Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mindmetoo]

[Omkara]

I've got to disagree with you on one point, Mindmetoo.

Science + Religion = Stultified Science

Atheism + Religion = No god to get in the way. But, Atheism does not help Science, either.

The relationship of religion and science is a social issue, not a scientific issue. I'm sure you get this point well. I'm as sure that RTeacher, Fiveeagles and Junior don't get this point.

A scientist can personally be religious, just as well as visit a prostitute on the side (let's call her Mary), and this won't necessarily affect the science He'll produce. But the day that the DNA evidence comes back showing that the Scientist is the father of her retarded boy, if he claims virgin birth, he ain't doin' science no more.

If we try to integrate religion and science, science loses.

[mindmetoo]

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/a_question_for_ben_stein_why_are_you_sin.php

Very interesting. Hitler, who invoked god a lot as a justification for the holocaust, also compared himself to Koch and Pasteur. And yet never Darwin. Never Darwin.

[Rteacher]

I should have used the term "establish" rather than "promote" (I was struggling to stay awake when I made that post...)

I think that - lacking the guidance of true spirituality - science succeeds in destroying much of the environment and unnecessarily killing many living entities. There are strong indications that this where status quo "normal science" is heading.

Especially, hard-to-predict genetic engineering eperiments and technology pose serious threats to health, the environment, the future of agriculture, and the relationship of human societies and the rest of nature.

The rapid spread of genetically engineered organisms in the environment is logically suspected of factoring into the emergence of so many new, highly virulent disease pathogens in recent years, many of which are simultaneously resistant to several different antibiotics.

Dr. Singh further notes (in Life, Matter, and their Interactions ) that

"... we have seen that genetically engineered crops harm beneficial insects such as ladybugs, lacewings, and monarch butterflies, cross-pollinate at higher rates than their non-engineered counterparts, and are more susceptible to environmental stresses. The consumption of such foods has been associated with unusual allergies, irritations of the digestive tract, the uncontrolled spread of antibiotic resistence, and possible distortions in the development and growth of vital organs. The profound ethical implications of genetic engineering and other new biotechnologies have proved impossible to ignore."

I've already (well mostly on the big deleted thread) shown that a significant number of Nobel Prize winning scientists agree that there are serious problems with the current approach.

Nobel Laureate biologist Marshal Nirenberg, who made a significant contribution in describing the genetic code, cautioned us way back in 1967 in his editorial in Science "Will Society Be Prepared?"

"Man may be able to program his own cells with synthetic information long before he'll be able to access adequately the long-term consequences of such alterations, long before he'll be able to formulate goals, and long before he can resolve the ethical and moral problems which will be raised. When man becomes capable of instructing his own cells, he must refrain from doing so until he has sufficient wisdom to use this knowledge for the benefit of mankind. I state this problem well in advance of the need to resolve it because decisions concerning the application of this knowledge must ultimately be made by society, and only an informed society can make such decisions wisely."

Because of greed and corruption - including "scientific studies" paid for by corporations motivated by profit - the public is largely misled or kept under-informed about potential harmful effects (of foods genetically modified by scientists thinking they can improve on what is produced naturally by God's arrangement.)

If modern science can't/won't fit God into its paradigm of life and universal creation it probably needs to be controlled by those who do understand laws of God in order to avert disastrous repercussions to its moral transgressions.

[Rteacher]

From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany was released in 2004 (paperback edition in 2005) with Palgrave Macmillan in New York, a major publisher of historical scholarship.

Dustjacket blurb:

In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.

Richard Weikart is professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus. He has lived in Germany over five years, including one year on a Fulbright Fellowship. He has published two previous books, including Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein (1999), as well as articles in German Studies Review, Journal of the History of Ideas, Isis, European Legacy, and History of European Ideas.
http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/fromdarwintohitler.htm

[mindmetoo]

[mindmetoo]

[Rteacher]

The attacks on Weikart (including "mindmetoo's") can be understood to be largely partisan in nature since it relates to largely polarized issues.

Here's his "General Response to Critics":

Though my book, From Darwin to Hitler, has received many positive reviews, it has also aroused some criticism. Unfortunately, many of my critics have misrepresented my position, so I need to set the record straight.

