How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

Nurvingiel-
#1 i did not compare anyone to hitler, hitler is his own person and i have NEVER compared anyone to him

Fair enough. I realize you didn't compare Darwin or anyone to Hitler, but you did suggest that the Theory of Evolution influenced Nazism. I stated that this was completely false. What exactly did you mean by this then?

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

evolution has played a big role in history, perhaps darwin did not intend to stir things up like he ended up doing, but he did, both communisn and nazism were very much influenced by the teachings of darwin

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

#2 comparison of evolution to islam is very fitting, extremist muslims are very rare, extremist evolutionist are very rare, i'm not saying they are all like that, broad generalisations about large groups of people are bound to be wrong

I certainly agree with you that broad generalizations about large groups of people are bound to be wrong.
However, I fail to see the purpose in comaring extreme evolutionists to religious extremists; why not just say that extreme evolutionists are rare?
I could say that people who wear shoes are very common, just like people who ride bicycles. While this statement is true, it serves no purpose.
The reason I take issue with your comparison is because, though you may not have intended this, you suggested that extreme evolutionists and religious extremists have something in common besides both being rare. Your statement has connotations of both being violent. This is why I felt the comparison had no useful purpose.
I am 99% sure you didn't intend that, so we can just move along.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

#3 the works of darwin did influence, not cause, but influence communism and stalin, and hitler, there are other reasons for both leaders actions but their moral philosophy influenced by evolution and insanity led to that evil this is an informative article

While I am inherently suspicious of the Institute for Creation Research, I will certainly read this article objectively. (Or at least, I will try. I am also very put off that it attempts to look like a scientific paper by having an abstract, rather than an essay, when it doesn't cite scientific papers. It cites other essays and books, as far as I can tell. The one thing that appears to be a scientific study [reference #8] I can't view, because the link doesn't work.)
Anyway, reading now...

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

#4 Karl Marx was quite enamored with the works of darwin and the concepts that darwin wrote about, again darwins work influenced, him and his philosophy not caused it

Karl Marx also wore socks. I don't see that there is a connection between believing in ToE and promoting Communist ideals, but maybe this will be outlined in the article you linked, which I will now read.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

#5 i'm glad you don't hate me, i don't hate you either, if there are more points for me to explain i'll have to do it later

Of course I don't hate you! I'm sorry if I ever gave that impression. I strongly disagree with some of your opinions, but that doesn't say anything about you. I definitely don't hate you. I don't hate anyone. (I'm glad you don't hate me too! )

[Count Comfect]

I think a distinction between Darwinism (ie ToE) and Social Darwinism would be helpful here. One is a scientific theory that we've been discussing here for a while. The other is the theory that within human society, groups compete in a "survivial of the fittest" manner, which is often used to claim that the poor are poor because they deserve it. It isn't scientific (or accurate, mostly because its major claims have been actually discredited) and it is that, rather than ToE, that influenced Nazism.

Also, there is plenty of room for God in evolution, as Eärniel and Nurv have both said - since evolution does not postulate the existence or non-existence of God, God's existence is not inconsistent with evolution.

And evolution is not intended as a way to deny God. Some extremist religious people think it is that (and I daresay there are extremist evolutionists who would say that) but evolution is a scientific theory that tries to explain how creatures change over time. It is neither a denial nor an affirmation of God. It does violate some religious sensibilities by not postulating God as a potential force, but it, in itself, has nothing to do with God.

[Nurvingiel]

Response to Stalin's Brutal Faith [link], by Paul G. Humber:

Originally Posted by Paul G. Humber

Abstract
Some have the mistaken notion that faith and religion are linked inseparably with the confession of a supreme being, but many exercise faith in self and other human beings--to the exclusion of the divine. This, too, is religion.

I disagree that faith outside a religion also equals religion. I have faith that my landlords will not cheat my roommate and I on our rent. This is not a religous belief at all, but one founded in the observation of our landlords being kind and honest people, and the belief in the general decency of humanity (also not a religious belief).
My belief in God, my belief in Jesus, my belief that Jesus' teachings are true, etc. are religious beliefs.

Moving on to the next paragraph (ignoring the accidentally repeated one) reveals why the author stated faith in the self and other human beings is actually religion. I'm glad I think this is wrong, since what the author says next scares me.

