realized that the environment has consequences and can shape the generation-by-generation passage of hereditary traits in populations, and that examination of the natural world reveals that it has been doing exactly that. He realized that ubiquitous forces that are so simple we take them for granted have been quietly and slowly sculpting our heredity since the beginning of life on earth.
When clueless creationists argue that Darwin led to Hitler, or worse, throw away buckets of money making elaborate propaganda films arguing such nonsense, it's worse than inane. It's as if they have completely missed the point of the idea they are damning.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, April 10, 2008 | PermalinkComments 101 - 150 of 196 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers102. Comment #158755 by Christian on April 11, 2008 at 2:31 am
Actually looking at the picture shows why the defence that "gott mit uns" (Translation: God With Us) predates the Nazis, doesn't hold a lot of water in "proving" that the Nazis were Atheists:
And this wasn't my intent. I just wanted to correct some common errors.
Keeping the motto "Gott mit uns" on the belt buckle may just have been a tradition thingy but if the Nazis were as atheist as many apologists claim they would have done away with such traditions just like the Bolsheviks in Russia.
All of these things make it rather obvious that the allegation that 'Nazism was an explicitly Atheist movement' is a bold faced lie.
Well, no disagreement from me here. As I said, I just wanted to correct some common mistakes. Even with the facts as they are, i.e. that the Nazis didn't come up with this motto and that the SS used an other motto, the appologist's claim that Nazism was officially atheist isn't supported.
So at least they can't accuse us of distorting the facts to support our case.
BTW, I'm an atheist. 'Christian' just happens to be my name.
Regards
Christian (in name only)
Other Comments by Christian
103. Comment #158768 by fretmeister on April 11, 2008 at 3:03 am
The problem is - when we solve the issue of these idiots... someone comes along and invents a better class of idiot.
Oh well.
Other Comments by fretmeister
104. Comment #158790 by Goldy on April 11, 2008 at 3:38 am
I don't know what Hitler believed, but he certainly wasn't Christian. His actions were completely contrary to what Jesus teaches. You're not a Christian because you say you're a christian, or because you go to church for that matter. You're a christian if you believe in and obey Jesus' commands.
Ah, yes, the good old "That's not MY God!" argument. Trouble is, every person has his or her own interpretation of Jesus' command. Including Paul, who you slavishly follow now. How do you know you are following Jesus' teaching? After all, EVERYTHING you know about Jesus is what Paul said and I hear Jesus' own brother didn't agree with him.
How many gospels have you read? 4? That it? Just the Nicean gospels? And you know they are the right ones? The Muslims claim Jesus was a prophet of God and Mohammed was God's last prophet - how does that square into your argument? They wrong? If so, how do you know?
Other Comments by Goldy
105. Comment #158795 by Steve Zara on April 11, 2008 at 3:45 am
Comment #158688 by iBELIEVEinJESUS You're not a Christian because you say you're a christian, or because you go to church for that matter. You're a christian if you believe in and obey Jesus' commands.
I do have some sympathy with this view. After all, we have used this argument the other way on the Fleabytes thread to argue that Einstein was a pantheist even though he had doubts about this word.
The problem is that you would have to show some widely held consensus of what Jesus' commands are and how they are interpreted. Until you can, then it seems to me it is pretty much anything goes.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
106. Comment #158800 by Goldy on April 11, 2008 at 3:52 am
Steve, he'll have to show that Jesus' commands are actually Jesus' commands.Other Comments by Goldy
107. Comment #158806 by Tyler Durden on April 11, 2008 at 4:00 am
And that Jesus actually existed. Other Comments by Tyler Durden
108. Comment #158828 by Burton on April 11, 2008 at 5:03 am
Even if Hitler used Darwins ideas it is hardly Darwins fault. If Hitler allowed only one book to survive the burning and that was his personal copy of the Origin of Species it hardly makes the theory any less true.Should we blame Newton when we drop something on our toe? Does gravity stop being true because it can hurt you when you step off a cliff?
Should we blame Oppenheimer for Nagasaki? (I think not, me may have made the technology but he didn't push the button).
Should we blame Steven Hawking when the universe runs out of inertia and collapses in on itself killing everything?
The point I am rambling towards here is that physical phenomena cannot be blamed on the people who discovered them, only the people who implement them.
Other Comments by Burton
109. Comment #158829 by MrPickwick on April 11, 2008 at 5:03 am
iBELIEVEinJESUS says: I don't know what Hitler believed, but he certainly wasn't Christian. His actions were completely contrary to what Jesus teaches. You're not a Christian because you say you're a christian, or because you go to church for that matter. You're a christian if you believe in and obey Jesus' commands.[...] That doesn't mean that Hitler had to be atheist, but if he believed in God, it wasn't the God of the Bible.
Hitler said:
Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise. [...]Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased. For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will. Therefore everyone should...[more religious Hitler babble in Comment #158423]
It looks like Hitler and iBELIEVEiNJESUS do not agree about what is a TRUE christian (and what is a TRUE christian action). They both seem to know the will of God. Who is right? Nobody of course; the question is void of meaning. That is what all religious people, the Hitlers and iBELIEVEinJESUSES of the world, do not want (or are not able) to understand... This is the root of the problem; this is what explains why religion is and has been the root of so much evil.
Other Comments by MrPickwick
110. Comment #158833 by Tyler Durden on April 11, 2008 at 5:15 am
iBELIEVEinJESUS,
Please lay out a 10-point plan for us on how "You're a christian if you believe in and obey Jesus' commands" and who you know that actually achieves this today.
