People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level with Holocaust deniers

[laconicsax]

Chapter 1 excerpt from Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth. (link)

Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.

...

If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaustdeniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.

...

The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.

...

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and this book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

While the book isn't about religion, this chapter excerpt deals with it. I think the comparison between holocaust deniers and evolution deniers is fairly apt. While membership in one group doesn't imply membership in the other, both camps deny the existence of things for which there is an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence and both camps tend to do so for religious reasons, whether it's religiously-inspired antisemitism or because of a belief that evolution and their religion are antithetical.

Dawkins also touches on the (possibly unwitting) role that clergy play in perpetuating evolution denial by believing Genesis to be metaphorical, but speaking about it as though it were literal and leaving worshipers believing that Adam and Eve really existed and that God created the universe in six 24-hour days about 6000 years ago.

Full book excerpt (about four times longer than this post) at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece

[MrModerate]

1. Many people think that home-schoolers are all religious fundies . . .

Who can't stand the godlessness of the public education system. But a lot of them are reasonable people who can't stand the feckless narrowness of many public school administrators, not to mention the incredible weight religious and antiscience blather is given in US society. They often tend to home-school.

Myself, I left the country (not only because of education, but it was in the mix) and my children are learning about the world as it is, not as crackpots would have it be.

[laconicsax]

5. Agree completely.

In my 10th grade biology class, the teacher had to teach evolution as 'one way of looking at things.'

It didn't help that she wasn't a particularly good teacher, but it was just ridiculous how many times she had to go through the 'evolution just is one answer' routine every time a student asked how a lightning bolt striking a mud puddle created life.

[Grown2Hate]

2. Does the man EVER rest? It seems like he has a new book out every couple

of months! I love it, though. Dawkins introduced me to my understanding of evolution (The Selfish Gene) by way of recommendation by Douglas Adams in Salmon of Doubt. Both incredible writers who are/were both passionate about evolution. Can't wait for this new book!

[laconicsax]

3. He isn't that prolific.

He's published ten books (including this most recent one) over the last 33 years. The Selfish Gene came out in 1976.

[Grown2Hate]

6. Well, it just seems recently that he's been on a tear. I could be wrong. :)

[FunkyLeprechaun]

25. I love Dawkins too

My professor at BU recommended the Selfish Gene to us in philosophy class. I haven't got round to reading it yet but Dawkins does some pretty cool documentaries for the BBC over here.

[mike_c]

4. wow....

Sounds great!

[moggie]

7. Sounds like another book which should not be necessary

The cover blurb on Jerry Coyne's excellent Why Evolution is True begins with the words "this book should not be necessary". We don't need an entire book setting out the evidence for heliocentrism, because there aren't hordes of organised nitwits claiming that the Earth is the centre of everything and attempting to sabotage the teaching of astronomy. It's the 21st century, and we've put that shit behind us. It's about time the same happened with the evolution-deniers.

[laconicsax]

10. You'd think so since the matter was settled in the 19th century.

Sadly, some people haven't even made it through the 16th century and are still struggling with the Copernican model.

[Why Syzygy]

8. But we know that isn't really what the 'evolutionists'

want to teach. They want to teach that we do not matter in the Universe; that we are no better than 'matter' determined by "natural selection". This sentiment is repeated by atheists in this forum many times.

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about the atoms, this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together....We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

Max Plank "Das Wesen der Materie"

Max Plank (April 23, 1858 – October 4, 1947) was a German physicist. He is considered to be the founder of the quantum theory, and thus one of the most important physicists of the twentieth century. Planck was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.

Charles Robert Darwin FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist who realised and presented compelling evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from common ancestors, through the process he called natural selection.

[laconicsax]

9. Yep, Max Planck is like a god to "evolutionists"

Mostly because of his work in biology. I know everyone thinks he was a physicist, but biology is really just applied chemistry which, in turn, is just applied physics.

Do you practice pulling this stuff out of your ass or do you just go straight to Answers in Genesis like everyone else?

Here are the two facts that you seem to be uncomfortable with:
1) Humans are made up of atoms.
2) Humans share a common ancestor with apes.

Neither of those facts impart a value to life. No one is saying that humans are "no better than 'matter' determined by 'natural selection.'" You claim that atheists claim that on this very board. Prove it.

That's a clever misrepresentation by the way. You take a quote by Planck about physics and consciousness and marry it by sheer force of will to a biographical abstract of Darwin to make an imaginary argument that "evolutionists" (whatever that means) want to teach that people's lives have no meaning.

All life on earth shares a common ancestry. As Dawkins put it in this excerpt, "It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips." Deal with it. If you want to feel like you're existence is important to your god's master plan, go right ahead. No one's stopping you. In fact, plenty of religious people can manage to accept the certainty of evolution and see it as a testament to their god's glory. Just don't pretend that your faith has any impact on empirical facts.

[Why Syzygy]

14. You assume poorly.

just go straight to Answers in Genesis like everyone else?

Of course humans are made of atoms. Who said otherwise? We are all related by the fact of the energy of which Plank speaks.
DNA, not so much.

Life itself imparts meaning to life. We would not be here if for no reason. No such thing as "junk DNA". Debunked, in case you haven't heard. It isn't a mere feat of survival and selection. Does your life have more meaning than a turnip. Debatable; but that's a philosophical question. What flawed species did the turnip overcome in order to survive.

I don't hang in this forum much lately, but my memories are full of statements such as this one:
maxsolomon (1000+ posts) Tue Jun-23-09 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
17. a lot of them are just lazy
it's easier than thinking, or facing the uncertainty of a meaningless existence.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=210959&mesg_id=211420
(Your type are always watching for a chance to say "PROVE IT". Pretty lame, but completely predictable.

Nothing Dawkins "says" holds ANY sway with me. No more than a Bible does for you.

There is plenty of debate in the scientific community over the merits of Darwinianism. You just haven't looked for it. Dawkins feeds you pablum so you don't have to think for yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/Defeating-Darwinism-Opening-Phillip-Johnson/dp/0830813608/ref=reg_hu-wl_mrai-recs

[charlie]

17. Phillip Johnson?

Really? The grandfather of the current ID (stealth Christian creationism) movement, the Wedge strategy, the "teach the controversy" tactic? The Christian chauvinist who would have the Bible replace science in our classrooms? You throw your lot in with that guy?

[trotsky]

21. W.S. is an admitted former fundie herself.

Some old habits die really hard.

[Why Syzygy]

95. He is one example

of many on amazon.

I'm glad I got involved in this debate, against my better judgment. It has made me realize something that I need to keep in mind when dealing with other people. bfn

[laconicsax]

66. All evidence points to common ancestry.

There is no debate in the scientific community over the merits of Darwinian evolution. It's been proven to be true so many times over the last 150 years that it's taken for granted. Every time a new fossil, DNA, molecular, or embryological discovery is made, it confirms the theory of evolution. Nothing has come along and shown it to be false. Every time another species' DNA is sequenced, it falls neatly into place exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory.

The debate over evolution is an imaginary one created by creationists/design proponentists. There are no competing scientific theories--just religious claims and religious claims touted as scientific.

Phillip Johnson, in Defeating Darwinism, claims that the evidence for common ancestry is "just a likely to be evidence of common design." (p.63) Well, some of the biggest evidence or common ancestry is DNA evidence. We know for a fact that when living things reproduce, they pass on their DNA with slight modification (mutation) to their offspring. This is why paternity testing works and it's how we determine common ancestry between species.

By claiming that evidence for common ancestry is "just a likely to be evidence of common design," you end up with the argument that a your possessing your parents' DNA is just as likely to be evidence of common design as it is to be evidence of you being the biological offspring of your parents.