Originally Posted by Paul G. Humber

Joseph Stalin, though an atheist, was a believer. His was a faith resulting in tremendous brutality--nevertheless, a faith! What was this faith? Was it uniquely Stalin's? Also, how brutal was it?

It is not completely clear what the heck he's getting at yet, but nevertheless, it worries me. Also, "How brutal was it?" I don't know genius, how brutal was Stalin? He only murdered upwards of 20 million people IIRC. Gee. *headdesk*

Originally Posted by Paul G. Humber

The purpose of this article is to offer some answers to these questions and to add insights of the eminent authority on Russia's soul, Nobel laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

This quote, I suppose, is trying to lend credibility about Russia's history to the author. He must have drawn on Solzhenitsyn's work, since he makes a reference to one of his books - The Gulag Archipelago.
The author misses an opportunity to quote Solzhenitsyn here, which would have been useful and relevant. Anyway, onwards.

Originally Posted by Paul G. Humber

Often an individual's faith is firmly attached to a book of some kind. Muslims have the Koran; Hindus, their Veda; and Christians, the Bible. Writings of Confucius, Buddha, and indeed, Mao Tse-Tung, serve similar purposes for other groups. In Stalin's case, the writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin incited him, but to stop here would be premature.

Let's not blame Marx, Engels, and Lenin for Stalin's atrocities. I don't think, as I said before about Marx, that any of them would have condoned Stalin's actions. He also sneakily makes a parallel to the writings of Mao Tse-tung [link] (Chairman of the Communist Party of China in the late 1940s.) The closest thing Mao ever came to religion was the cult of personality that surrounded him.
It's worth mentioning that religion (and this led to many terrible persecutions) was supressed by many Communist regimes, including Mao's and Stalin's.

Originally Posted by Paul G. Humber

There is one man-book amalgam which may have been even more determinative for Stalin, especially during his youthful, impressionable years. The man was Charles Darwin; the book--his The Origin of Species.

As the later quote from another book, describing the interaction of Stalin and his friend Glurdjidze. It outlines to me that Stalin read Darwin's book and completely missed the point. Like I said before, ToE doesn't make any comments about God. Therefore, you cannot read Darwin and extrapolate that there is no God. If you reach the conclusion that there is no God, that is your own affair, and Darwin is certainly not responsible.
However, the author seems to reach the conclusion that since Stalin believed that there is no God based on what he read in The Origin of Species, this is somehow true.
I can safely state that Stalin had many ideas that are not the slightest bit acceptable to most human beings regardless of their beliefs. Darwin causing agnosticism can go on that list.
I don't have a problem with agnosticism, but I do have a problem with Stalin.

A few pages later, another individual--also reflecting on Stalin's youthful pursuits, added the following:

Originally Posted by Paul G. Humber

". . .in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin's teachings."1

1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12.

I don't believe the world was created in six days either, and I am definitely a Christian. Some creationists don't think the world was created in six days. IIRC, this belief is only held by Young Earth Creationists. (I could be wrong about YECs.)
This is just to point out that many Christians, in fact, don't take Genesis literally.
I'm not judging the rightness or wrongness of different Christian beliefs, I'm just saying that the author needs to get the context of his quotes straight.

Originally Posted by Paul G. Humber

But has Solzhenitsyn considered any relationship involving Soviet oppression, Stalin's terror, and Darwin's theories on origin? In his towering book, The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn recounts an incident which apparently took place in 1937-38 at a district Party conference meeting in Moscow Province. The secretary (replacing an arrested one) was paying tribute to Comrade Stalin. The group, including the new secretary, was standing and applauding their esteemed Leader. Even a single minute of feverish clapping consumes energy, but in this case it was important to sustain the "enthusiasm" much longer. Three, four, five minutes passed and more! Tired arms!--but who could risk stopping? Seven, eight, and nine minutes elapsed. It was absurd! Finally after eleven minutes (!), a local factory director stopped clapping and sat down. All followed suit, but that night the one who stopped first was arrested and given ten years! He was told, "Don't ever be the first to stop applauding!" Solzhenitsyn queries, "And just what are we supposed to do? How are we supposed to stop?" 7 In harmony with the position of this article, he adds:

Now that's what Darwin's natural selection is. And that's also how to grind people down with stupidity. 7

7 Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 7.