The two most common criticisms of my book by scholars run something like this:

Weikart incorrectly argues

that all forms of Darwinism lead to Nazism (sometimes this charge is couched as: Weikart is imbalanced in his presentation, because he doesn't discuss Darwinists and forms of Darwinism that didn't lead to Nazism);

that all of Nazi ideology and policies derive from Darwinism (sometimes this charge is presented as: Weikart is imbalanced in his presentation, because he doesn't discuss all the other factors that produced Nazi ideology and practices).

I have read these criticisms with some bewilderment and consternation, because not only did I not make these arguments in my book, but I overtly denied them.

Lest anyone think I'm inventing or distorting the positions of my critics, here are some concrete examples:

In the prestigious Journal of Modern History, the reviewer of my book stated that Weikart takes the position: "All Darwinian thinkers advocated the violation of the 'right to life' through measures such as birth control, abortion, voluntary and compulsory 'euthanasia,' voluntary and compulsory sterilization, infanticide, and genocide. And all Darwinian thought led inevitably to Auschwitz."

Robert Richards, professor of the history of science at the University of Chicago, has criticized my book thus: "They [Weikart and others] have not, for instance, properly weighed the significance of the many other causal lines that led to Hitler's behavior--the social, political, cultural, and psychological strands that many other historians have in fact emphasize [sic]. And thus that [sic] they have produced a mono-causal analysis which quite distorts the historical picture."

The biggest problem with these critiques is that I specifically denied these interpretations of Darwinism and Nazism in my book.

Concerning the first charge (that I claim that every form of Darwinism led to Nazism), I stated quite clearly in the introduction: "Obviously, Darwin was no Hitler. The contrast between the personal lives and dispositions of these two men could hardly be greater. Darwin eschewed politics, retreating to his country home in Down for solitude to conduct biological research and to write. Hitler as a demagogue lived and breathed politics, stirring the passions of crowds through frenzied speeches. Politically Darwin was a typical English liberal, supporting laissez-faire economics and opposing slavery. Like most of his contemporaries, Darwin considered non-European races inferior to Europeans, but he never embraced Aryan racism or rabid anti-Semitism, central features of Hitler's political philosophy." (p. 3) I specifically denied that Darwinist thinkers are proto-Nazi. I also explained in my introduction: "The opposing view�that Hitler hijacked Darwinism�has significant supporting arguments, for many scholars have pointed out that Darwinism did not lead to any one particular political philosophy or practice. Social Democrats with impeccable Marxist credentials were enthusiastic about Darwinism and even considered it a corroboration of their own worldview. After reading Darwin�s Origin of Species, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, 'Although developed in a coarse English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view.' Furthermore, many pacifists, feminists, birth control advocates, and homosexual rights activists�some of whom were persecuted and even killed by the Nazis�were enthusiastic Darwinists and used Darwinian arguments to support their political and social agendas. Eugenics discourse was commonplace all across the political spectrum, causing the historian Atina Grossmann to convincingly argue that the path from eugenics and sex reform to Nazism was 'a convoluted and highly contested route.' Nazism was not predetermined in Darwinism or eugenics, not even in racist forms of eugenics." It's hard for me to understand how anyone could read the introduction to my book and make the ridiculous claim that I argue that all Darwinists promoted euthanasia or genocide. These scholars apparently are unaware that I wrote a previous book, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein, in which I explained the reception of Darwinism by German socialists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. No, all Darwinism didn't lead to Nazism, and I of all people know this quite well. If my critics skipped the introduction of my book, they could also have learned my views in the conclusion, where I stated: "It would be foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust, as though Darwinism leads logically to the Holocaust. No, Darwinism by itself did not produce Hitler's worldview, and many Darwinists drew quite different conclusions from Darwinism for ethics and social thought than did Hitler." (p. 232) So where did my critics get the idea that I argued that "all Darwinian thought led inevitably to Auschwitz"?