So which do you think it is? Were you designed by an intelligent designer using your parents' DNA as a common design plan or did sperm meet egg and you were born 9 months later? Phillip Johnson says that it's equally likely to be either. If you have children, I'll extend the question. Do they have your DNA because they were intelligently designed or because they're your biological offspring? Do you and your children have your parents' DNA because you were all intelligently designed or because you and your children share a common ancestor (your parents).

[Why Syzygy]

96. We were all designed by

Intelligent Consciousness, as was all of existence. All life forms are fractal. Each new spud doesn't have to be designed all over again.

If you are not ready to 'go there', that's your deal. O&O.

[laconicsax]

97. The evidence for common descent is the same as the evidence for heredity.

You can't do away with one without the other. Intelligent Design holds that the evidence for common descent is indistinguishable from the evidence for common design. Common descent means that the species/subjects are related and common design means that they are built on the same genetic platform, but not related.

This means that two species possessing near identical DNA could indicate one of two things:
1)Common descent--both are related.
2)Common design--neither are related.

Since the evidence for common descent is the same as the evidence for heredity, two children possessing the the same mitochondrial DNA/ y-chromosome could indicate one of two things:
1)Common descent--they share a female and/or male ancestor.
2)Common design--they are completely unrelated

I have a sister. She and I, being the biological offspring of our mother, have the same mitochondrial DNA. If Intelligent Design were true, there would be no way to conclusively determine if we were related to each other or our mother. It would be equally likely that we were unrelated and simply designed using the same DNA as a framework.

You (I assume) have a biological mother. If evolution and therefore common descent were true, you would possess your mother's mitochondrial DNA because you are descended from her. If Intelligent Design were true, there is no way to conclusively determine if you are actually related to your own mother. It would be equally likely that you are unrelated to your mother and simply designed using her DNA as a framework.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are your mother's biological offspring and humans are cousins of chimpanzees or you are potentially unrelated to your mother and humans and chimpanzees are unrelated and share a common design.

The evidence for humans and chimpanzees being cousins is the same as the evidence that you are your mother's daughter.

[Odin2005]

120. Meanringless, gobbolly-gok.

You keep asserting things but refuse to back up your assertions with EVIDENCE.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

78. I'm sorry, but is this a Poe?

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but your post is just so silly.

[laconicsax]

90. All signs point to no.

Unfortunately.

[Evoman]

91. "Debate over Darwinianism" ????

:rofl:


No, there is not. Not at all. AT ALL. A biologist not "believing" in evolution is like a chemist not believing in electrons. It's everything. Nothing makes sense without evolution.

[The Magistrate]

98. This Statement, Ma'am, "We would not be here if for no reason'" Is Laughable

You may believe it; you cannot possibly prove it....

[Why Syzygy]

99. Physics proves it.

But enjoy your laughter. It's good for the heart.

[The Magistrate]

100. No, Ma'am, It Does Not

The concept 'here for a reason' is a purely subjective construct of a human mind, and can exist nowhere else.

Physics may discern certain patterns within physical nature, dubbed laws, which enable prediction some things exist, or come into existence, and continue, but that has nothing to do with what is meant when someone says in English 'thus and so is here for a reason'.

[Why Syzygy]

101. Well, I say it does.

It's related to Einstein's Field Theories.

MY reason is not to attune you to the implications of current research. If it is YOUR reason to know, you'll discover it. Nice Day.

[The Magistrate]

102. People Say a Lot Of Things, Ma'am; Little Of It Is Worth Taking Seriously

It is true enough that different values for some constants might produce circumstances in which life, even matter itself, could not exist, but that has no bearing on a discussion flowing from the statement "We would not be here if for no reason", and which seeks to discover any meaning that string of syllables could possibly convey in English that has any meaning outside the confines of a human mind.

[Why Syzygy]

103. Since "mind",

ie. consciousness, is all there is, there is no "outside" of.

I've always enjoyed your simplicity.

[The Magistrate]

104. Ah, A Berkeley-ite, You Are, Then, Ma'am?

All thoughts in the mind of the deity, eh? Not really good for more than bewildering freshman at parties, that view. And again, absolutely un-proveable. It can be held as a matter of belief, but not as a statement of fact. It has no bearing on serious understanding or investigation of physical phenomena. You might as well go whole hog and proclaim me a figment of your imagination, along with everything else, including yourself....

[Why Syzygy]

107. "un-proveable"

Then explain this:

"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as the result of my research about the atoms, this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together....We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."

Max Plank "Das Wesen der Materie"

[The Magistrate]

108. No Need To, Ma'am; It Is Pure Speculation, As The Words 'We Must Assume' Make Clear

Dr. Plank grew up in an intellectual and academic environment where an idealist philosophical outlook predominated. It is as natural that he should employ a view of this sort in speculation on an ultimate ground of being as it was for an engineer in the Roman empire to explain the setting of concrete or plaster in terms of inter-play between the four elements. It means nothing, and it certainly is not a statement of fact.

It is not a statement that has any relation to science. No conceivable experiment could prove, to a person wedded to it, that it was false; indeed, on its own terms, no possible experiment could disprove it, since any result could be taken as the product the postulated 'mind'. Like all appeals to the supernatural, it is simply beyond the bounds of enquiry into the natural world. No one has proved the existence of any supernatural phenomena, or ever will. They remain the haunt of the gaps, of things not fully understood, things which in some cases may never be fully understood. There is no guarantee humanity will ever fully comprehend and explain the world around us, of which we are a part.

[Why Syzygy]

109. Once again

I simply think you are wrong. I have to believe that you are not informed of current scientific research.

And again, I bid you Good Day.

[The Magistrate]

110. Of Course You Do, Ma'am: Why That Should Impose On Me, Or Anyone Else, However, Is Unclear

It is obvious you simply pluck verbal gew-gaws from the sandy beach of this electronic attic without the slightest awareness of the context in which they originate, or the body of thought they are a part of. This sort of atomization is no display of knowledge, and still less of understanding. You have made reference to some extremely esoteric items of advanced physics, claiming they somehow support your notions of being and the divine, but you have yet to present anything that indicates you know any more of the field than a few buzz-words, and a few paragraphs widely circulated among persons of like mind to yours. Present me with your own summaries of 'current scientific research', demonstrating your mastery of the subject, your knowledge of the ideas involved, and your ability to manipulate them independently, and you might make a better impression. So far, this is simply a rote exercise, that some might consider a bad impression of a machine failing the Turling test....

[Why Syzygy]

111. You may mark me

"incomplete" or "withdraw with an F".

I thought you might come back with a request to show my stuff. It is a rich tapestry to me, woven with multi colors and textures over a lifetime. While I might be able to begin the journey with a friend over dinner, I am not prepared to write out a dissertation for your partaking. Quite frankly, I don't have to. If I showed you all the thread skeins in their original wrappers, you would in no way be able to visualize the finished piece. I listen to everyone, I follow no-one, I decide for myself and allow others do likewise. I have no dogma to display for you.

You see, my deluxe DU membership bestows upon me the same right as other participants here. That is, to state my opinions in a civil manner. That I have done. Beyond that, I am under no obligation to reveal any more of myself, my manner of thinking, or reading materials pursued.

I do have to say, what you consider "obvious" is not reality. You have misjudged my "awareness".

If this position stands me in a bad light in your opinion, thank me for making myself easier for you to categorize.

[The Magistrate]

112. Squid's Ink, Ma'am....

"I'm going home now. Someone get me some frogs and some bourbon."

