Darwin day: a time to reflect
February 12, 2008 – 12:36 am by William Wallace
Today is “Darwin Day” in the land of make believe.(Duncan 2008)
And so it is the perfect day to listen to Darwin’s Deadly Legacy (audio part 1 and part 2)—if only because for every Christian that listens to this program, an evolutionist goes apoplectic.
To paraphrase a point made by Socretes in Plato’s Phaedrus, the persons who promote an idea (evolution in our case) are not always the best judges of its usefulness and consequences.(Plato 370 B.C.)
Contrary to evolutionist claims, many mainstream historians have noted the link between Darwinism and Hitler. An example I recently encountered is Robert Wiener of Lafayette College. In his lecture on “The Long 19th Century”, Wiener notes:
Worse, by the 1860s changed nationalism began to combine with newer forces of social Darwinism and so-called scientific racism…
One of the most important books of the entire century—of the entire modern era—was obviously Charles Darwin’s 1859 “On the Origins of Species”.
Or, should we give the full title? “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”…
Listen to [Darwin] carefully:
Thus from the war of nature, from famine and death—the most exalted object of which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life.
Let me continue:
The idea of struggle is as old as life itself. For life is only preserved because other things perish through struggle. In this struggle, the stronger—the more able win, while the less able—the weak loose. Struggle is father of all things.
Opps, I made a mistake. That was a hundred years later—somewhat. That was Adolph Hitler speaking. But the language was remarkably similar. At least thus far. Hitler would continue:
Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanities that men live or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the brutal struggle. If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won.1
A sharper criticism is presented in the previously mentioned Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, a program put out in 2006 by Coral Ridge Ministries describing the consequences of social Darwinism.
Presaging Wiener’s observations, and referencing Gould’s, Ken Ham noted the horrific treatment of Australian aborigines by the English and Germans:
A lot of people might not connect Darwinian evolution with racism. But as the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould said, racists attitudes were common before Darwin…Darwin taught in his book The Descent of Man for instance, the Australian Aborigines were basically closest to the ape-like ancestors. The Australian Aborigines were looked on as the missing links in history—In the very early 1900s, they’re even listed as animals in the Sidney Museum booklet. And there were scientists from Germany and England who sent people to Australia with instructions on how to kill the Aborigines, how to skin them, how to boil up their skulls for specimens for museums around the world. —Ken Ham(Kennedy 2006)
Other interviewed experts in in Darwin’s Deadly Legacy include:
- Richard Weikart, Author, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany
- Michael Behe, Author, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
- Jonathan Wells, Scientist and co-author, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence In Biological Systems
- Ann Coulter, Renowned evolution-controversy expert and author of the New York Times #1 book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism
- Phillip E. Johnson, Author, Darwin on Trial
- Lee Strobel, Journalist and Author, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God
What other bloggers are saying:
Denyse O’Leary commented on the Deadly Legacy program, and generally supported it in a “never again” sense. However, she also cautioned against making the link between Darwin and social Darwinism too strong.(O’Leary 2006) The evolutionist Paul Myers simply dismissed the program as “tripe.”(Myers 2006)
Joshua Rosenau wrote an outstanding piece of prose, if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory reflecting on both Darwin and Lincoln (who share their birthdays).(Rosenau 2008)
But those who have studied history know that Darwinism, as a philosophy, has influenced and provided cover for everything from Hitler’s persecution of Jews to Margaret Sanger’s persecution of the unborn.
Footnotes
1Many nineteenth century historians have made this and similar observations. Below is the quote with fuller context to show that Weiner was taking steps to defend Darwin.
Worse, by the 1860s changed nationalism began to combine with newer forces of social Darwinism and so-called scientific racism…
One of the most important books of the entire century—of the entire modern era—was obviously Charles Darwin’s 1859 On the Origins of Species. Or, should we give the full title? On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Now Darwin was a gentle scientist. He continued to do his research thereafter and published The Descent of Man—even more powerful—at the end of this time period—in 1870-71. And he had worked at his labor scientifically, standing on the shoulders of many many others as well. Carefully, carefully thinking about the implications of his evidence. And in fact, he waited on the publication of his manuscript, because he knew it would challenge established religious beliefs, and he was still somewhat religious himself. And he knew it could be put to bad use, as indeed it was put to bad use. Listen to him, more carefully:
Thus from the war of nature, from famine and death—the most exalted object of which we are capable of conceiving, namely the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life.
Let me continue:
The idea of struggle is as old as life itself. For life is only preserved because other things perish through struggle. In this struggle, the stronger—the more able win, while the less able—the weak loose. Struggle is father of all things.