Concerning the second charge (that Nazism depends entirely on Darwinian thought), I specifically confronted this issue in my book, too, stating: "The multivalence of Darwinism and eugenics ideology, especially when applied to ethical, political, and social thought, together with the multiple roots of Nazi ideology, should make us suspicious of monocausal arguments about the origins of the Nazi worldview." (p. 4) I further clarify: "I would also like to make clear from the outset that, while stressing intellectual history in this work, I recognize the influence of political, social, economic, and other factors in the development of ideologies in general and of Nazism in particular--but these topics are outside the scope of this study." (p. 5) In a class I teach at my university on the Nazi era, I discuss many factors shaping Nazi ideology: nationalism, the effects of World War I, economic problems, Christian antisemitism, etc. I do not believe that Nazism has one cause, and in my book I overtly reject a monocausal explanation. The reason I only discussed the role of social Darwinism and evolutionary ethics in the shaping of Nazi ideology should be obvious. My book is not primarily about Nazism. It is about evolutionary ethics. I never claimed that Darwinism or evolutionary ethics is the only cause of Nazi ideology, and I specifically denied that interpretation.

Why, then, you will ask, have several scholars erred so egregiously by misinterpreting my book? I refuse to speculate on this issue, but I should note that many reviewers have understood my argument perfectly well. The reviewer on H-Ideas noted that Weikart "also itemizes the variants of Darwinism and eugenics ideology as they were applied to ethical, political, and social thought and is aware of the many roots of Nazi ideology, thus clearly refusing any monocausal explanations of Nazism." The reviewer in German Studies Review wrote: "This does not mean, Weikart insists, that Darwinism should be blamed for the Holocaust." In Science and Theology News the reviewer wrote: "Darwin�s ideas are not directly responsible for the Holocaust, Weikart claims, because the principles of evolution do not necessarily lead to Hitler�s destructive philosophy."

What I demonstrated in detail in my book is that many leading Darwinists themselves argued overtly that Darwinism did indeed undermine the sanctity-of-life ethic, and they overtly appealed to Darwinism when they promoted infanticide, euthanasia, racial extermination, etc. I specifically noted that not all Darwinists took this position, but those who did were leading Darwinian biologists, medical professors, psychiatrists, etc. They were not some fringe group of ignorant fanatics; they were mainstream Darwinists. Also, I did not simply show that leading Darwinists supported eugenics, infanticide, euthanasia, and racial extermination; I showed that they appealed overtly to Darwinism to justify their position. So, it is not Weikart who is reading Darwinism into the record. Darwinists themselves made these arguments. Therefore, critics of the position that Darwinism devalues human life should not attack me, but rather should attack those Darwinists I exposed in my work.
www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/response-to-critics.htm

[mindmetoo]

[Omkara]

Hitler wasn't a Darwinist. He used the long known ideas which were applied to animals in breeding them to get superior animals. Hitler did not use natural selection.
The association of Darwin and Hitler is a point of rhetoric, not fact. That religious folk keep using the argument again shows that they do not understand the distinction between scientific and social issues.

[Underwaterbob]

I fail to see how whether Hitler was influenced by Darwin or not has any bearing on the ethics of science anyway.

[Omkara]

If you have time and want to watch a good conversation about science, religion, evolution, quantum physics and the social implications of them all, watch this:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2868,VOICES-OF-SCIENCE---Available-Now-on-DVD,Richard-Dawkins-Steven-Weinberg-Lawrence-Krauss-PZ-Myers-David-Buss

[Rteacher]

Charging someone with "quote mining" can also be misleading - quotes apparently taken out of context may be indirectly supported by other evidence (eugenics and Haeckle are key here)

Asserting (or insinuating) that anyone associated with the Discovery Institute must be a Christian dominionist is a serious charge that requires more proof than the radical/eccentric views of some big donor (Don't they have some Jews - like Michae Medved - working for them?)

It's not just Christians and Hare Krishnas who link Darwin - at least indirectly - with Naziism...
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qs3GdbgTu0&feature=related
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=bRKnvzHRSjg&feature=related

And Darwin (and evolution theory) also strongly influenced Communism:
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=ANognwjVG3Q&feature=related
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=BdINKbjUL5U&feature=related

[IncognitoHFX]

[Rteacher]

You've stated your position well, but I think that the materialistic philosophy underlying and implied by Darwin's theory contributed to a gradually less sanctified view of life and inspired (even if unintentionally) eugenics, which further inspired Nazis and Communists alike to do atrocious things by supplying some "scientific" rationale.

I understand that misapplication of scriptural teachings can also provide a "religious" rationale for atrocities - which is why religion should be backed by a philosophy that makes complete sense (at least on some level).