[Odin2005]

119. Show me this "current scientific research" or admit that you are making up nonsense

You can't just assert things and expect people to take you seriously.

[Why Syzygy]

121. I don't CARE what you do.

I'm allowed to civilly state my opinions. And all your howling can't change that.

[Odin2005]

124. And we are free to call BS an assertions that have no evidence.

[Odin2005]

118. Plank was a physicist, not a biologist, and nobody know much about how the brain worked back them.

Plank was falling victim of the typical tendency among early quantum mechanics researchers of making outrageous philosophical claims that were not justified by the data, the source of much of the BS woo woo nonsense based ignorant, popular bastardizations of quantum mechanics.

[Odin2005]

117. A perfectly meaningless statement.

Our brains are biological computers, consciousness is just a fancy-sounding term for a nervous system that is aware of it's own thoughts. Mind-Brain dualism is logically incoherent nonsense, derived from our instinctive "folk psychology" encoded in our genes.

[Why Syzygy]

123. Let's say that ..

Let's assume that our MIND-BRAIN (two different things, but you object) IS just a "biological computer". For example, a skeptic wrote that he objected to one of Terrence McKenna's theories due to the fact that it was derrived from a DMT experience and not reason. I suspect you would agree with that statement or at least something very close.

If this is the case, it is completely INVALID. Arguing from that perspective, DMT is a brain chemical. We must also assume that the cause of "reason" is chemical in nature. Since there is nothing outside of brain chemical to explain human thought/behavior, all chemicals must be equal. They are all BRAIN CHEMICALS. To assert that the chemical responsible for "reason" is 'better than' the DMT chemical is nonsense! It is completely arbitrary to assess one chemical as more MORAL or WISE than another chemical!

If woo and reason both are derrived from the working of brain chemicals, you are completely irrational to assume reason is better than woo.

[Odin2005]

125. You are showing a very, very superficial understanding of neuroscience.

And don't have a solid grasp on logic, either.

I suggest reading a few basic popular books on neuroscience.

[Why Syzygy]

126. So you're asserting

that some chemicals are more wise or moral than others? What exactly is it in my summary that is illogical or not in line with a veiw that all cognition and experience is due to chemical interactions?

Quick to demand evidence, but opting out yourself?

[Odin2005]

127. chemicals cannot be "wise" or "moral".

Those terms only make sense in terms of relationships between intelligent organisms.

[Why Syzygy]

128. Exactly. nt

[Odin2005]

116. And I say the moon is made of green cheese.

That doesn't make it so.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. Einstein's "Field Theories" (sic) are not subjective.

[uberllama42]

113. I have a lot of contempt for what you're doing here

I disapprove of the way you declare yourself smarter than everyone else here, rail against our blindness, and then decree that it is not your responsibility remedy our lack of understanding nor to provide any evidence for the things you say.

Your behavior in this thread does not foster worthwhile discussion and does not make this a more enlightening venue. If this is all you have to offer, you might as well not post here.

[Why Syzygy]

122. I understand

that it is painful to watch your sacred cow being dissected. You'll live.

I have enough experience in trying to "remedy (your) lack of understanding". I opt out. I'll still post my opinions as provided by my membership agreement at DU. You're responsible for your own emotions.

[Odin2005]

115. You are confabulating nonsense.

Your willful ignorance is astonishing. Your understanding of both physics and biology is a big fat 0.

[charlie]

11. Naturalist in this sense is an occupation

Not a philosophical stance. It's someone who studied nature. "Biology" had only been coined in the early 19th century and "scientist" decades after that. Neither came into widespread use until near the turn of the century.

[Why Syzygy]

15. But then physicists came along

and proved there is more to 'what is' than biology.

[moggie]

13. Tell that to the Archibishop of Canterbury and the Pope

In fact, tell it to the countless Christian teachers who teach evolution. As Dawkins writes in the article:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I've done that, it's another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

In my biology classes at school, many years ago, evolution was taught. There was no more ideology in those classes than in the ones about photosynthesis, and it was entirely uncontroversial. It's not, on the whole, the "evolutionists" who want to smuggle religious issues into science classes: it's your side who are doing that.

Look, we get that you don't like Dawkins, or any other vocal atheists. But most of the people attempting to teach biology to schoolkids are not in that camp.

[trotsky]

16. Why do you post right-wing creationist fundie lies?

They want to teach that we do not matter in the Universe; that we are no better than 'matter' determined by "natural selection".

That is bullshit, a hate-filled misrepresentation that you lifted right from Pat Robertson. You should really be ashamed of yourself, posting such crap on DU.

[laconicsax]

53. Those 'saved' often feel no shame. n/t

[BurtWorm]

20. Biologists should be able to teach biology without being told what they teach is evil

by the ignorant mob of fundamentalist Christians (in particular in this country) who don't understand and don't care to understand what biology is.

[imdjh]

28. I have changed my position on this. I see no point in teaching Origin in any form.

It's not essential to any area of science and has no practical application that I can think of. In short, it doesn't matter if we fell from the sky or swung through the trees and since both of those theories have political aspects having nothing to do with science then I say we dump the topic.

[BurtWorm]

29. Nonsense. That is the coward's way out.

You study biology--and any science--to learn how to get a deeper understanding of nature by looking at the facts. Isn't that an important skill for children to learn? It's the enemies of science who are trying to politicize it. Why give in to those delusional lunatics?

[imdjh]

35. Origin isn't essential to any area of study.

And you can't keep it scientific. Look at the Umatilla Indians. They sued the US Government alleging that government scientific inquiry was a violation of American Indian religion, because it challenges their beliefs of their origin. I am not kidding. They lost, of course, but since then a bill has been working its way through Congress which will essentially put a halt to any scientific study of human remains found in America. Science and politics, don't mix.

[BurtWorm]

37. They lost, of course.

Why did they lose? Why does this bill have a snowball's chance of passing? Why should a door to an area of inquiry be permanently locked based on just a snowball's chance that it violates someone's sensibilities?

[moggie]

34. What a depressingly utilitarian view of education

It's also dead wrong. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" -- Theodosius Dobzhansky. Biology is a pretty damn important subject, and if you want to understand it, you can't simply ignore evolution. As far as practical applications go, the most obvious is that it has informed our understanding of how bacteria and parasites develop resistance to our drugs, and may help us find ways around that.

But, personally, I'd put two less concrete reasons higher on my list of why it's good to learn about evolution:

1. Because learning how the world works is a lot of fun, and the theory has a beauty and elegance to it which I wouldn't want to deny people the chance to experience.

2. Because understanding our interconnectedness with all other life on Earth can only increase our desire to look after the planet. When you learn that chimpanzees are our close cousins, for example, how could you stand by and watch them driven to extinction? When you learn that whales evolved from land mammals, you realise that wiping out some species deprives the world not only of their current form, but possibly a glorious tree of wonderful descendants in the far future.

[imdjh]

36. Only a moron could look at apes and not know we are related. So why teach the obvious?

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. The 'obviousness' of how organisms are related doesn't always point to correct facts

For instance, a dolphin and an ichthyosaur 'look' pretty closely related. But the ichthyosaur is (or 'was', depending on how you want to express it) more closely related to an ostrich than to a dolphin. You might also say Newton's 2nd law is 'obvious', but it wasn't at the time he proposed it, and it still needs teaching.

[moggie]

49. Not necessarily morons, just ignorant of the facts

After all, before the theory of evolution, a majority of people held the view which you label moronic, but they weren't all morons. I think helping to dispel ignorance is a good thing for education to try. Don't you?

