Isn’t this this the definition of a Christian person?

The hypothesis of Evolution indeed contains no ethical imperative; but as a qualitative assumption — which has no place in natural science — it will necessarily lead to one.

Under what code of ethics or fairness are people impugned for having their ideas misrepresented and crimes then committed as a result of the misrepresentation?

I don’t blame Darwin the man and I don’t think Tom is blaming him either. However, there is a link as Tom pointed out. There are unfavorable links associated with Christianity too. Do you think Christianity and the Crusades are unfairly linked?

But how can a system that has no “oughts” lead to any behavior?…So how can naturalism, which you claim has no oughts, be singled out for blame, and how did Music and Math get off scott free?

Naturalism isn’t to blame. Moral agents are to blame. It’s always been that way.

So you defend the aspersion that Darwin bears some responsibility for the Holocaust because

some German Darwinian scientist declared there was such a link [to Darwin's ideas and The Final Solution?]. They did. They were philosophically mistaken, but they did it anyway.

So this is how you defend the aspersion that Darwin is in some way responsible for the Holocaust? Under what code of ethics or fairness are people impugned for having their ideas misrepresented and crimes then committed as a result of the misrepresentation? What other historical figure is considered “responsible” for later outcomes that they did not act in and were contrary to their positions? That’s like saying that Jesus was both necessary and a major precursor to Charles Manson, who declared that he was Jesus Christ, was mistaken, but killed people anyway. If you’re comfortable saying that then your logic is at least consistent, although I hold that such an argument renders itself absurd.

You keep saying that

There is no ought at all in naturalism.

But how can a system that has no “oughts” lead to any behavior? I mean this seriously. Music has no code of ethics. Math has remained on the fence about what we must do since, well, forever. So how can naturalism, which you claim has no oughts, be singled out for blame, and how did Music and Math get off scott free?

First off, I don’t know what you mean by inserting the qualifier “necessary” there. Either there is a philosophical link, or there is not.

What I mean is that the logic of the Holocaust does not follow ineluctably from the logic of Darwin.

I don’t think you can make the point you’re trying to conclude — that Darwin bears any responsibility for the Holocaust — unless you declare that there is a philosophical link between Darwinism and the Holocaust.

There is another option: that not I, but some German Darwinian scientist declared there was such a link. They did. They were philosophically mistaken, but they did it anyway. And they were believed by much of Germany. And Haeckel in particular was endorsed in his theories by Darwin. Thus I conclude there is an historical link, which is what I’ve been saying all along.

Otherwise you’re just saying that Darwin is in some way involved as a (historical) precursor, and this just follows a “butterfly effect” argument that would blame everyone and everything (even those who tried to stop it, or who advised against it) that came before the holocaust.

There are always major influences and minor influences, necessary precursors and casual precursors. It would appear to me that Darwinism was probably necessary and certainly a major precursor.

Where is the evidence that humans who prescribe to a naturalist philosophy tend to dehumanize (it seems to me that there is evidence for the opposite);

Peter Singer and animal rights activists. Will Provine, Daniel Dennett, denying free will. For a start.

Where is there a naturalist treatise or theory that prescribes immoral / malevolent behavior? Is there a naturalist theory that prescribes (” you ought…” ) any behavior or code of ethics, and if there is, is it essentially different than a Christian code of ethics?

There is no such theory that I know of that prescribes such behavior. There is no ought at all in naturalism. Precisely my point. I’ve stated it several times.

Humans have dehumanized one another for the purposes of violence and wholesale slaughter throughout history without reference to Darwin or naturalism. Are you aware of how both the Nazis and Tojo’s Japan justified their own expansions vis-a-vis the (Western / Christian) conquest of the America’s?

Sure. But saying it could happen without reference to Darwin doesn’t mean that applies to the Nazis.

Germany was a Christian nation during the Holocaust. Why didn’t the population’s over-arching theory of Christian ethics prohibit them from enacting the atrocities of the Holocaust?

Because they had been persuaded of the good of advancing the species and had become blinded to the Christian ethic. Very clear in Weikart.

I still disagree with you on a number of conclusions and arguments you use in this topic. I’m must going to start with the ones that occur to me first.

You state that that “there is no necessary philosophical link from Darwin to Hitler.”

First off, I don’t know what you mean by inserting the qualifier “necessary” there. Either there is a philosophical link, or there is not. I don’t think you can make the point you’re trying to conclude — that Darwin bears any responsibility for the Holocaust — unless you declare that there is a philosophical link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. Otherwise you’re just saying that Darwin is in some way involved as a (historical) precursor, and this just follows a “butterfly effect” argument that would blame everyone and everything (even those who tried to stop it, or who advised against it) that came before the holocaust.