Do you?
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
111. Comment #158855 by Bonzai on April 11, 2008 at 5:58 am
GoldyAh, yes, the good old "That's not MY God!" argument. Trouble is, every person has his or her own interpretation of Jesus' command. Including Paul, who you slavishly follow now. How do you know you are following Jesus' teaching? After all, EVERYTHING you know about Jesus is what Paul said and I hear Jesus' own brother didn't agree with him. ..
"That is not my God" is a valid point against strawman arguments.
It is true that there is a wide range of interpretations for Jesus' teaching, but somehow I don't think Hitler fits anywhere in that spectrum.If you have to squeeze him in he is probably so far away from what you would call the mainstream to be hardly relevant to any Christian or critic of Christianity.
Other Comments by Bonzai
112. Comment #158881 by nalfeshnee on April 11, 2008 at 6:26 am
Love the short example by PZ, but I must confess to not understanding the argument by theists.So what if Hitler was a (token) atheist. While head of state, he certainly didn't go around murdering millions single-handedly.
The correct question to ask, surely, is: "What beliefs did Hitler's countrymen have?" Ones which enabled them to support Hitler as their leader and to serve in his armies?
To suggest that Hitler was leading armies of sworn atheists is simply ludicrous.
And yet it was these armies that did the killing and the gassing, not Hitler.
To put it more bluntly: there have been no atheist atrocities (large-scale slaughter) because there has never been an atheist democracy.
Yes, the word democracy is important: unless the populace is democratic, then it cannot follow that they have chosen their leader, ergo it cannot follow that they are doing what they are doing entirely freely.
However, in comparison, the Nazi atrocities were the acts of a Christian democracy (yes, the Nazi party was voted in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Rise_to_power).
I rest my case.
(Edited again to make my argument more streamlined.)
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
113. Comment #158884 by reason-first on April 11, 2008 at 6:30 am
I have just read through the first few paragraphs of Hilter's "Mein Kampf" as recommended by posting #35http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html
To my mind this text clearly shows that Hitler knew extremely little about evolution and had no idea whatsoever about the underlying principle of natural selection. To prove my point, I quote the following from chapter nine:
"the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. "
Will of Nature? Higher breeding?
These are teleological, thus religious concepts and have nothing to do with evolution. I could pick a large number of further exmaples that clearly illustrate Hitler's ignorance of evolution and his preoccupation with religious ideas, but for the sake of brevity I will only give one more quote:
"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:
* Lowering of the level of the higher race;
* Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.
To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator.
And as a sin this act is rewarded."
Can one reasonably doubt that Hitler was a theist at least, more likely however a Christian? Or what other religious group heavily relies on the concept of "sin"?
Other Comments by reason-first
114. Comment #158890 by Steve Zara on April 11, 2008 at 6:32 am
Comment #158855 by BonzaiI am shocked. I am going to agree with Bonzai. I was too easy-going in an earlier post. You have to judge what someone is by what they do, not by what they call themselves. There is a huge variety of beliefs called "Christian", but I really do feel it is stretching the definition beyond breaking point to say that Hitler was Christian. The question should be whether or not he was a theist and believed he was doing God's work.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
115. Comment #158892 by Bonzai on April 11, 2008 at 6:37 am
Steve,I am shocked. I am going to agree with Bonzai
Well remember in the good old days we do agree quite a bit sob sob.. Don't worry, I am not flirting in case your hubby read this. ;)
Other Comments by Bonzai
116. Comment #158893 by phasmagigas on April 11, 2008 at 6:38 am
At the end of the day it boils down to the fact that ID/creationists do not have any legtimate positive presentation for their beliefs, ie no science to back it up so they have to do something else to get people to take notice of their beliefs.
They claim supression from the scientific establishment (we have the science we just arent allowed to research/show it). they try erronously to show that evolution=atheism=nazis, as they are trying to persuade dimwits in the first place they have no problem with this fallacy.
what they are trying to say is ID is true and evolution is false (or just nasty) because it leads to nazism. Even if their evo acceptence>atheism>nazism were true its says nothing about the process by which species were arrived at on this planet.
They are the most desperate fuckers imaginable, they run around saying science supresses us and evolution makes you evil and thats their case, simply because they have no case at all, they cant even see themselves how dishonest and erronous are their tactices. Maybe schools should be teaching logical fallacies early on, with those mental tools perhaps less of this nonsense will be lapped up.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
117. Comment #158897 by G M Becker on April 11, 2008 at 6:41 am
Guys, guysLets not round on iBELIEVEinJESUS because he's shown himself to be christian. We can sit here and pick holes and point out the problems but that's really not going to get anyone anywhere.
This person came onto this site in order to find out what non believers think so lets help him do that.
Let's be a little open minded here.
Other Comments by G M Becker
118. Comment #158937 by bitofinger on April 11, 2008 at 7:44 am
. Posted by: EvidenceOnly on April 10, 2008 at 10:12 amReligions claim patent rights to morality and truth but make stuff up and spit out an endless stream of blatant lies.
It' not ignorance. It's much worse: massive organized deceit.
Not so sure the deceit part is organized, but it is collective and wide-spread. I happen to agree with the Christian philosophy that people are basically sheep who need to be lead by the nose. It's a very sad affair.