[bananas]

12. Nazi policies of racial hygiene and extermination of inferior races was based on evolution.

It's just bizarre that Dawkins would say something like this.
I think, in a few years, we'll find that he's been suffering from a neurodegenerative disease.
It reminds me of how Reagan would say things that just didn't make sense.
Everyone suspected Alzheimers with Reagan.
With Dawkins, it might be mad cow disease.

[trotsky]

18. Oh, absolutely.

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/EvolNazi.HTM

One famous medieval diatribe against the Jews has an elaborate plan for making their lives miserable:

1. First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians.
2. Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them the fact that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
3. Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.
4. Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb.
5. Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home....If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, some day a troop may gather against them, having learned from this booklet the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their activities. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in an their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it.
6. Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess.
7. Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3:19). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

Brought to you by famous evolutionist Martin Luther. Yup, Nazi policies were completely and totally based on "evolution." :eyes:

[bananas]

41. That's got to be one of the most clueless posts I've seen on DU.

Congratulations.

[trotsky]

43. Coming from you, that's quite the compliment.

Thanks!

[bananas]

47. Oh, you deserve it.

For one, you can't tell the difference between "making their lives miserable" and extermination.
Second, you're trying to blame the holocaust on someone who died 400 years earlier.
Sam "Mish-Mash" Harris believes in reincarnation and torture,
maybe you believe Martin Luther reincarnated as Hitler and was just "making their lives miserable".
Next you'll tell us that water-boarding isn't torture.

[trotsky]

50. Aw, you poor thing.

You once again display your inability to see atheists as anything but one monolithic entity following marching orders as dictated by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. All you seem to do is lie low until you find a thread you can come in and poop on atheists - or at least your strawman variation thereof.

Your initial claim: "Nazi policies of racial hygiene and extermination of inferior races was based on evolution."

More words of wisdom from Luther:

There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses — namely, that God has struck with 'madness and blindness and confusion of mind.' So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!

Naw, no way could Luther's ideas and writings be in any way responsible for the attempted extermination of the Jews. It was all that evil atheistic philosophy of EVOLUTION. :eyes:

[struggle4progress]

61. The problem with your reading of that particular bit of Luther is, of course, that you

do not really read the whole piece: otherwise, you should have to explain aspects of Luther's lengthy conclusion, in which he asserts that the gospel cannot be promoted by violence, and cites Jewish scripture to make his point:

... not only do we foolish, craven Christians and accursed Goyim regard our Messiah as so indispensable for delivering us from death through himself and without our holiness, but we wretched people are also afflicted with such great and terrible blindness as to believe that he needs no sword or worldly power to accomplish this ... In this respect, the great seducers Isaiah, Jeremiah, and an the other prophets do us great harm. They beguile us mad Goyim with their false doctrine, saying that the kingdom of the Messiah will not bear the sword ... For .. Isaiah 2:2 prophesies concerning the Messiah ... "He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Similar sorcery is also practiced upon us poor Goyim in Isaiah 11:9: "They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord. We poor blind Goyim cannot conceive of this "knowledge of the Lord" as a sword, but as the instruction by which one learns to know God; our understanding agrees with Isaiah 2, cited above, which also speaks of the knowledge which the Gentiles shall pursue ... The proof of this is before your eyes, namely, that the apostles used no spear or sword but solely their tongues. And their example has been followed in all the world now for fifteen hundred years by all the bishops, pastors, and preachers, and is still being followed. Just see whether the pastor wields sword or spear when he enters the church, preaches, baptizes, administers the sacrament, when he retains and remits sin, restrains evildoers, comforts the godly, and teaches, helps, and nurtures everyone's soul. Does he not do all of this exclusively with the tongue or with words? And the congregation, likewise, brings no sword or spear to such a ministry, but only its ears. And consider the miracles. The Roman Empire and the whole world abounded with idols to which the Gentiles adhered ... and yet the tongue alone purged the entire world of all these idols without a sword ... Do you not call this a kingdom, power, might, dominion, glory? ...

I do not consider this the best or clearest of Luther's work -- and I would happily consign it to the flames as unhelpful. But since you repeatedly drag this well-forgotten rant into public view here, I think it only fair as a purely historical matter to point out that Luther's intent ought to be judged from the piece in toto rather than by mere snippets from it -- and that Luther's concluding section is devoted to the notion that the apostles spread their gospel by persuasive tongue alone and not by any violence. The concluding section also exhibits Luther's tendency towards sarcasm, as when he (a churchman) refers to Isaiah's prophecies of peace as a wicked sorcery perpetuated upon the goyim by the prophets. One natural reading of the entire text is then, that it is an attempt to preach the gospel to the anti-semites and is laden with sarcasm intended to make the ears of his anti-semitic listeners burn with shame

<edit: no emoticons please>

[trotsky]

68. Wow, and here I thought I had seen everything on DU.

But an apologist for the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther - that's new. I'm impressed. No wait, I'm not. I am disgusted beyond belief. How fortunate we are to have you to tell us how "Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen" ("On the Jews and their Lies") should be read, not as a foul piece of anti-Jewish trash but as a simple sarcastic tome showing just how funny and swell of a guy Luther was. What a proud and noble Christian you are, s4p. A true shining example to Christians everywhere!

[moggie]

19. Where are all the other holocausts?

I'm sure you've seen this before:



If acceptance of evolution leads ineluctably to policies of "extermination", why is (for example) Denmark known for rescuing its Jewish population during WWII, rather than exterminating them? Or perhaps the way that totalitarian governments scapegoat "enemies within" can't be laid entirely at the feet of a single scientific theory?

By the way, how many Native Americans were exterminated by good Christians before Darwin published?

[Nihil]

24. Looking at your graph, you are actually proving the opposite ...

... to what was originally being claimed: there have been more
genocidal actions from those who do *not* accept evolution than
from those that *do* ...

In general, those lower in the chart have been responsible for
far more genocide since Darwin published than those near the top
of the chart (although there are exceptions in both areas).

:shrug:

[bananas]

42. What a bizarre post.

Did I claim 'acceptance of evolution leads ineluctably to policies of "extermination"'?
No, I didn't.

Racial policy of Nazi Germany

The racial policy of Nazi Germany is the set of policies and laws implemented by Nazi Germany, asserting the superiority of the "Aryan race," and based on a specific racist doctrine which claimed scientific legitimacy. It was combined with a eugenics programme that aimed to achieve "racial purity" of the "Aryan race" by using compulsory sterilizations and extermination of specific minorities, which eventually culminated in the Holocaust. These policies targeted, first of all, Jews, who were considered as the most "inferior race" of all on a hierarchy that included Jews at the bottom and the Herrenvolk (or "master race") of the Volksgemeinschaft (or "national community") at the top.

<snip>

The July 1933 Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, written by Ernst Rüdin and other theorists of "racial hygiene," established "Genetic Health Courts" which decided on compulsory sterilization of "any person suffering from a hereditary disease." These included, for the Nazis, those suffering from "Congenital Mental Deficiency," schizophrenia,"Manic-Depressive Insanity," "Hereditary Epilepsy," "Hereditary Chorea" (Huntington’s), Hereditary Blindness, Hereditary Deafness, "any severe hereditary deformity," as well as "any person suffering from severe alcoholism"<2>. Further modifications of the law enforced sterilization of the "Rhineland bastards" (children of mixed German and African parentage).