I imagine that you’re thinking, “Tony, this isn’t that hard — Darwin’s theory of evolution tends to lead to naturalism, which says that a man and an animal are the same, so believing in evolution very often leads to a philosophy where there is nothing to prevent humans from killing other humans.”

Here are just a few of the problems with that argument:

- Where is the evidence that humans who prescribe to a naturalist philosophy tend to dehumanize (it seems to me that there is evidence for the opposite);
- Where is there a naturalist treatise or theory that prescribes immoral / malevolent behavior? Is there a naturalist theory that prescribes (” you ought…” ) any behavior or code of ethics, and if there is, is it essentially different than a Christian code of ethics?
- Humans have dehumanized one another for the purposes of violence and wholesale slaughter throughout history without reference to Darwin or naturalism. Are you aware of how both the Nazis and Tojo’s Japan justified their own expansions vis-a-vis the (Western / Christian) conquest of the America’s?
- Germany was a Christian nation during the Holocaust. Why didn’t the population’s over-arching theory of Christian ethics prohibit them from enacting the atrocities of the Holocaust?

In point 2 I spoke of an historical link that can be traced from Darwin to the German Darwinists to a nation that was prepared to follow Hitler into the committing of the Holocaust.

So I must correct myself on a recent point. I do not believe Darwin is entirely to blame for the Holocaust. That would be a ridiculously simple-minded and historically ignorant position to take. I do believe that the general mindset of a nation was conditioned by Haeckel (whom Darwin personally endorsed) and other German Darwinists to believe that there were higher and lower races of mankind. This could then be used to justify the Holocaust. It is not an inevitable or even good philosophical progression but it is what happened historically.

See also Pez’s comment on Telic Thoughts.

I don’t think you’re being fair or precise to Ed here. You asked Ed to not make you defend things you did not say.

Ed says you “claim that Hitler’s ideas grew from Darwin, or that evolution theory was used to justify the Holocaust, when that is not the case,” and you say that you did not say this.

But, you wrote all of these:

Second, it’s not quite true that there is no philosophical link from Darwin to Hitler. There are two at least two valid connections between them.

The connection is this: naturalistic Darwinism, if taken to be the sole explanation for all of life,* erases all ethical requirements.

There is an ontological implication in Darwinism: humans are the same kind of thing as animals. Hitler applied this selectively, to be sure, but he applied it with great effect.

Darwinism dehumanizes in a different way. Hitler treated humans like animals; Darwinism says that’s what we are.

Darwin was responsible [for opening an ideological or ethical door for the Nazis, which would not otherwise have been opened.]

Without Darwinism, I believe, Germany would have resisted Hitler.

So, I think Ed’s question to you is a fair one, at least in the first part of his assertion, that you claim that Hitler’s ideas grew from Darwin. The points 1 and 2 you refer to on this topic state otherwise, but all the comments above are ones you made later. When I’ve asked you clarify your claims to me it seems to me that you assert precisely what Ed says you claim above.

It’s a moral corruption to claim that Hitler’s ideas grew from Darwin, or that evolution theory was used to justify the Holocaust, when that is not the case.

See points 1 and 2 in my post.

David Klinghoffer has recently written a short synopsis of the same. Weikart traces a line among German scientists, physicians, psychiatrists and other thinkers that began a (philosophically false yet historically real) belief that, under evolutionary theory, the “progress of the species” is a great moral imperative.

That’s a religious argument. It’s not only not suggested by evolution theory, it’s exactly contrary to evolution theory. If you research the origins of the Crown of Creation argument, you’ll discover it’s a Christian claim.

Doesn’t anybody on the creationist side ever read history?

It’s not wrong to utter “Darwin” and “Hitler” in the same breath. It’s a moral corruption to claim that Hitler’s ideas grew from Darwin, or that evolution theory was used to justify the Holocaust, when that is not the case.

“Now, as I have suggested elsewhere, we still have to wonder about the problem this raises. For Dawkins and others, neo-Darwinism is the sole explanation for life. If the sole explanation of life cannot lead to any oughts, then are there any oughts at all? Where do they come from? Dawkins’s own ethics (see his review article, in the paragraph about Hitler) have nothing to do with his beliefs about what life is about. They almost seemed snatched out of thin air, so disconnected are they from his other views regarding reality.”

Dawkins points out a simple falsehood, a theoretical model on how life evolves does not equate to a violent political and racial ideology.