Opps, I made a mistake. That was a hundred years later—somewhat. That was Adolph Hitler speaking. But the language was remarkably similar. At least thus far. Hitler would continue:
Struggle is the father of all things. It is not by the principles of humanities that men live or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the brutal struggle. If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won.
Well let’s redeem Darwin. Darwin would never have gone ahead with that second half, because Darwin would have wanted to compensate for human decency. During his research he even said, when he was on the Galápagos Islands: “It would appear that the birds in this archipelago have not as yet learnt that man is a more dangerous animal than the tortoise.”(Weiner 2005)
Sources
- Crary, Duncan (1-17-2008) Feb. 12 is “Darwin Day” Institute for Humanist Studies Press Release
- Kennedy, D. James (8-21-2006) Darwin’s Deadly Legacy (audio part 1) (audio part 2) Coral Ridge Ministries
- Myers, Paul Z (8-26-2006) Darwin’s Deadly Legacy: What Tripe Pharyngula
- O’Leary, Denyse (8-14-2006) New Film Special: Darwin’s Deadly Legacy The ID Report
- Plato (370 B.C.) “Phaedrus” The Dialogues of Plato, vol. 1
- Rosenau, Joshua (01-2005) “if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory” Thoughts from Kansas
- Weiner, Robert I (01-2005) The Long 19th Century: European History from 1789 to 1917 The Great Courses
Audio
Download it to your ipod:
- Darwin’s Deadly Legacy (audio part 1)
- Darwins Deadly Legacy (audio part 2)
©2008 Coincidence Theories / William Wallace. Corrections and discussion welcome.
18 Responses to “Darwin day: a time to reflect”
Among several errors in this article, one stands out. It is the “reasoning” summarized through:
Charles Darwin would be considered a racist by today’s standards, hence species don’t evolve.
To see just how sad this is, consider the parallel “reasoning”:
George Washington would be considered a racist by today’s standards, hence America doesn’t exist.
By Dan Styer on Feb 12, 2008
Now I know you’re playing it for laughs.
quote:
“Coulter, Ann, renowned evolution expert and author of the New York Times #1 book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism”
Only a comedian would call Ann Coulter an expert on evolution.
By guthrie on Feb 12, 2008
Only a comedian would call Ann Coulter an expert on evolution.
I think I was quoting an evolutionist website somewhere. I’ll have to look for it. It was probably some evolutionist snark from somebody who never had a book hit the New York Times best sellers list.
More on Ann Coulter:
By William Wallace on Feb 12, 2008
Interesting that it is Religion that defines racism much more than Darwinism. Any Baptist worth his salt can tell you that God made Black people because Ham killed his brother…or some such nonsense like that.
If Darwin was somehow advancing a racist agenda, it was in no small part due to his lingering connections with Religion and not his fascination with science.
Enjoy.
By Tim Fuller on Feb 12, 2008
Well, there’s your problem right there- you think that bestseller = correct. By that measure the Da Vinci code is a great work of literature, and there really are little green men in UFO’s.
By guthrie on Feb 13, 2008
No. I think lack of bestseller = sour grapes.
By William Wallace on Feb 13, 2008
If you have a source for this, I am willing to analyze it.
By William Wallace on Feb 13, 2008
William, I just found your site after reading your exchange with Josh Rosneau.
Go for it!
I don’t know how long you have discussed with him, but he is a master of the SPIN; he will focus even on a particular word and say it means something different from what you mean and base his arguments on that.
Then, like clockwork, he will start with ad hominems of “dishonesty” and accusations of “quote mining”.
If you start to overwhelm him he will ban you.
By Christensen on Feb 14, 2008
May I suggest an interesting reference in this regard; Black’s “War Against The Weak.”
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com
By Christensen on Feb 14, 2008
Thanks for the support Christensen. Please stick around awhile and consider subscribeing to my blog. I’ll check out your link later tonight.
Josh is merely parroting his NCSE/TalkOrigins/PandasThumb masters when he falls back to quote mining accusations, ad hominem and “no true Scotsman” fallacies. It is the standard evolutionist modus operandi.
Expect evolutionists to become more and more shrill as the release of Expelled nears.
By William Wallace on Feb 14, 2008
William,
What part of my argument was a strawman? Did Europeans kill Jews before 1859? Did whites think they were superior to blacks before 1859? Did Darwin advocate killing anyone? Did Darwin encourage anyone to kill anyone?
By michael on Feb 14, 2008
Q: What part of my argument was a strawman?