In the above quoted paragraph, a situation is described where a man is arrested for being the first person to stop clapping. Solzhenitsyn then adds a comparison to natural selection.
I was originally going to make an unkind statement about Solzhenitsyn's Nobel Prize, but this wouldn't be fair because:
1. This quote could very easily have been taken out of context. I strongly suspect it was.
2. This isn't exactly how natural selection works, which leads me to believe that Solzhenitsyn was using this as a literary device (the name of the exact type escapes me), rather than actually making a statement about how natural selection works.
3. According to
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's Autobiography [link], from Nobelprize.org, Solzhenitsyn won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature.
Just as I would not expect the winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics to make an insightful comment on the significance of "War and Peace", quoting Solzhenitsyn's book does not lend any credibility what-so-ever to statements that the Theory of Evolution contributed to Stalin's atrocities.


Well, I've spend a lot of time examining the first part of the article (ending with the last part I quoted) so let's pause for now and discuss it.

However, if the rest of this article is as poorly referenced and badly thought-out as the first part was, I don't know if I want to bother finishing it. I expect better from a scientific essay.
Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with writing a scientific essay. This is what the author is doing (even though he wedged an abstract in at the beginning); like many scientific essays, he is examining a number of articles about his main theme and drawing conclusions from them.

The author is actually rather vague about the point of his essay. He needs to sharpen up that introduction, big time. As far as I can tell, the entire essay is about faith in the self and other humans is actually religious faith. He goes on to (somewhat vaguely) extrapolate that believing in the works of Darwin, and therefore ToE, is also a religious belief.


I suppose the main conclusion from this article is that ToE contributed the Stalin's atrocities, and is therefore wrong. By extension, this would make Creationism right. Note that this is my own conclusion from what I have read so far, and not anything the author stated.

This entire essay (glaring faults aside) seems to have been a waste of time for the Institute for Creation Research since the author did not do any actual research beyond studying articles*, and he also said nothing about creationism.

Edited to add:
*Actually, studying articles is a perfectly valid form of research. Unfortunately for the author, the articles in question don't appear to support his points.

The essay seems to merely exist to cast doubt on the Theory of Evolution. This is actually the main why I don't consider Creationism of any kind to be a valid scientific view point. I think it's a perfectly valid and logical world view (or religious belief if you will), but it is not science.
Why? Because it seems that the main case for the science of creationism is poking holes in evolution. That alone does not prove the validity of a scientific theory. A scientific theory needs to have stand alone evidence to support its hypotheses - ToE having flaws (which it does) is not enough.
Ultimately, there is no scientific evidence for the presence of a Creator (aka God, aka a supernatural being of any name).
Even RÃ*an's arguments fall down at this point, which is rather central to the theory, and RÃ*an has presented the best, most logical, and very thoughtful and intelligent arguments for Intelligent Design I have ever read.

I think the intent behind this article is to further Creationism as a valid scientific theory. I don't think scientific theories are necessarily better than religious theories, therefore I fail to see why the Institute for Creationist Research bothers. Creationism (and ID) is a perfectly valid world view.

Why would you (general you) put forward a rubbish scientific theory rather than a good world view?

[rohirrim TR]

well sorry for posting the article i didn't check all the sources and crap. i'm not a very good writer so i'm not coming across very well, once again i apologise

my point was darwins works did much more than just, cause science to be viewed differently, it changed history and affected how the world is today, and some of those changes were for the worse.

[Nurvingiel]

No worries rohirirm TR.

That article showed me the Darwin did not change history. Actually, Darwin's views did affect history, but not Communism or Nazism.

I think it was part of a larger rethinking of our world view, but I don't know that much about it.

A case could be made for Darwin's influence on history though.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

It outlines to me that Stalin read Darwin's book and completely missed the point. Like I said before, ToE doesn't make any comments about God. Therefore, you cannot read Darwin and extrapolate that there is no God. If you reach the conclusion that there is no God, that is your own affair, and Darwin is certainly not responsible.

Darwin certainly makes comments about God in The Origin of Species - I've read them myself (the book is smiling down on me as I speak)

[rohirrim TR]

well the term "change history" is somewhat misleading if you think about, after all no one "changed" it although some people got to make it

and don't tell me the darwins' works didn't change the way certain people look at humanity, it had a major effect and very rarely for good. that article that i linked was not my only info, but my other stuff i've got to find and check before i post it (i learned my lesson )

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Darwin certainly makes comments about God in The Origin of Species - I've read them myself (the book is smiling down on me as I speak)

Really!? Holy crap.

What does Darwin say about God?