In response you attempt to build an argument where you equate Dawkins own ethics to being based on absolutely nothing by quote mining his words in the following:

“As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society with universal healthcare” etc. etc.

The argument is made to imply that because Dawkins doesn’t have a basis for his ethical standing then where else is he drawing it if not from his belief on how life began. Which of course returns us to the original problem, of applying a mechanical description of a process into a philosophical ideology. Which only begs the question, what does Dawkins own ethical views have to do with the problem originally presented?

Not to mention that there is still the hidden presumption that god belief is the only way to have a moral code. Why else would you be questioning someone elses lack of a position on ‘origins of life’ you hold unless you presume it to be a requirement for morality and in combination with god belief. More importantly, there is also a false dilema in that you are submitting that atheism=evolution and theism=creationism. In order to also demonstrate the red herring involve we only need to elaborate,”As if a god could not create a universe where evolution is simply a function of biological development.” This is ignoring of course that ‘evolution’ as in strict biological evolution has nothing to do with the ‘origins’ of life. It is also ignoring your questionable usage of ‘darwinism’ to imply atheism or attempting to explain the origins of life.

I must also point out that jews are not simply a ‘race’, jews represent a cultural group that encompasses several racial groups and are often integrated into the very communities that they inhabit. Historically, jews had been in europe for hundreds of years and even well ( several hundred years ) before the holocaust they often had to wear dehumanizing/demonizing representations to ‘identify’ them as they left the jewish ghettos. ( Look up Judenhuts ) Which only begs the question, if eugenics and nazi ideology was about the aryan race then why were the targets of their hate so often divided over religious beliefs/political issues as they were race?

You wrote

Evolutionary and cosmological inquiry, rightly practiced, within proper philosophical frameworks, are no threat to Christianity.

By “rightly practiced within proper philosophical frameworks” I think you mean by pre-supposing that there is a God. If no one, least of all ID proponents, has any idea how to prove the existence of God to the point of physical law then why should this be? You keep on saying that reality alone is what informs your moral outlook, but it seems to me that you are taking on faith the existence of God. Those are your personal convictions and that is fine, but in order to conduct science you must convince others — observe, predict, experiment, explain. You can’t, and that’s why there’s no Theory of God in science and why there’s religion, philosophy, etc.

I think you’re taking advantage of the fringes of scientific thought and inserting “must be God” where science says “we don’t know.” The absence of knowledge is an invitation to speculate, but it’s not an invitation to substitute speculation for fact.

ID never said, nor (properly understood) implied that it wants to halt science in its tracks. (I’m speaking now of well-informed, thoughtful ID leaders now. You could probably find exceptions to this but they do not speak for ID.)

This kind of talk is the “No True Scotsman” defense. Because there is no Theory of ID it can be whatever someone says it is, and when that’s proven to fail to meet the standards of science, let alone supplant Evolution, someone can say that ID means something slightly different. If you know that ID, properly understood, does not want to halt science in its tracks then you must know what the theory of ID is. If you can’t tell me what the theory of ID is then you cannot say the above.

Maybe it would help if I wrote down what I believe the Theory of ID is, and you could correct it to what it should be? Then at least we’d have something to do science against. As I’ve said before I find it absolutely incredible that a movement that attracts so many adherents fails to speculate on what phenomena it can observe and what experiments it can conduct that would fortify it’s predictions and explanations.

By the way, agreed that this posting has been fun. Also, I have a pile of books I’m going through, although I haven’t started my collection of essays on the philosophy of science.

Luther may have hated the Jews but he certainly didn’t hate this group of people. And Nazism was able to de-humanize them just as effectively as they did the Jews….

Naturalistic evolution may not be a sufficient cause for such de-humanization, but the ability to dehumanize people to the level Nazis did certainly requires a frame-work that allows the perpetrator to see their actions as a moral right.

Excellent point–thank you.

I meant that this is projection in that supporters of ID would like to replace scientific theory based on empiricism with their own religious (unprovable) convictions. By its nature ID says that, at some level, God created either life or elements of life and classifies these components as beyond empirical science. At some level, ID seeks to halt / replace scientific inquiry; there’s no other conclusion you can make about its end result. On the other hand, I don’t think Evolution (or Cosmology for that matter) seek to stop or replace religious thought and exploration. I agree that a literal Christian has a great deal to fear from sciences like Astronomy and Evolution, but that being replaced by these sciences is not one of them.