But I'm not big on out-and-out conspiracy theories. I think only a very small minority of religiazzi are hysterical fanatics who conspire to dominate the world with their twisted ideology.
Having said that, there is an equal if not more dangerous threat in the less frenzied and ubiquitous believer, from the casual, passive, seemingly benign sort of every-day believer who attends church occasionally, to the avid religion enthusiast who prays incessantly, goes to church at least once a day and listens only to religious music but maintains a semi-normal existence as a law-abiding member of society.
From these two groups and everything in between comes the real challenge to human progress. These are the ones who contribute more overall - mostly indirectly - to the weight of the thumb atop the head of science.
Collective delusion easily snowballs into hysterics. Reason is the cure.
Other Comments by bitofinger
119. Comment #158951 by Christopher Davis on April 11, 2008 at 8:20 am
"what prevents us from building our ethical framework on the foundations of evolution, which suggests that we ensure that we are the fittest, and take any means necessary to that end?"---philipproulx
Easy answer? Morality and/or respect for the rights of other human beings.
Of course this question could only be asked by a theist because...
Why do most religions actively seek to convert others to their way of thinking? Well because their beliefs are the right ones of course! And if everyone else believed like them (i.e. knew the "truth") then the world would be a better place. Substitute the idea of "fittest" with "righteousness" as perceived by the theist mind, and it's easy to understand how they come to the conclusion that people who "believe" in evolution, will think it their duty to improve the human race through eugenics-style selective breeding.
This is a classic case of projection. Just like how most theists believe that atheists "want" there to be no God, just so we can run around "sinning" without any fear of repercussion. They simply can't imagine why someone would behave morally if there is no all-powerful sky-god to punish them if they didn't. It would be funny if it weren't so damn pathetic.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
120. Comment #158954 by nalfeshnee on April 11, 2008 at 8:27 am
Why do most religions actively seek to convert others to their way of thinking? Well because their beliefs are the right ones of course! And if everyone else believed like them (i.e. knew the "truth") then the world would be a better place. Substitute the idea of "fittest" with "righteousness" as perceived by the theist mind, and it's easy to understand how they come to the conclusion that people who "believe" in evolution, will think it their duty to improve the human race through eugenics-style selective breeding.
This is a classic case of projection. Just like how most theists believe that atheists "want" there to be no God, just so we can run around "sinning" without any fear of repercussion. They simply can't imagine why someone would behave morally if there is no all-powerful sky-god to punish them if they didn't. It would be funny if it weren't so damn pathetic.
Elegantly put!
Other Comments by nalfeshnee
121. Comment #158971 by Christopher Davis on April 11, 2008 at 9:08 am
"Atheism does not make the choice for us and thus Atheists must all figure out their own approach to morality. I would add that the striking under-representation of Atheists in the prison population would seem to indicate that we tend to be quite successful in this quest. As I recall in 1994 self identified Atheists represented 2% of the general population in the U.S. but only 0.2% of the U.S. prison population."---Jon_Sociologist
I can't confirm Jon's numbers, but in my civilian job (I'm a U.S. Army reservist currently serving in Afghanistan)I work in a prison and virtually every inmate has a Bible, Torah, or Koran. Religion is a hot commodity among these guys...oh and by the way, on my unit, they are all sex offenders.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
122. Comment #158980 by Geoff on April 11, 2008 at 9:20 am
14. Comment #158318 by MelM I found this from news item NCSE in my email box today.
"Expelled producers accused of copyright infringement" April 9 by NCSE
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/301_expelled_producers_accused_of__4_9_2008.asp
May I permit myself a small snigger...?
Other Comments by Geoff
123. Comment #158996 by iBELIEVEinJESUS on April 11, 2008 at 10:03 am
Thanks to all who posted links for articles on my morality question (#85). I'm eager to look into it more.
I respectfully decline to respond to some of the questions about proving what Jesus was really about. I couldn't make the case without quoting scripture, and I don't know if this group would bare it. Moreover, I'm not as interested in making MY case as I am in asking you all about your opinions.
I'd like some feedback on this... I truly believe that religion is going to bring about the demise of humanity (maybe civilization is a better word). What is the atheist/evolutionist's proposed solution to what I believe will be the primary cause for the destruction of mankind on a massive level?
Is it limited to an aggressive educational campaign?
(sidenote: you guys(gals) have thought about EVERYTHING! Every angle. I'm super-impressed)
Other Comments by iBELIEVEinJESUS
124. Comment #159000 by phasmagigas on April 11, 2008 at 10:13 am
IBIJesus.
welcome, seems there is a reasonable theist here at last, im not being patronising, its just that a new creationist troll arrives avery week or so with
'you STUPID atheists, you just dont gettit do YOU, darwin is your stupid god, wake up and see the truth of the BIBLE, prove it, wheres the FOSSILS, haha, got you now'
thats the type of thing we find here and it gets boring fast.
actually theree was one this last day, a 'DIOgenes' who was pratting on about dawkins being our idol and that dawkins was gullible and just general nonsense, he/she seems to have deleted their own posts and vanished, very odd, but anyway iyou get the point im sure.
people here appreciate thoughtful discussion as im sure you do.
PG
Other Comments by phasmagigas
125. Comment #159025 by phil rimmer on April 11, 2008 at 10:56 am
IBIJesusI'm here for political reasons. I don't care what wisdom or nonsense people may or may not hold in their heads. It is their behaviour in the public space that counts.