A: Saying what I write reminds you of something written by Morris, and then slaying what Morris writes, is a strawman argument. I think you and I would agree that racism existed before Darwin.
Q: Did Europeans kill Jews before 1859?
A: Probably, but probably not on the scale that Hitler did.
Q: Did whites think they were superior to blacks before 1859?
A: Some whites certainly did.
Q: Did Darwin advocate killing anyone?
A: Unknown to me if he explicitly advocated killing anyone.
Q: Did Darwin encourage anyone to kill anyone?
A: Unknown, but let’s hope not. The “final solution” was, in the mind of those in power, applied Darwinism, whether Darwin would have approved or not.
And now two questions for you:
Before scientific racism provided cover, what argument successfully justified the killing of inferiors or “useless eaters” on the scale of the industrial “final solution,” and what argument matched the intellectual power of “social Darwinism”?
By William Wallace on Feb 15, 2008
All I am saying is the holocaust was not Darwin’s fault. Morris blamed Darwin for racism and you blame Darwin for the holocaust. Hitler chose to kill millions of people and if Darwin hadn’t written “On the Origin…” Hitler would have found another excuse. The industrial revolution more likely allowed the scale of the holocaust than the strength of any idea.
Darwin provided evidence for common descent and proposed natural selection as a means by which common descent is achieved. Natural selection was the same mechanism animal and plant breeders had used for millenia to produce crops and livestock, but with the environment doing the selecting. Darwin relied heavily on Malthus for fleshing out this idea.
I don’t understand all of the hatred and vilification of Darwin - mechanisms of selection are well understood and well documented. Blaming Darwin and evolutionary biologists for the holocaust is like blaming physicists for Nagasaki and Hiroshima because they explained how atoms can be split. It doesn’t follow.
Darwin was long dead before genetics was understood and the eugenics movement of the early 20th century started. Scientists like Fisher, Wright and Haldane were able to link genetics with natural selection - maybe it was their fault.
You may not like the idea that humans share common ancestry with animals, fungi and plants, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is true.
You also might want to read some history, if you don’t know the fate of Jews in Europe before the 20th century. In the 18th and 19th centuries, what portion of the European population thought Africans, Asians and Native Americans were their equals? I would bet it was a very small minority.
By michael on Feb 15, 2008
Nah, I just linked an idea and an event. But it’s not like I was the first to make this link. The first half of the twentieth century would have been quite different without Darwinism. D. James Kennedy is correct. Ideas do have consequences.
In the future, I will also comment on Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle of Population.
By William Wallace on Feb 15, 2008
Wa;;ace: Contrary to evolutionist claims, many mainstream historians have noted the link between Darwinism and Hitler.
You may be proposing a strawman here. Evolutionists do not deny that Hitler appealed to evolutionary thought in trying to explain his policies, what evolutionists point out is that scientific ideas can be used for good and evil, something which has little relevance on the veracity of said ideas. After all, as Christians we are well aware, or should be, of instances in which Christianity was used to validate what we now consider brutal acts.
The recent attempts by ID creationists to link Darwin to the evils in this world are reminiscent of the same attempts by some poorly informed Christian denominations to blame the evils of the world on evolutionary theory. A bit short sighted if you were to ask me.
What is even more fascinating to me is that concepts of altruism and the foundation of our morality may have been shaped by evolution and evolutionary history. Now would that not be ironic?
By PvM on Mar 2, 2008
In the first half of the 20th century, Darwin’s influences were quite minimal, it was only after science discovered the source of genetic variation (genes) and re-discovered the work by Mendel that evolutionary science took off.
After all, selection like the one proposed by Hitler was hardly new and traces back to at least the ancient Spartans who were quite unfamiliar with Darwin’s teachings I would say. In fact, selection as a way to improve live stock was quite common knowledge amongst breeders etc. No surprise that this is where Darwin got much of his inspirations.
Yes, ideas have consequences, but these consequences are not always inevitable. In fact, relying on Darwinian theory to propose a social darwinism is like using Einstein to propose nuclear deterrence.
By PvM on Mar 2, 2008
Wallace: And so it is the perfect day to listen to Darwin’s Deadly Legacy (audio part 1 and part 2)—if only because for every Christian that listens to this program, an evolutionist goes apoplectic.
Two problems here. First of all there are many Christian evolutionists, second of all, there should be better reasons for Christians to listen to these programs.
By PvM on Mar 2, 2008
H. Klinton vs. Obama. How you consider, who will win elections in United States of America?
By XXLKlintonLobby on Mar 20, 2008