<snip>

(edited to add second snip)

[struggle4progress]

23. A case can be made, I think, that the Nazi policies of extermination were motivated

by political non-scientific considerations

The Germanic anti-semitic Wotan societies already existed, prior to the Great War, and part of the Nazi seizure of power involved accumulating allies from various existing cultural sectors: there was an organized effort by the German rightwing, after the Great War, to blame "the Jews" for Germany's defeat, and the Nazis found it expedient to promote such views -- and to tie it to other popular crackpot notions, such as the nonsensical idea that the Germans were "Aryan" in origin

[bananas]

39. The beliefs in racial hygeine and extermination of inferior races were based on "science"

When one side "blames" another side for a wrong, they usually want some form of justice to right the wrong, that might be violent retribution, monetary compensation, or a simple apology. That's not what happened with the Nazis - they believed that both Aryan hereditary defectives as well as inferior races had to be eliminated from the gene pool, and their belief was based on evolution. That's what makes Dawkins statement so bizarre.

[imdjh]

48. What would have been the net effect in the long term.

We're expected to be horrified by the mere mention of certain words or concepts, but let's say that the Nazis had been successful in their cultural cleansing of the world. What would be the long term effect? Would it really matter?

Mind you it's hard to stay serious when discussing this, my mind went immediately to a world of German synth pop and bad fashion.

[laconicsax]

52. The Nazis applied dog-breeding standards to humans.

They chose individuals they saw as superior, bred them, and exterminated the rest. No part of that was dependent on knowledge or acceptance of evolution. Domestic animal breeders did the first two steps as a profession for hundreds of years before Darwin and didn't change their methods after. Genocide was also a tool used in war before Darwin's time--kill the whole population and they no longer exist. You don't need knowledge of natural selection to figure that one out.

Darwin's evolutionary theory ran counter to the Nazi ideals of superior and inferior human races. Hitler was opposed to the idea that his master race might have descended from an ape-like ancestor--he believed in fixed forms, created by God (creationism).

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/03/hitler-evolutio.html

[trotsky]

54. The idea of a "pure" or "master" race is also completely at odds with evolution.

The fittest population is that which has a considerable amount of genetic variation, so that mutations will be around in the case of selection pressure. A "pure" race is one that's generally doomed for extinction.

[laconicsax]

55. You can't expect a creationist to understand that.

And Hitler was a creationist.

Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi

Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed "from the very beginning", and could not have evolved from apes:

From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

Like a creationist, Hitler believes that man was made in God's image, and in the expulsion from Eden:

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. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution

[trotsky]

57. Oh you and your silly quotes directly from Hitler.

Like those prove anything! :crazy:

[bananas]

64. Is now, but wasn't then

See post #63: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=216443&mesg_id=216574

[trotsky]

65. Well then, you've just proved that the Nazi extermination plans WEREN'T based on evolution.

Way to go, proving yourself wrong and saving us all the effort! Woo hoo!

[bananas]

67. It was based on evolutionary science at the time.

[trotsky]

69. But they were wrong, and now you've shown so were you.

Thanks!

[bananas]

71. No, they were wrong, and so are you.

You got it half right.

[trotsky]

72. What's next, "I'm rubber and you're glue"?

Your main point was proven wrong, by multiple people on this thread, and now by you yourself. You can keep this going if you really want to embarrass yourself even more.

[bananas]

81. No, my main point hasn't been proven wrong. nt

[trotsky]

85. You keep telling yourself that.

And everything will be just fine.

[bananas]

63. That was the state of evolutionary science at the time.

Skepticwiki describes "evolution by artificial selection":

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Theory_of_evolution
The fact of evolution has been known since ancient times. By breeding selected animals or sowing selected seeds, people have changed plants and animals over time. In some cases, the changes have been dramatic. The domesticated forms of maize, known as sweet corn and field corn, have been modified by people so much that they can no longer reproduce in the wild. Sheep have been modified to grow fluffy coats, suitable for shearing, from an original wild animal that had only a light, stubbly coat. Wheat and barley grow many edible seeds that are huge in comparison to their ancestors. Wild dogs have been modified to everything from the miniature chihuaha to the great dane. This process is known as "evolution by artificial selection."

Wikipedia has some articles on the history of evolution and eugenics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism

The eclipse of Darwinism was a phrase used by Julian Huxley to describe the state of affairs prior to the modern evolutionary synthesis when evolution was widely accepted in scientific circles but relatively few biologists believed that natural selection was its primary mechanism.<1><2> Historians of science such as Peter J. Bowler have used it to describe the history of evolutionary thought from the 1880s through the first couple of decades of the 20th century when a number of alternatives to natural selection were developed and explored, and many biologists considered natural selection to have been a wrong guess on Darwin's part.<3><4> The four major alternatives to natural selection in the late 19th century, were theistic evolution, neo-Lamarckism, orthogenesis, and saltationism.

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Eugenics is "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."<2> Prominent in the late 19th century and the Progressive Era, eugenics became a core tenet of some of the policies behind Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime.

<snip>

As a social movement eugenics reached its height of popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. By the end of World War II eugenics had been largely abandoned,<3> though current trends in genetics have raised questions amongst critical academics concerning parallels between pre-war attitudes about eugenics and current "utilitarian" and social darwinistic theories<4>. At its pre-war zenith, the movement often pursued pseudoscientific notions of racial supremacy and purity.<5>

Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of certain people and traits.<6>

<snip>

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,<10> drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger,<11><12> Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Prescott Bush, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling<13> and Sidney Webb.<14><15><16> Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.<17>

G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities, and received funding from many sources.<18> Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenic policies were first implemented in the early 1900s in the United States.<19> Later, in the 1920s and 30s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in a variety of other countries, including Belgium,<20> Brazil,<21> Canada,<22> and Sweden,<23> among others. The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany, and when proponents of eugenics among scientists and thinkers prompted a backlash in the public. Nevertheless, the second largest known eugenics program, created by social democrats in Sweden, continued until 1975.<23>

<snip>

[trotsky]

70. And the state of Christianity at the time of the Inquisition...

was to forcibly convert the Jews by any means, including torture, and kill those who would not. So by your logic, the murder and violence of the Inquisition (and witch burnings, and the Crusades, and the mass genocide of native populations, and everything else done by self-identified Christians) WERE based on Christianity. Again, well done! :rofl:

[struggle4progress]

56. One needs some explanation for the curious fact that such pseudo-science became official

policy in Germany, which not long before had been a scientific beacon to the rest of the Western world: the insights of Freud and Einstein, and those of a number of other first rate thinkers, were suddenly dismissed as some sort of Jewish-Bolshevik degeneracy. People like Georg Alexander Pick, unable to escape, vanished into concentration camps

The propaganda of the time does not suggest to me that the Nazi philosophy was a logical derivative of scientific views but rather than the Nazis cobbled together a philosophy that cemented together certain political groups, taking advantage of existing German deference to authority figures to forestall opposition: the German racist ideas unified anti-semites, anti-communists, German nationalists, eugenics enthusiasts, and others by fusing the anti-semitic volkish sentiments of Wotan societies with the anti-Bolshevik attitudes of the Freikorps, and defused nationalist resentment about the loss of Germany's colonies by transforming late nineteenth century European attitudes towards Africans and Asians into a parallel German antipathy to non-Germanic Europeans. Those who opposed the state could thus be labeled simultaneously as anti-German, pro-Bolshevik, anti-scientific, pro-Jewish, and so on, with these terms acquiring roughly equivalent ideological meanings: to oppose Nazi plans was to oppose the subjugation of the rest of the world, in other words, to oppose the Nazi ideology that German needed to expand to have "living room" which had supposed been denied when her colonies were stripped away, and to defend Jews against Nazi predation was interpreted as defending the degenerate ideas of Freud and Einstein and the dangerous communist ideas of the Soviet Union, as well as to forget the mythical "fact" that Germany had lost WWI due to the supposed "betrayal" of Germany by some international Jewish conspiracy

The Nazi party originated during the period of revolutionary crisis in Germany after WWI, and their early techniques are indicative: typically what the Nazis did was to engage in violence and then complain that the authorities were unable to maintain order. The original anti-Jewish violence followed the same pattern: the Nazis caused disturbances, which they then attributed to Jewish-Bolshevik elements. This, for example, was what happened in the case of the Reichstag fire. Nothing suggests their later methods were more sophisticated: they continued to engage in violence and blamed the victims. The actual language used to blame the victims would typically be a hodge-podge of anti-semitism, anti-Bolshevism, anti-modernism, pseudo-science, or whatever else seemed most useful at the moment

[bananas]

80. It's not uncommon for pseudo-science to become official policy.

Hitler based his racial hygiene programs on the ones that were already in place in the US.
Russia based their agricultural development on Lamarckian evolution.
Even many modern policies are based on pseudo-science, for example current drug laws.