I am deeply shocked that some people fail to see that a Secular State protects all, that it must be morally the least bad and that it will probably (bringing us full circle) prove the most fertile ground for the cultivation of empirical and personal spiritual wisdom.
Top of my To Do list to solve the world's ills- Get you to join my political cause.
Next, come up with possible slogans.
"The Secular State, A Cure for Pride?" (The question mark is necessary!)
Or suggested by one of my Christian friends, an extension to Oliver Cromwell. I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken…and act accordingly..
I guess Hitchen's "Mr Jefferson, Build up that Wall" really gets it.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
126. Comment #159073 by bitofinger on April 11, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Comment #158996 by iBELIEVEinJESUS on April 11, 2008 at 10:03 am
I'd like some feedback on this... I truly believe that religion is going to bring about the demise of humanity (maybe civilization is a better word). What is the atheist/evolutionist's proposed solution to what I believe will be the primary cause for the destruction of mankind on a massive level?
Is it limited to an aggressive educational campaign?
Well it's nice to see a rational argument from a religionist every once in a while. Yours is truly a scarce demeanor. I am usually reserved of the opinion that religion and rationality are mutually exclusive. :)
All niceties aside, I think your premise of a solution is flawed. It seems incompatible with the realities of society and the way our cultures have developed over time. As much as I'd love to say "Here is the proof. What are you waiting for?", I don't think forcing our views on others in a sudden burst of massive education - regardless of the evidence - will have any effect on the vast majority of people.
Letting nature take its course has been a great axiom for life over the past 4.3 billion years. It may be that the only way for people to see the light (pun intended) is slowly over generations.
And if it means the destruction of the human race or civilization as we know it, then it is possible - no, inevitable - that something smarter will come along. Wouldn't it be great if one day there were a creature that could play the piano a hundred times better than us? Or an animal that could can swim underwater for months at a time? How about a super-intelligent being who could override the selfish gene and strive in ways we never thought possible to achieve perfect balance in nature?
Other Comments by bitofinger
127. Comment #159075 by jimbob on April 11, 2008 at 12:13 pm
That doesn't mean that Hitler had to be atheist, but if he believed in God, it wasn't the God of the Bible.
Correct---judging by the bible accounts yahweh was far more murderous than Hitler.
Other Comments by jimbob
128. Comment #159198 by Economist on April 11, 2008 at 3:35 pm
While accurate, the original poster's observation can and does lead to fallacious conclusions. In small populations in their early history, it is perfectly true that natural selection kills off some traits and, by implication reinforces others. But in larger, older populations many traits won't manifest until the proper pairing of parental genes. Thus counter-survival traits can be preserved and even reinforced if accompanied by pro-survival traits. Further, environment changes and what was pro-survival may become counter-survival. When the environment changes back,as it does, the older pro-survival traits might have been lost. And it is unlikely that the same traits that are pro-survival in the desert are also so during an ice age. Yet we have both desert peoples and arctic peoples who seem to trace back a long time.When it comes to, for example, human evolution, the issue is thus far more complex than the simple--if you die your traits don't get passed on (note the omission of the word "thereafter" from the original post).
I am sure a careful probabalistic simulation might throw more light on the matter, but as a time-hardened mathematical modeller, "give me a free hand with the assumptions and I'll produce whatever result you like".
To expand on the critical earlier point, "If members of a population die or are killed off, they will leave no descendants for subsequent generations." is prima facie false. The members have to die before they produce offspring for the hypothesis (for it is that, not a logical proof as the writer seemingly would have us believe) to be correct.
Thus the only counter survival traits that produce the indicated result are those which are so counter-survival that they result in the death of the member before producing offspring. This fails to explain much that is attributed to "evolution".
And another thing..
If the original writer's reasoning were correct, shouldn't we see the extinction of many, if not most genetic diseases that invariably produce pre-puberty mortality. By now shouldn't there be none left?
Other Comments by Economist
129. Comment #159200 by DingoDave on April 11, 2008 at 3:53 pm
nalfeshnee wrote in 113:
"So what if Hitler was a (token) atheist? While head of state, he certainly didn't go around murdering millions single-handedly.
The correct question to ask, surely, is: "What beliefs did Hitler's countrymen have?" Ones which enabled them to support Hitler as their leader and to serve in his armies?"
Touche! ->----
Other Comments by DingoDave
130. Comment #159204 by Economist on April 11, 2008 at 4:05 pm
While accurate, the original poster's observation can and does lead to fallacious conclusions. In small populations in their early history, it is perfectly true that natural selection kills off some traits and, by implication reinforces others. But in larger, older populations many traits won't manifest until the proper pairing of parental genes. Thus counter-survival traits can be preserved and even reinforced if accompanied by pro-survival traits. Further, environment changes and what was pro-survival may become counter-survival. When the environment changes back,as it does, the older pro-survival traits might have been lost. And it is unlikely that the same traits that are pro-survival in the desert are also so during an ice age. Yet we have both desert peoples and arctic peoples who seem to trace back a long time.When it comes to, for example, human evolution, the issue is thus far more complex than the simple--if you die your traits don't get passed on (note the omission of the word "thereafter" from the original post).
I am sure a careful probabalistic simulation might throw more light on the matter, but as a time-hardened mathematical modeller, "give me a free hand with the assumptions and I'll produce whatever result you like".
To expand on the critical earlier point, "If members of a population die or are killed off, they will leave no descendants for subsequent generations." is prima facie false. The members have to die before they produce offspring for the hypothesis (for it is that, not a logical proof as the writer seemingly would have us believe) to be correct.