That’s what I meant by projection; that a desire on the part of ID proponents to stop science as practiced by Evolutionists is what they accuse Evolution of doing to ID (and by extension to Religion). I haven’t looked it up recently, but I thought projection was taking one’s undesirable thoughts and putting those thoughts onto someone(thing) else. I think that some proponents of ID fear the undermining effects of Evolution and would like to stop it from going further, and they then accuse proponents of Evolution of this very desire.

The way I’ve expressed it may sound harsh, but I don’t mean it to be a personal criticism of you as much as a reasonable explanation for some of the fierce characterizations of Evolution I’ve seen among ID proponents.

To extend the point I’ve already made would take some considerable time and work. What I really wanted to say is what I already said. doctor(logic) said that Luther was as responsible for Hitler as Darwin was. I don’t have the historical knowledge to assess that, so I’ve been doing a kind of “so what” analysis: What if he’s right? The outcome of that was what I’ve already said: Luther was wrong in a way that makes sense within his own system, but the German Darwinists were not.

Does that lead a person to make amoral decisions? I don’t think that’s a good conclusion to draw from what I wrote. An amoral decision is made when one either doesn’t care what is moral, or doesn’t believe in morality. I don’t think either was true of the German Darwinists. (I’m not even sure it was true of Hitler.) They made their decisions in light of a moral code. You may not agree with their moral code, but you couldn’t go back and tell them that in terms that would matter to them. Within their overarching system, there is no better morality than theirs. (The same is not true for Martin Luther.)

So, from where did they get their morality? It’s imported from somewhere; probably in pieces from various other sources. It does not follow from their ultimate views regarding life, so it must come from another source. So there is morality there, but wrong morality in terms of your understanding and mine.

I think this is a case of projection — you believe that because some of the conclusions found in Evolution undermine the Christian Religion that Evolution seeks to replace the Christian Religion.

That’s not projection. Bear in mind that I’ve been thinking all along about naturalistic evolution (as I said in my 10:25 am comment today), which says that there was no guiding hand on the development of life. That is contradictory to Christian belief, and to the extent that its followers want us to believe it, they want us to disbelieve Christianity. Dawkins, at least, is honest about that, as are PZ Myers, Dennett, Atkins, and others.

Nowhere do Scientific theories tell us what we should or should not do. They just don’t. Blaming Scientific Theories for philosophical beliefs and moral decisions is like blaming the sun for the last 20 years of Global Warming.

Agreed. There is no morality in a system that seeks to be 100% scientific, and will not allow for knowledge by any other method to be admitted as actually being knowledge.

So that’s why you oppose Evolution / prefer ID? Because you fear Evolution leads to moral relativism, and ID retains a moral code?

I oppose evolution because I have seen it lead to moral relativism. I don’t prefer ID because it retains a moral code, however. I prefer Biblical Christianity because I think it’s true.

You probably have not seen it here unless you’ve been reading this blog for a while, but my attitude toward ID is that it may or may not prove ultimately to be a successful scientific description of the world. Its intent is to show that God (or the designer) left actual fingerprints of his creation work in nature. There seems to be very good support for that in cosmology, but as for biology, I’m content to see how it all plays out over the next decade or two. My support for ID is not based on a conviction that it’s correct, but that it ought to be supported as a general program of inquiry.

But Evolution isn’t a belief system whose purpose is to guide personal conduct. No scientific theory does that. I think this is a case of projection — you believe that because some of the conclusions found in Evolution undermine the Christian Religion that Evolution seeks to replace the Christian Religion. I think that would be true if we were comparing Islam and Christianity, but that’s not the case with a scientific theory and a religion. Scientific theories are not religions. One can see analogues, but they are inherently different in a way that prohibits one from conflating the other.

It appears to me that the German Darwinists you describe made bad (immoral) decisions and sough to justify / cloak their crimes in a bad interpretation of Evolution’s practical implications. This is no different than any of the justifications used in Germany, Poland, Russia, etc. to justify pogroms that occurred centuries before Darwin was born.

Nowhere do Scientific theories tell us what we should or should not do. They just don’t. Blaming Scientific Theories for philosophical beliefs and moral decisions is like blaming the sun for the last 20 years of Global Warming.

So that’s why you oppose Evolution / prefer ID? Because you fear Evolution leads to moral relativism, and ID retains a moral code?

So I agree with your final sentence: it’s not appropriate to draw any ethic out of Darwinism….Having done that, though, their worldview left them without a moral corrective to their error.

Agreed. A full and complete explanation such as the Darwinian/OOL package that lacks ethical oughts (one way or the other) is one that leaves the universe without any ethical oughts – period.

I never quite understand how people can think there are no ethics, except personal ethics. That’s like saying there’s no light in the room, except the light I can see. Well….which is it?