Beck Wants to Boycott Disney Over Darwin Movie

Glenn Beck has generally been opposed to boycotts, even by conservative groups, but he’s now rethinking that position because Disney is going to make a movie about Charles Darwin’s voyage on the Beagle. Apparently that’s the last straw for him, for some weird reason.

Perhaps it is time for conservatives to begin to launch boycotts of their own, Beck said, especially now that companies like Disney are lighting up landmarks in celebration of gay marriage … and making films about Charles Darwin!

“Boycotts work and we have created a vacuum. We do nothing,” Beck said. “Let me give you this story, they’re doing a new movie, kind of an Indiana Jones swashbuckling spirit of a five year voyage in 1831 on ship H.M.S. Beagle to the coastline of South America to find and follow the man who made discoveries that made him one of the most influential figures in human history.”

“Wow, this sounds like a swashbuckling thriller that we are going to have to take our families to see,” Beck said sarcastically. “Doesn’t it sound great? It’s Charles Darwin. It’s the story of Charles Darwin and so we’re going to find out how exactly he came up with the idea, made the discoveries that brought him to the theory of evolution. Thank you, Disney! That’s fantastic.”

Actually, it might well be. Darwin is beyond a doubt one of the most influential scientific thinkers in history, so a movie about him hardly seems like an unusual suggestion. But that’s only if you aren’t a blinkered creationist who thinks Darwin was doing the devil’s work and seeking to destroy God and all things good.

"Why would beings of spirit like angels "theoretically " are, need orifices available for rape? ..."

Wiles: Gays Would Rape Angels if ..."
"You're all ignoring a big question: how did they get the frogs to drink from ..."

Warning: Alex Jones is Going to ..."
"Ah. So, go to war with everyone who looks at you funny, screw the environment ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"That sounded like Tex Avery would do for a cartoon short"

Swanson: God Will Punish Australia for ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • dingojack

    So Glen – did Darwin borrow Obama’s Time-machine? A five year voyage – in the single year 1831!

    We think he’s a great thinker – you evidently think he’s a miracle-worker!

    @@

    Dingo

  • colnago80

    Darwin was one of the three most important scientists who ever lived, the others being Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

  • Loqi

    Does that mean we’ll soon see Christian animation studios popping up? Presumably producing the same quality art as Christian rock and rap groups? At least it will be good for a laugh.

  • John Pieret

    Perhaps it is time for conservatives to begin to launch boycotts of their own

    Begin? Girl Scout cookies, stores with “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” signs, Angie’s List, JC Penney, Disney (already), Starbucks, and the list goes on …

  • howardhershey

    I am sure that they will hate the scene where Darwin questions the ability of a slave to be openly against slavery in the presence of his master while Captain FritzRoy sees it as proof of benign nature of slavery and that’s what God wanted. Of course, that particular scene might be missing in the movie.

  • Chiroptera

    I hear on good authority that it was Darwin who wrote Mein Kampf.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Two and a half hours of Darwin sailing on the Beagle, rowing ashore, sketching an animal, killing it, bringing it back to the ship, taking copious notes about it, and in the “sequel stinger” after the end credits, eating it.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    I cannot wait to hear Darwin sing! And converse with an anthropomorphic finch!

    FWIW, Anthropomorphic Finch was my favorite character from To Kill a Mockingbird.

  • ‘smee

    Is this going to be live action? I want to know where they’re going to get all the turtles from… And will they show the finches beaks changing in real-time, like mighty-morphin-power-tanagers?

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    OK, let him boycott. No one will note his absence.

  • dingojack

    Will the sequel be about Wallace?

    Dingo

  • theDukedog7 .

    Chuckie was a super guy. ‘Things change and survivors survive’ was a real breakthrough, and “On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” certainly set the stage for a century of artificial selection to rid humanity of all those unfavored races. The first eugenics lab at Cold Spring Harbor was the Station for Experimental Evolution– the applied science that followed logically from Darwin’s theoretical science. Chuckie presaged it in Descent of Man, about European races exterminating all those lower races.

    Applied Darwinism even went international. http://www.amazon.com/From-Darwin-Hitler-Evolutionary-Eugenics/dp/140397201X

    But I think I’ve already seen a movie about the impact his science had on our times. Spielberg sure knows how to make ’em.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/

    I’m looking forward to Disney’s movie. Maybe Brad Pit will play The Man.

  • ‘smee

    OK.. who let the puppy poo all over the carpet again? I JUST CLEANED THAT!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @6:

    [I hear on good authority that it was Darwin who wrote Mein Kampf.]

    No, but he helped with the background research.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Hey Duke. Still waiting for you to answer some of my questions.

    Do you evidence that your religious beliefs are true? Do you have evidence that your god exists, that Jesus was a magic man who performed magic, died, stayed dead for 3 days, and rose again? On what basis do you hold these beliefs?