Thus the only counter survival traits that produce the indicated result are those which are so counter-survival that they result in the death of the member before producing offspring. This fails to explain much that is attributed to "evolution".
And another thing..
If the original writer's reasoning were correct, shouldn't we see the extinction of many, if not most genetic diseases that invariably produce pre-puberty mortality. By now shouldn't there be none left?
Other Comments by Economist
131. Comment #159216 by DingoDave on April 11, 2008 at 5:00 pm
iBELIEVEinJESUS aked in comment 124:
"I'd like some feedback on this... I truly believe that religion is going to bring about the demise of humanity (maybe civilization is a better word). What is the atheist/evolutionist's proposed solution to what I believe will be the primary cause for the destruction of mankind on a massive level? Is it limited to an aggressive educational campaign?"
Thank you for your thoughtful question.
While I don't think that there is any one simple answer, an aggressive educational campaign would certainly be a step in the right direction.
I think that schools should make a point of teaching critical thinking skills to their students both early and often.
I also believe that compulsory comparitive religion classes should be taught in schools to help put things in perspective for students. Young people should be required to learn, not just the doctrines of the various religions, but also the histories of their development and the controversies and disagreements which took place within them during that development.
Religious doctrines change and dare I say it, EVOLVE over time, just as any other political or social ideologies do. Unfortunately many, if not most, theists are unaware of this fact.
These kinds of initiatives may help our young people to recognise that their religions, like any other social institutions, are man-made constructs and not doctrines cast in stone or bequeathed from on high for all eternity.
I anticipate that such initiatives would meet with considerable resistance, especially among the more devout or 'fundamentalist' parents. However, it is my belief that young people should have the right to know if they are being brainwashed or indoctrinated, and such classes would perhaps result in them asking their parents some 'hard' questions about the particular faith that they are being raised in.
It might be a humbling and challenging experience for many students and/or parents to have their beliefs opened up to scrutiny and critical examination, but so be it.
Other Comments by DingoDave
132. Comment #159293 by meganmills on April 11, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Hi Philiproulx,Just because something is doesn't mean it should be... Sure, nature practices 'eugenics' - ruthlessly and to devastating effect. It has no option in the matter as there is no alternative.
There's nothing about that fact which compels us, who do have choices and alternatives, to think we ought to take our moral lessons from there and follow suit.
Regs... Megs
Other Comments by meganmills
133. Comment #159486 by philiproulx on April 12, 2008 at 9:33 am
julesfkirby, I know the genetic bottleneck that you describe. But does that not only apply to populations in decline? I'm sure we all remember BIO101 "The Genetic Peril of the Cheetah" ha ha. Poor cheetah.To suggest that eugenics will create a genetic bottle neck on a population of approaching 7 billion, may be a bit of a stretch.
I might also add that we already ARE engaged in harmful eugenic practices. Not in the literal sense, but any type of artificial interference with "natural" selection has the potential to produce the problem that you describe.
For example, modern medicine (while good) creates and environment where deleterious genetic weaknesses (that would under natural circumstances be eliminated from the gene pool) are now finding safe harbor and are given opportunity to propagate and even thrive.
So our efforts to coexist with (and not eliminate) the multitude of genetic weaknesses, has, in effect, created a gene pool that has a dependency on medication and medical advancement, and is not getting stronger.
I was merely suggesting that possibly, the solution would be to balance out this with some proactive approaches to identifying genetic weakness, and eliminating them pre birth.
I was also suggesting that evolution gives us the impetus to do so, since it would be doing it naturally, if we didn't interfere. But since we do interfere (with modern medical science) we need to balance it out with artificial selection.
So, I am sticking to my guns. Evolution does compel us to make every effort to pursue the fittest genome, since it would be doing it for us, if we didn't interfere.
I think if we can determine sickness/diseases that under natural circumstances would be eliminated from the gene pool, we should make every effort to let natural selection do it's thing. Of course the most humane thing to do would be to prevent these types of births.
I also stated that we just don't like where Hitler drew the line in the sand, but the point that no one contends is that we already have a line drawn in the sand in regards to this issue...and we already do perform eugenic practices....in respect to abortions. I'm not saying that Hitler was right, I'm just saying I can understand how he could have drawn his conclusions from evolution.
Other Comments by philiproulx
134. Comment #159577 by Michael P. on April 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - William Shakespeare, Henry VIClearly, Shakespeare was a bigoted, anti-lawyer eugenicist. . . thus paving the way for Hitler.
Other Comments by Michael P.
135. Comment #160956 by exquisitetruth on April 14, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ben Stein has spent so much money spreading this poison, that my website has been plagued by his banner ad for weeks. If it weren't for the irony factor, I'd be pissed.Instead, I just added a note, telling visitors to go ahead and click, since I always wanted to win Ben Stein's money, but then go to expelledexposed.com to get the full story.
Other Comments by exquisitetruth
136. Comment #161151 by clearthinker on April 15, 2008 at 12:42 am
Dear PZ,There is a great deal of confusion about the link between Nazism and Darwinism and I'm afraid that your brief blog does nothing to help.