[struggle4progress]

83. Of course. And when pseudo-science becomes official policy, it is reasonable to inquire

into the political dynamics of that process

[bananas]

106. Another example we might remember with the passing of Ted Kennedy

His sister Rosemary passed on just four years ago:

Rosemary Kennedy

Rosemary Kennedy (September 13, 1918 – January 7, 2005) was the third child and first daughter of Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr. and Rose Elizabeth Kennedy née Fitzgerald, born a year after her brother, future U.S. President John F. Kennedy. She underwent a lobotomy at age 23, after which she was mentally incapacitated for the rest of her life.

<snip>

The USSR banned lobotomies in 1950, but they were still being practiced in the US and Europe into the late 1980's:

Lobotomy

<snip>

As early as 1944 an author in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease remarked that "The history of prefrontal lobotomy has been brief and stormy. Its course has been dotted with both violent opposition and with slavish, unquestioning acceptance." Beginning in 1947 Swedish psychiatrist Snorre Wohlfahrt evaluated early trials, reporting lobotomy to be "distinctly hazardous to leucotomize schizophrenics," "still too imperfect to enable us, with its aid, to venture on a general offensive against chronic cases of mental disorder," and that "Psychosurgery has as yet failed to discover its precise indications and contraindications and the methods must unfortunately still be regarded as rather crude and hazardous in many respects."<7> In 1948 Norbert Wiener, the author of Cybernetics, said: "...prefrontal lobotomy ...has recently been having a certain vogue, probably not unconnected with the fact that it makes the custodial care of many patients easier. Let me remark in passing that killing them makes their custodial care still easier."<8>

Concerns about lobotomy steadily grew. The USSR banned the procedure in 1950.<9> Doctors in the Soviet Union concluded that the procedure was "contrary to the principles of humanity" and that it turned "an insane person into an idiot."<10> Numerous countries subsequently banned the procedure, including Yugoslavia, Germany and Japan, as did several U.S. states. Lobotomy continued to be legally practiced in controlled and regulated U.S. centers and in Finland, Sweden, Norway (2,005 known cases<11>), the United Kingdom, Spain, India, Belgium and the Netherlands.

In 1977 the U.S. Congress created a National Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to investigate allegations that psychosurgery—including lobotomy techniques—was used to control minorities and restrain individual rights. It also investigated the after-effects of surgery. The committee concluded that some extremely limited and properly performed psychosurgery could have positive effects.

By the early 1970s the practice had generally ceased, but some countries continued small-scale operations through the late 1980s. According to a report by the International Graphoanalysis Society (IGAS), between 1980 and 1986 there were 70 lobotomies performed in Belgium, 32 in France, 15 per year in the United Kingdom and several cases performed for the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.<12>

Prevalence

Quantitatively, most lobotomy procedures were done in the United States, where approximately 40,000 persons were lobotomized. In Great Britain lobotomies were performed on 17,000 people, and the three Scandinavian countries had a combined figure of approximately 9,300 lobotomies.<13> Scandinavian hospitals lobotomized 2.5 times as many people per capita as hospitals in the United States.<14> Sweden lobotomized at least 4,500 people between 1944 and 1966, mainly women and including young children.<7>

Notable cases (and an oft-cited non-case)

* Rosemary Kennedy, the sister of President John F. Kennedy, was given a lobotomy when her father complained to doctors about the 23-year-old's moodiness. Dr. Walter Freeman personally performed the procedure. Rather than any improvement, the lobotomy reduced Rosemary to an infantile mentality including incontinence. Her verbal skills were reduced to unintelligible babble. Her father hid the nature of Rosemary's affliction for years and described it as the result of mental retardation. Rosemary's sister, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, founded the Special Olympics in her honor in 1968.<15>

<snip>

Eunice Kennedy Shriver passed on earlier this month:

Eunice Kennedy Shriver, 88; member of Kennedy clan, founder of Special Olympics
By Bryan Marquard
Globe Staff / August 11, 2009

Eunice Kennedy Shriver, who planted the seeds for the Special Olympics when she launched Camp Shriver on the lawn of her Maryland home, and then with force of will and the clout of her family name spread her vision of lifting the developmentally disabled "into the sunlight of useful living," died this morning.

Mrs. Shriver was 88. She had suffered a series of strokes in recent years and died at 2 a.m. at Cape Cod Hospital in Hyannis, her family said in a statement.

"Inspired by her love of God, her devotion to her family, and her relentless belief in the dignity and worth of every human life, she worked without ceasing -- searching, pushing, demanding, hoping for change," the family statement said. "She was a living prayer, a living advocate, a living center of power. She set out to change the world and to change us, and she did that and more."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy remembered his sister as a "young girl with great humor, sharp wit, and a boundless passion to make a difference."

<snip>

A younger sister of Rosemary Kennedy, who was developmentally disabled and institutionalized most of her life, Mrs. Shriver dedicated decades to ensuring that other families would not endure the fate of her own, watching a loved one whisked behind closed doors. In an attempt to alleviate Rosemary’s intellectual disabilities, doctors performed a lobotomy that instead left her in need of constant care.

<snip>

[uberllama42]

73. Please explain the link between Darwin's writings and ideas

or evolutionary biology as it stood in the 1920s and '30s, and Nazi ideas about racial purity.

In all my reading about Darwin and about evolution, I have never encountered anything that supports or even suggests the notion that some human "races" are morally inferior, neither in Darwin's own work nor in that of subsequent biologists. Natural selection, as expounded by Darwin and others, is a positive theory- that is, it makes claims about the way things are and what happened in the past to bring about the present state of affairs. Theories of eugenics or racial hygiene are normative theories, i.e. they make claims about how things ought to be and what human beings should do to bring about a certain state of affairs.

Normative theories are supposed to be constructed in response to facts. The claim is often made by creationists that Nazi sentiments about race and eugenics follow logically from the facts that Darwin uncovered or claimed to have uncovered. Can you explain to my why this is a logical conclusion?

Darwin was raised with Victorian ideas about race, to which he held, AFAIK, for his entire life. This is widely known. He never uncovered any scientific data that supported those ideas, however, and he is no more responsible for them than any other Victorian thinker. What I'm asking for here is not merely evidence that Darwin held racist ideas, since almost everyone in his day did, but that his scientific work or that of later evolutionary biologists somehow justified racist ideas. What motive force did Darwin provide that perpetuated racism into the 20th century and encouraged eugenics?

[struggle4progress]

82. These are appropriate questions to ask in response to the standard creationist nonsense

that blames Darwin for Nazi extermination programs

[bananas]

84. Just to be clear

1) I'm not a creationist.
2) I'm not blaming Darwin for Nazi extermination programs.