I never heard anything about God when we studied ToE. Of course, some parts of ToE may not necessarily be accepted today. I wish I knew more about it.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

well the term "change history" is somewhat misleading if you think about, after all no one "changed" it although some people got to make it

You're right about "changing history".

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

and don't tell me the darwins' works didn't change the way certain people look at humanity, it had a major effect and very rarely for good. that article that i linked was not my only info, but my other stuff i've got to find and check before i post it (i learned my lesson )

Lol Rohirirm.

Darwin's work did influence people's beliefs - mine, for example. I don't think this is a negative influence though, why do you feel that way?

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I think a distinction between Darwinism (ie ToE) and Social Darwinism would be helpful here. One is a scientific theory that we've been discussing here for a while. The other is the theory that within human society, groups compete in a "survivial of the fittest" manner, which is often used to claim that the poor are poor because they deserve it. It isn't scientific (or accurate, mostly because its major claims have been actually discredited) and it is that, rather than ToE, that influenced Nazism.

That's a good point, but in fact evolutionary theory did also influence Nazism in the form of eugenics. The popularity of eugenics in the 19th century meant that Darwin's theory was frequently used to back up the idea that selective breeding could 'improve' the human gene pool. Many of the subjects which interested 19th century philosophers and scientists, such as utopian ideologies or the role of race in empire, were fed by a certain interpretation of evolution and what it could be used to achieve. Later on, Hitler was influenced by these ideas through his reading of Nietzsche, and this led to such Nazi policies as forced sterilization of disabled people, compulsory euthanasia and marriage restrictions to avoid mixing of races. Mussolini's promotion of the birth rate of 'real' Italian children was influenced by the same principles, and various other racist theories have also looked to evolution for support. However, since Stalin usually exterminated people for political rather than ideological reasons, the link in his case is less obvious; I'm also not aware that Marx was especially interested in scientific, rather than social and political, evolution.

The connection between Nazism and evolution is undeniable; the important point to note is that this cannot be used as an argument against evolution. Any idea can be twisted to support repulsive ideologies; it's not Darwin's fault that Hitler used his theories in a terrible way.

[Count Comfect]

True, sunstar, but eugenics is also highly linked to Social Darwinism - partly because true ToE says you cannot predict what will be more fit, and so eugenics is doomed to fail, while Social Darwinism would argue pretty much the opposite.

[sun-star]

Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with that part of your post.

BTW Nurv, I loved what you said about Godwin's Law

[Lotesse]

This thread has gotten really, really interesting and an actual PLEASURE to read, lately. Good stuff, Count C, Nurvi & Sun-Star, et al...

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Am in too much of a hurry to answer well (houseguests in 35 minutes - what am I doing MOOTING?!?!?!) but basically I'd say if I wanted to turn on a light, I'd just walk in and turn it on, not construct some hit-and-miss mechanism. But that's a VERY hasty answer, and I'll have to elaborate on it in the next few days sometime.

That link looks interesting - scanned it briefly and will read it carefully later thanks!

read it if you get the chance... i'd be interested to hear specifically why you find it anymore "constructed" than the other creationism ideas

to me, it's basically completely compatible with intelligent design and the only difference from "young earth creationism" is that it asks one not to take the bible as 100% literal

here is the link again

i'd be interested in hearing some specifics from you as well if you'd like to rohirrim

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sun-star

The connection between Nazism and evolution is undeniable; the important point to note is that this cannot be used as an argument against evolution. Any idea can be twisted to support repulsive ideologies; it's not Darwin's fault that Hitler used his theories in a terrible way.

very true... in fact, the nazi's also used the bible as justification for persecuting the jews... the whole "the jews killed jesus" thing

[Spock]

Of course you realize that the Creator, or the Aliens, are having a huge laugh at all this. Unless we just 'popped' into existance and then the Universe is hysterical.

[Insidious Rex]

chaos doesnt have a sense of humor.

[rohirrim TR]

here are some articles that, if nothing else, will provoke thought click here and here

[Insidious Rex]

Of course the ironic idea about trying to blame darwin for all racism is that ultimately it was evolution and other sciences that showed us that we are all in fact one race... thus undermining the entire argument.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

here are some articles that, if nothing else, will provoke thought click here and here

people are the source of racism... ideas are just their tools... and that goes for religion as well as science

[Spock]

If you want to make God laugh, tell him your future plans.
--W.A.--