Firstly you actually miss the point of Expelled. Its major charge is that there are scientists in academia who are being 'expelled' or discriminated against because they dare to question some aspects of Darwinism (the hint is in the title of the film). If this accusation is false then that is the 'falsehood at the heart of expelled'. If the accusation is correct then it is profoundly disturbing. Has evolution moved from being science to being a philosophical/political position? Are evolutionists so doctrinaire that anyone who dares question is discriminated against? Perhaps the makers of Expelled are making it all up - but I am intrigued that this website and others have gone into emotive hyperdrive - no less than seven articles on the film. Anyway perhaps someone could answer the main accusation of the film. I would not have believed it until I started getting letters and e-mails from scientists who requested that I do not use their name because they feared for their careers and their jobs.
Anyway onto the secondary issue you raise. The question of the link between Darwinism and Nazism. A few points.
1) I am surprised that this is the area you get so upset about. What about the link betwen Stalinism and Darwinism? When Stalin was 13 he read the Origin of the Species. He was so excited about it that he read it all night. He later said to his friends "God's not unjust, he doesn't actually exist. We've been deceived. If God existed, he'd have made the world more just". When his shocked friends asked him how he could say such a thing he replied 'I'll lend you a book and you will see'. (See Young Stalin - p. 40 by Montefiore)
2) It is very simplistic to claim that the situation is either that there is a direct causal link between Hitler and Darwinism, or there is no link at all. You need to look at what Hitler believed, the context in which he operated and whether or not Darwinism contributed to that.
3) Your article actually is neutral about whether Darwinism was an influence upon Hitler or not. You are not actually engaging with the issue at all.
4) I find it intriguing that many atheists behave like some religious fundamentalists who start off with the premise and then desperately hold on to any 'evidence' they can google. So after gleaning through various atheist websites we end up with statements such as 'Hitler was a Catholic', Mein Kampf spoke about Christ, The Vatican signed a Concordat etc. None of which takes into account context and all of which ignroes the contrary evidence.
Perhaps it would be better to get the facts first before we do the analysis.
1) As far as we know Hitler never claimed to be an atheist.
2) Hitler was in no sense a Christian. He never attended church, he despised the church and regarded it as a threat to his aims.
3) Hitler loathed Jesus Christ as being the 'eternal Jew'.
4) Hitler was a religious person in that he wanted to create his own cult of the Thousand Year Reich, complete with its buildings, rituals and leaders.
5) Hitler believed in evolution. He believed that Darwinism showed that the strong survive and the weak are removed. He believed that was Nature and if his religion was anything it was a belief in Nature.
6) Hitler operated in a culture which had in many areas rejected traditional Christianity - and had done so because of perceived advances in science and human understanding. That is why support for Hitler was strongest amongst scientists and academics and in the German Universities.
7) Darwinian science (or a misunderstanding or misapplication of it) was combined with the philosophy of Nietzsche and resulted in a more conducive environment for Nazism to flourish.
8) It is clear that the vast majority - if not all - of the senior Nazis were not in any sense committed Christians. Leading figures such as Rosenberg and Goring were vehemently anti-Christian. Rosenberg was the primary influence on Mein Kampf.
9) This is not just true for the senior Nazis but the vast majority of committed Nazis. In a 1942 survey of captured Nazi airmen, when asked what their religion was - 50% said nature, 40% Hitler and 10% said they were atheists.
10) In the last free election before Hitler established his dictatorship the majority of people in Germany voted for parties that were either overtly atheistic (the KPD - communist party) or anti-Christian (the Nazis and the Anarchists).
From the above and many other facts it is clear that one cannot simply just say that atheism necessarily leads to Nazism. However it is doubtful whether the Nazis would ever have come to power if it were not for the general ethos and philosophy of German society. The First World War, the Versailles treaty, the hyper inflation of the 1920's, the incipient anti-semitism of much of German society when combined with the God is dead philosophy of Nietzsche and the implications of Darwinism ('Might is right, the weak are destroyed, the strong survive etc) were a potent soil in which the Nazi ideology flourished. The fact that the church had been severely weakened by the undermining of the BIble through the mainly German Higher Criticism and the acceptance of a weak liberal cultural Christianity meant that there was little chance of it preventing the Nazi disaster.
I am not saying that all atheism leads to such disasters as Nazism. Although I do work on the maxim that you shall know them by their fruits. So far the only societies in the world that have claimed to be atheist have not been an inspiring example.
Other Comments by clearthinker
137. Comment #161155 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 12:58 am
PZ: just a piece of friendly advice. Clearthinker is not only a misnomer (as you can see from his post above and previous comments) but has been shown on this site to hold and promote particularly odious, lying and nasty ideas.
Do what you wish with this information. As for myself (and I suspect a growing number of regular posters here) I am refraining from engaging in posted conversations with him as he exhibits the worst characteristics of fundamentalists the world over; a refusal to consider any point of view or evidence that contradicts the fiercely-held ignorance in his head.
Other Comments by AllanW
138. Comment #161159 by Incredulous on April 15, 2008 at 1:21 am
Comment #161155 by AllanWDitto
Other Comments by Incredulous
139. Comment #161161 by clearthinker on April 15, 2008 at 1:30 am
I am refraining from engaging in posted conversations with him as he exhibits the worst characteristics of fundamentalists the world over; a refusal to consider any point of view or evidence that contradicts the fiercely-held ignorance in his head. t
Thanks Allan. As an example of a self-contradictory statement this is a classic!
A refusal to consider any point of view or evidence sums up neatly your post and your position. I post a great deal of information on the question of this thread and you respond by telling PZ 'shut your ears, eyes and mouth'. I have noticed this about a number of the fundamentalists on this site. You can't answer the arguments so you resort to personal insult (odious, lying and nasty ideas - without of course offering any evidence) and you then advise people not to respond. Perhaps Allan you will not engage in the conversation because you actually have nothing to say.