[trotsky]

86. Ah, I see.

No, you're not a creationist, you just use their anti-evolution "arguments." Thanks for clearing that up.

[bananas]

87. I haven't made an anti-evolution argument. nt

[trotsky]

88. That's why I put the word "argument" in quotes.

Glad you are backing away from it too.

[bananas]

94. I'm not backing away from it. nt

[struggle4progress]

89. I knee-jerk on discussions that involve evolution and the Shoah, since certain creationists

routinely blame evolutionary thought for the Nazi death camps.

[bananas]

105. I really haven't paid much attention to creationists

so I'm not really familiar with the things they've been saying.
But some of the responses in this thread (not by you, but by others) seem to be a denial of the role played by scientists in both Nazi Germany and American eugenics.

[uberllama42]

114. Notice that the poster I was addressing did not bother to respond

From that person's subsequent posts, it is clear that s/he thinks I misread him/her, but also didn't bother to clear up any of my misconceptions, if such there are.

I know you would have done me the courtesy, but not everyone here is a good citizen, I suppose.

[bananas]

129. Here you go.

Please explain the link between Darwin's writings and ideas
or evolutionary biology as it stood in the 1920s and '30s, and Nazi ideas about racial purity.

See post #63 and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Record_Office
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Fischer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ploetz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%BCdin

In all my reading about Darwin and about evolution, I have never encountered anything that supports or even suggests the notion that some human "races" are morally inferior, neither in Darwin's own work nor in that of subsequent biologists.

See post #63 and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_Record_Office
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Fischer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Ploetz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%BCdin

Natural selection, as expounded by Darwin and others, is a positive theory- that is, it makes claims about the way things are and what happened in the past to bring about the present state of affairs. Theories of eugenics or racial hygiene are normative theories, i.e. they make claims about how things ought to be and what human beings should do to bring about a certain state of affairs.

Natural selection is not synonymous with evolution.

Normative theories are supposed to be constructed in response to facts. The claim is often made by creationists that Nazi sentiments about race and eugenics follow logically from the facts that Darwin uncovered or claimed to have uncovered. Can you explain to my why this is a logical conclusion?

I'm not a creationist and I've never paid attention to creationist claims, so the answer is no.

Darwin was raised with Victorian ideas about race, to which he held, AFAIK, for his entire life. This is widely known. He never uncovered any scientific data that supported those ideas, however, and he is no more responsible for them than any other Victorian thinker. What I'm asking for here is not merely evidence that Darwin held racist ideas, since almost everyone in his day did, but that his scientific work or that of later evolutionary biologists somehow justified racist ideas. What motive force did Darwin provide that perpetuated racism into the 20th century and encouraged eugenics?

This isn't about Darwin.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

79. I'm sorry, but I don't know what your argument is.

Firstly, the Nazis believed in evolution but they didn't really understand it. Evolution doesn't show one species or race to be superior to one another. "Superior" and "inferior" are not scientifically useful concepts. The Nazis thought Germans to be superior to Jews, but that's a normative and not a scientific judgment. Further, it's not evolution per se but the mechanism of natural selection that prompted the misunderstanding. But when you get down to the level of two different types of slime mold and which one metabolizes a given protein faster, ideas about superiority having anything to do with natural selection start to look a little silly.

All that said, I don't understand what your point is. Are you saying we shouldn't teach evolution because of that? Or that that makes it not true?

[struggle4progress]

22. Drawing parallels, between deniers of evolution and deniers of the Shoah, is insensitive and

offensive

The Shoah was a great moral catastrophe, that sadly originated in what seemed to the one of the most advanced regions in the world, from both cultural and scientific perspectives. The Germanic countries gave us Beethoven and Wagner, Goethe and Kafka, Freud, Gauss and Hilbert, Plank and Einstein and Heisenberg. By the late nineteenth century, German chemistry and mathematics and physics dominated the globe. And that world vanished in a murderous totalitarian rage, that pointlessly chased its best artists and scientists away and set out on a continent-wide campaign of extermination. The very fact of this moral catastrophe imposes on us certain ethical obligations, with respect to both the past and the future -- obligations to remember and understand what happened and to prevent a recurrence

The status of evolutionary theory is somewhat different: no one has yet proposed a natural philosophy that rivals it as the one grand unifying scheme in biology, tying the geological record to modern biochemistry. Its success is breath-taking. Those who oppose evolution on ideological grounds strike me as intellectual idiots. But a loud-mouthed moron, who irritatingly disrupts a college class on modern evolutionary thought, is simply a loud-mouthed moron -- not the moral equivalent of Eichmann

[imdjh]

27. There are sound challenges to Evolution. Creation mythology isn't one of them, but there are.

While Evolution purists would deny this, ultimately one is talking about the origin of everything and when you do that you have to explain how something came from nothing; whether you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist. Stephen Hawking Stephen Schmawking, no one has yet explained how we get something from nothing.

The other problem is in finding an Evolution purist; ie a person who accepts Evolution as fact devoid of politics. Surely you see where this goes.

[moggie]

30. What are these "sound challenges"?

What alternative scientific theory is there with the explanatory power of the ToE?

What's the relevance of Stephen Hawking? He's a physicist, not a biologist. A scientific theory has a particular scope, and it's pretty meaningless to criticise it for not addressing questions outside that scope. Boyle's Law talks about the relationship between temperature and pressure in a gas, but has nothing to say about what makes peanut butter sticky; Special Relativity is about measurement in inertial frames of reference, and doesn't explain why a bassoon sounds different from a piano; and the Theory of Evolution explains change in living organisms from generation to generation, but has nothing to do with how the universe came about, or how the first life got started.

The other problem is in finding an Evolution purist; ie a person who accepts Evolution as fact devoid of politics. Surely you see where this goes.

No, I don't see. Evolution is accepted by people across the whole political spectrum, and for most scientifically literate people it's an apolitical matter.

[imdjh]

32. No alternative theory is necessary.

Let's say that it's 1650, do I need to have Darwin at my side to challenge Creationism? Of course not. I can challenge Creationism on its face. By the same token, one can challenge Evolution on its face.

The relevance of Hawking is that everyone seems to think he has explained the origin of the universe, or is popularly perceived as having done so. He has done no such thing. To date, there is no scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, merely for the development of it. Creationism and Evolution both start someplace, and someplace is the beginning. So both Creationism and Evolution lead to the same place- a blank sheet of paper where the origin of the universe ought to be.

No, I don't see. Evolution is accepted by people across the whole political spectrum, and for most scientifically literate people it's an apolitical matter..

Really? Then start a discussion with these scientifically literate people about the idea that one group of humans might be farther along the evolutionary trail than others. Even ever so slightly farther along. If you don't go deaf from the screaming, the vibration from the jumping up and down will surely rattle your teeth.

[trotsky]

44. Your use of this phrase: "farther along the evolutionary trail"

Proves you haven't the slightest clue what evolution is.

[imdjh]

45. See?

[trotsky]

51. See what?

That if you are unable to even accurately comprehend the idea in the first place, that you'll have problems trying to talk with scientists who do?

Yeah, that would be a problem. Not the problem you're getting at, however.

[moggie]

58. Hand-waving

Let's say that it's 1650, do I need to have Darwin at my side to challenge Creationism? Of course not. I can challenge Creationism on its face. By the same token, one can challenge Evolution on its face.