Meanwhile if you can manage to do this - here is a simple challenge for you. You stated that my post above was odious, lying and nasty. Perhaps you could evidence that by telling us which part is a lie. The other two characteristics are just emotive terms that mean you do not like it. They are meaningless - and to be honest there is nothing rational that one can say to someone who screams in such a childish manner ' I don;t like it ..it must be nasty'. However you have said that it is a lie - so please tell us where these lies are, in the post above. Will I hold my breath?
Other Comments by clearthinker
140. Comment #161165 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 1:49 am
Clearthinker; wrong, wrong and wrong again.
My position is not self-contradictory just pragmatic; it feels nice when you stop banging your head against a brick wall.
'I post a great deal of information '; no, you propogandise.
'You can't answer the arguments ' no; you have been answered many times and you refuse to acknowledge that fact.
'Perhaps Allan you will not engage in the conversation because you actually have nothing to say. ' wrong again as I've posted here many times and have points of view and offer evidence across many threads.
You amply demonstrate my initial point; I thank you. You are demanding attention for every inane and despicable ejaculation you make with the retort that if it is not responded to you have 'won' and we exhibit fundamentalist attitudes by not engaging; these are the tactics of a fundamentalist and maroon.
BTW what's this I hear about a cheque? I'm seriously thinking about making this phrase my sig on any posts to you.
Other Comments by AllanW
141. Comment #161166 by Rachel Holmes on April 15, 2008 at 1:52 am
Firstly you actually miss the point of Expelled. Its major charge is that there are scientists in academia who are being 'expelled' or discriminated against because they dare to question some aspects of Darwinism (the hint is in the title of the film). If this accusation is false then that is the 'falsehood at the heart of expelled'. If the accusation is correct then it is profoundly disturbing.
Morning David,
I have some sympathy with you over what is at the heart of "Expelled". However, saying that the theory of evolution inexorably led to the Holocaust is such an inflammatory and emotive tactic, it requires a response.
I realise you will not accept the analogy, but go with me for moment. A man who holds to the theory of the four humours (and rejects the germ theory of disease) applies for a lecturer's post in a university faculty of medicine. He is rejected. Let's assume that his position on germ theory is the main reason for his rejection.
Was he unfairly discriminated against on the grounds of his belief? Should the university have overlooked his 'unorthodox' views and seriously considered him for the post?
Other Comments by Rachel Holmes
142. Comment #161170 by AllanW on April 15, 2008 at 2:00 am
'Meanwhile if you can manage to do this - here is a simple challenge for you. You stated that my post above was odious, lying and nasty. Perhaps you could evidence that by telling us which part is a lie. The other two characteristics are just emotive terms that mean you do not like it. They are meaningless - and to be honest there is nothing rational that one can say to someone who screams in such a childish manner ' I don;t like it ..it must be nasty'. However you have said that it is a lie - so please tell us where these lies are, in the post above. Will I hold my breath? '
The extract above is a typical piece of Robertson obfuscation and deceit. You know very well that my intial comments referenced other posts of yours on this site yet you deliberately deceive casual posters into thinking I referenced that one post, your sole intention being to both demand a response and mislead others. I refer you to my point above; you exhibit and promote ideas and standards of behaviour that are lying, deceitful and nasty.
Other Comments by AllanW
143. Comment #161172 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 2:04 am
Comment #161161 by clearthinkerYou stated that my post above was odious, lying and nasty.No he didn't. He actually said
has been shown on this site to hold and promote particularly odious, lying and nasty ideas.In other words, nothing about your particular post.
As for your post. Your first paragraph is ingenuous. There are numerous expositions of what actually happened with the people who were supposedly "expelled". Did you actually do any background research on this before you wrote it?
The supposed atheism/Nazism causality. Hitler was religious, his affiliation with orthodox Christianity is debatable. That he misused ideas from Darwin and Nietzsche is true, but this reflects on Hitler and not on Darwin or Nietzsche. That he extended the anti-Semitism that had been a part of German society since at least the time of Martin Luther ("The Jews and their Lies") is also true. That the collapse of German society can be attributed to the treaty of Versailles and world economic conditions is also a valid argument.
Does this give any substance to the claim that atheism is causally implicated in the rise of Nazism. Neither you or Ben Stein has come any where demonstrating this. I would probably go further and say that neither he nor you have even demonstrated even correlation between the two.
Other Comments by epeeist
144. Comment #161175 by Steve Zara on April 15, 2008 at 2:16 am
Comment #161172 by epeeist As almost every recent post by ClearRobertson ends "this is my final, final farewell", perphaps we should start each response to him with "how nice to see you have changed your mind again and come back".
Other Comments by Steve Zara
145. Comment #161176 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 2:20 am
I see clearthinker has been let out to photosynthesise again!
David, why don't you tell us all how there were no earthquakes before mankind again.
Tell us why you dont hold to Deuteronomy 13:13-19 and kill non believers?
Could it be that your values are actually secular and you reject the historical roots of your faith that demand the death of those who tell you to worship other gods?
Do you actually think christians are better than anyone else?
In other words, nothing about your particular post.
He would be funny if he wasn't serious. David, why do you feel the need to distort and constantly need to make people appear to say things they did not? That's not very christian of you is it? tut tut!