Come now, this hand-waving won't do. You wrote that "there are sound challenges to evolution", but now you're dodging the issue. Before Darwin, creationism was a more intellectually respectable position: there was certainly something which needed to be explained (how did the diversity of life come about?), and a distinct lack of evidenced alternatives to "goddidit". Since Darwin, and more so since the modern synthesis, and even more so since our ability to look closely at genomes, we have a powerful answer to that question, and alternative explanations are looking rather weak. For example, why can we trace the development of the bones of our inner ear from the jawbones of fish, if not because of descent with modification? Why do human embryos have gill arches, and, later, fur?

The relevance of Hawking is that everyone seems to think he has explained the origin of the universe, or is popularly perceived as having done so. He has done no such thing.

So, you have a beef with Hawking and cosmogony. Unless Hawking has suggested that the big bang had genes, this has precisely zero relevance to the question of how mammals arose from fish. Check out Lee Smolin if you want to be really annoyed, by the way.

If the theory of evolution had a voice, it'd say: origin of the universe? Not my problem, pal. I came on the scene billions of years later.

Then start a discussion with these scientifically literate people about the idea that one group of humans might be farther along the evolutionary trail than others.

This is all about racism? Racism has always existed. Racist idiots will grab and distort any theory which they think will support their ideas. But modern evolutionary biologists have been some of the most critical opponents of racism: for example, read The Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould's blistering account of the history of psychometry's attempt to show racial differences in intelligence. The closer you look at evolution and genetics, the less meaningful the concept of "race" becomes, and many scientists claim it's not a meaningful concept at all. For example, there's more genetic diversity in sub-Saharan Africa than anywhere else, and one African can differ more from another African than she does from the most blonde-haired, blue-eyed Nazi.

As for "farther along the evolutionary trail", that's just scientific illiteracy. Evolution is not a march towards perfection. For example, most other mammals have a gene called "GLO" which confers on them the ability to synthesise vitamin C from glucose in their diet. In the case of humans (and othern primates), that gene is still there, but it's been rendered inactive by a mutation, so we have to include vitamin C in our diet, or suffer the consequences. Does this mean we're more evolved than non-primates, or less? In a similar vein, we have a much worse sense of smell than some other mammals, but it turns out that we have around the same number of smell-related genes as them - it's just that half of them have been knocked out by mutations. More evolved, or less? Better, worse, or just different?

[BurtWorm]

59. Evolution does not start at the 'beginning' Evolution is a process.

[BurtWorm]

31. Darwin's theory does not address the origin of everything. His theory address speciation only.

It doesn't even address the origin of life. It's powerless to address it. It's all about what life does once it's firmly established. if we don't teach it, people make the kind of errors you are making.

[bananas]

40. It's extremely offensive. nt

[BurtWorm]

74. That's a false dichotomy. Eichmann didn't deny the Holocaust. He participated in it.

The comparison between an idiot like David Irving and one like Kenneth Ham is more apt. They're both up to evil in denying the facts of history because they're inconvenient to their corrupt belief systems.

[struggle4progress]

75. I consider Irving and Ham both to be loud-mouthed idiots. But Irving serves neo-Nazi ends

by attempting to minimize a mass murder, whereas Ham simply encourages ideological opposition to a well-established scientific theory

I suppose that, in a sense, you are technically correct about Eichmann (since he was a transportation technocrat), but a careful examination of Nazi propaganda techniques associated with their program of mass murder would reveal to you that misrepresentation, minimization, and denial were part and parcel of the so-called "Final Solution." Although anyone with moral sense and intellectual integrity could see what the Nazis were doing, and could find their intent and the general features of their plans clearly stated, the Nazis in a number of particular circumstances attempted to soothe both the intended victims and potential opponents into complacency, by promoting the idea that their relocations were benevolent and that military operations against Jewish populations were "protective" or otherwise benign. Thus, denial of the Shoah -- or minimization of it -- seems to me a continuation of Nazi methods used during the Shoah

[imdjh]

26. Yes, because adding Global Warming to the "Denier" designation has added such integrity to it.

[SidneyCarton]

33. Godwin's Law anyone?

Give me a freakin break. There is no difference between denying evolution, and minimizing, if not denying the cold-blooded murder of 6 million people?

The difference is a moral one, non-belief in evolution does not translate into support, or apologetics for a regime based on genocide. Dr. Dawkins needs to dial it back a bit, he's bordering on self-parody here.

[imdjh]

46. Godwin Deniers nt

[geistvomeinzelganger]

60. Science proves nothing, about anything.

Scientists claim that at least one meteor impact caused a swift mass extinction of the dinosaur and now claim that birds evolved from T Rex. How does any species evolve from a different species that didn't have enough time to evolve into anything but a heap of dead flesh, then dry bones, and eventually a pile of dust?

Are these "evolutionists" claiming that life evolves from death? Isn't that what religion has been claiming all along? YES, but according to evolutionists only animals have that ability, not humans.

Evolutionists, as most other scientists, are people who never really KNOW anything. That is a fact that those very scientists prove nearly every time they make a "new discovery".

[laconicsax]

62. Wow! That's a lot of nonsense in one post!

Scientists claim that at least one meteor impact caused a swift mass extinction of the dinosaur and now claim that birds evolved from T Rex.

Close, but no. Dinosaurs lived from about 230 until 65 million years ago. The K/T extinction event took place about 65 million years ago and birds evolved from theropod (three-toed) dinosaurs well before that. This is pretty well established by the fossil record and by molecular evidence showing a split from dinosaurs sometime during the Jurassic (about 199-145 million years ago). T Rex was a theropod dinosaur, but that doesn't mean that birds evolved directly from T Rex. Tyrannosaurus Rex lived in the late Cretaceous (68-65 million years ago).

If birds split from dinosaurs as much as 100 million years earlier, we would expect find evidence pointing to a common ancestor between birds and Cretaceous theropods. When a Tyrannosaurus Rex fossil with a small amount of soft tissue was discovered, the molecular evidence showed exactly that. Modern birds and Tyrannosaurus Rex share a common ancestor.

How does any species evolve from a different species that didn't have enough time to evolve into anything but a heap of dead flesh, then dry bones, and eventually a pile of dust?

This question makes zero sense--what species "didn't have enough time to evolve into anything but a heap of dead flesh, then dry bones, and eventually a pile of dust?" No one has made this claim--speciation is the evolution of a new species from another, still living, species

Are these "evolutionists" claiming that life evolves from death?

No.

Evolutionists, as most other scientists, are people who never really KNOW anything. That is a fact that those very scientists prove nearly every time they make a "new discovery".

New discoveries are what drive science--they either confirm an existing theory or they show it to be false. Scientific theories make testable predictions. The theory of evolution by natural selection makes numerous predictions that have been routinely confirmed by "new discoveries" for the last 150 years. The static universe model predicted that the universe is unchanging and when Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe is expanding, the static model got tossed out.

Scientists construct theories to explain the facts they know. Since your 'fact' that scientists don't know anything is based on a major misunderstanding of science, it isn't really a fact.

[SidneyCarton]

76. Ok, come on now...

I'm no fan of Dawkins, but science does prove a great many things. It deals with that which can be demonstrably provable.

[Silent3]

77. Nothing like ignorance proudly on parade

You clearly know little at all about science or the scientific method. You demonstrate yourself to be as informed about science as teabaggers are about health care and birth certificates.

[centristgrandpa]

92. aNd i thought them inGres were dumb...

a direct hit, nice sharpshooting Silent3.

just when i estimate the GOPer's to be completely whack, my "misunderestimating" of thems continue...

[centristgrandpa]

93. actually from death, the process of adaptation evolves....n/t

[TCJ70]

131. Denying a world altering evil...

...is the same as denying a theory on where we all came from? Yeah...right...