Other Comments by BillySands
146. Comment #161177 by Roland_F on April 15, 2008 at 2:20 am
137. Comment #161151 by clearthinkerFirstly you actually miss the point of Expelled. Its major charge is that there are scientists in academia who are being 'expelled' or discriminated against because they dare to question some aspects of Darwinism (the hint is in the title of the film). If this accusation is false then that is the 'falsehood at the heart of expelled'. If the accusation is correct then it is profoundly disturbing
If 'Expelled' makes wrong accusations is lying and distorting it's just "falsehood" , but when the claim that creationists have difficulties in the science community it is true it is " profoundly disturbing".
Thank you David A. Robertson for the insight and acknowledgement of your double standards, or should I say single standard: lying for Jesus is of course allowed and no sin under Christian morality.
There was an audio link posted some days back on one of the (far too) many treads here about this, where the producer of 'Expelled' was interviewed and it showed up that the creationist scientists allegedly harassed because of his believe was even promoted and had more freedom in his job. Possible Robertson already came along it, but of course ignores all evidence as usual (deja vu).
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis
I would not have believed it until I started getting letters and e-mails from scientists who requested that I do not use their name because they feared for their careers and their jobs.
Oh really many scientist from all over the world are mailing you to seek protection and help from you (a Scottish highland priest) against the bad Evolutionist mafia in science. LOL
About the 'few point Hitler = Darwinist" .
There were so many quotations of Hitler here and even 'discussions' with you (if you can really call your one-sided ignorance of facts a 'discussion') : all public speeches, Mein Kampf and other writings of Hitler show he at least claims to fulfill Gods will with the holocaust. And both main churches in Germany willfully colluded with Hitler, as did the churches in Spain with Franco and Italy with Mussolini. And don't forget again that Stalin grew up under strict religious teaching and learned there the power of indoctrination and cult.
Robertson can't still stop the bad habit of theist, to link evil persons to the atheist camp to give them a bad image.
But don't worry as all faithful persons independent of their evil doings in life will go to heaven according to Christian dogma, you might meet Hitler, Franco and Mussolini there and can discuss their true feelings.
Other Comments by Roland_F
147. Comment #161178 by Incredulous on April 15, 2008 at 2:20 am
AllanWNo need to rise to the bait. PZ is an intelligent man and will form his views. In fact, I would imagine he already has opinions Mr Robertson's arguments and ideas which are less than complimentary.
Better to ignore Mr Robertson until he goes away.
Your time is far more valuable and shouldn't be wasted on nothing at all.
Other Comments by Incredulous
148. Comment #161180 by BillySands on April 15, 2008 at 2:26 am
In other words, nothing about your particular post.
He has already been told this is pish! I even know creationist biochemists who have recieved faculty support. Nice to see him continuing the lie in an attempt to polarise. David if you keep up this lie, I might have to "out" some of these god bothering biochemists in dundee and then we will see.
Other Comments by BillySands
149. Comment #161181 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 2:28 am
Comment by David Robertson:
I would not have believed it until I started getting letters and e-mails from scientists who requested that I do not use their name because they feared for their careers and their jobs.The Argument from Personal Incredulity and Personal Bias.
Unless of course you were to publish said "letters and e-mails" as evidence.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
150. Comment #161182 by Philip1978 on April 15, 2008 at 2:29 am
I am not saying that all atheism leads to such disasters as Nazism. Although I do work on the maxim that you shall know them by their fruits. So far the only societies in the world that have claimed to be atheist have not been an inspiring example.
Are you STILL really that ignorant of what atheism is?
How many times have you been told on this site that that sentence alone is one great big fat accusation that all atheists are bad, some can even turn to Nazism?
Let me repeat myself, just for the sheer bloody hell of it
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, fairies, pixies, unicorns - ANYTHING that is the product of human fantasy. THATS ALL IT IS!
My lack of belief in Odin does not mean I am therefore set to be a Nazi or an equally bad person does it?
Your God is no different and does not deserve special treatment when explaining how lack of belief in him can make people act immorally. That sounds to me like the height of arrogance to even suggest it.
Good people are Good people David, Bad people are Bad People, I have not heard of somebody going out and doing something as a direct result of not believing in Thor or your God
I have heard of people doing things in the name of political idealism, religion, medical problems, football, racism, homophobia - the works.
Not believing in a God is just thinking precisely that, it has NOTHING to do with me being who I am, PLEASE understand this!
Oh and by the way, I suggest you read up on Artificial Selection, people have known about this way before Darwin arrived - cattle breeders, crop growers etc- Making the "Master Race" was just a version of breeding more people with the qualities perceived by Hitler to be worthy of his dream.
So please, no more of this finger pointing at who you think are Fundamentalist Atheists, one there is no such thing and two get to grips with the definition of what atheism ACTUALLY is!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
101. Comment #158715 by DingoDave on April 11, 2008 at 1:24 am
"I don't know what Hitler believed, but he certainly wasn't Christian."
Please refer to the website that I suggested in post No. 90 to learn more about the topic.
Hitler repeatedly and enthusiastically appealed both to the Bible, and to Christianity in general in order to justify what he considered to be his 'divine mission'.
The web page is entitled 'Hitler's Christianity'.
I'll put the link right below here for you. Simply click on it, and read for yourself the kinds of things that Hitler said and wrote about his religious views. Don't simply take my word for it.
CLICK HERE --> http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
Other Comments by DingoDave