    Why should I care about the moral opinions of a god? It’s just the opinions of one dude. Might does not make right. God might exist and punish me for violating its opinions, but that’s also equally true of the police. Might does not make right. God’s opinions about morality are no more important than any random human being.

    Do you hold that evolution by natural selection is falsifiable or unfalsifiable?

    Do you hold that all cases of SCOTUS review of law is contrary to the constitution? Or only some of them? If SCOTUS can void laws passed by congress on the basis of the 1st and 2nd amendment, why not the 9th?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    I’m with theDukedog7. The only discovery Darwin made was racism. Before that, we were all equal. We, some were 3/5ths, but with inflation that’s more than equal, which is why we need to abolish Liberal Plantations like Affirmative Action and the 15th Amendment before they destroy this country that they destroyed.

  • dingojack

    Oh BTW Lil Dookie

    a) What new laws did the recent ruling on Marriage Equality (ME) create?*

    b) What laws did the Supreme Court Justices break in coming to that decision?*

    c) How will the ME decision impact on your life in any way?*

    d) How many times does the phrase ‘by the states’ appear in the ACA?*

    That’ll do for a start…

    Dingo

    ———

    * precisely

  • Aaron Doyle

    I find it odd that Glenn Beck would object to the idea that humans are apes being that he has all of the reasoning skills of a gibbon.

    Two and a half hours of Darwin sailing on the Beagle, rowing ashore, sketching an animal, killing it, bringing it back to the ship, taking copious notes about it, and in the “sequel stinger” after the end credits, eating it.

    – Modusoperandi

    I’m not sure what is sadder: that I would watch this movie, or that I would wait with great anticipation for that sequel.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Modus:

    [The only discovery Darwin made was racism.]

    Oh no-no-no!

    Chuckie did pioneering work in tautological logic–survivors survive, which not even Aristotle had realized and Godel wouldn’t even have realized is he had been born yet.

  • addiepray

    ““Wow, this sounds like a swashbuckling thriller that we are going to have to take our families to see. Doesn’t it sound great? It’s Charles Darwin. It’s the story of Charles Darwin and so we’re going to find out how exactly he came up with the idea, made the discoveries that brought him to the theory of evolution. Thank you, Disney! That’s fantastic.”

    Wow. I agree with an entire paragraph spoken by Glenn Beck. Adopt Hitler, get out your ice skates.

  • addiepray

    Adolf

    Stupid autocorrect, stepping on jokes.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Aaron Doyle “I’m not sure what is sadder: that I would watch this movie, or that I would wait with great anticipation for that sequel.”

    The final film in the trilogy is mostly him writing and rewriting his work, writing letters to people asking their opinion of his work, and reading letters to him that other people wrote about his work.

     

    theDukedog7 “Chuckie did pioneering work in tautological logic–survivors survive”

    Wrong. He stole that from Herbert Spencer, who stole it from nature after reading Darwin write about nature. Nature got it from God. But none of them gives Him the credit He deserves.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    You go right ahead Glenn. I’m sure that the folks in Burbank are shaking in their shoes in fear that you’re going to carry through. Why, their income might drop 0.0001%.

  • dingojack

    Awww – poor Lil Dookie, did the nasty obese, asthmatic, three-legged moggie beat you up and get your tongue – again. Can’t answer a series of simple questions.*

    So sad for you [tear runs down cheek].

    :( Dingo

    ——–

    * or are they just a little too mentally taxing for you?

  • scienceavenger

    Chuckie was a super guy. ‘Things change and survivors survive’ was a real breakthrough, and “On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” certainly set the stage for a century of artificial selection to rid humanity of all those unfavored races.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI

    Also, Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself.” And the London Underground is not a political movement.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Dukedog7 is right, as usual! (#14):

    [I hear on good authority that it was Darwin who wrote Mein Kampf.]

    No, but he helped with the background research.

    Everyone is familiar with these lines from Darwin’s book:

    I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that those miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Evolutionists, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews and who warned the Evolutionists to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that an Evolutionist could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself.

  • Nick Gotts

    Michael Egnor, shameless liar and racist@12,

    The term “races” in the subtitle of The Origin of Species simply means “varieties”, so you are either showing your ignorance, or – more likely given your propensity for lying – being deceitful. It is true that Darwin, like practically all European and Euro-American thinkers of his day, considered whites superior to other races; but he was a vehement opponent of slavery, unlike many of his religious opponents.

    Hitler, of course, never mentioned Darwin in any of his surviving writings. He did mention God a good deal in Mein Kampf, in relation to how human beings came to exist, for example:

    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.

    and:

    …it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.

    Hitler drew many of his ideas from South German Catholic Nationalism (see Derek Hastings Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism). As far as biology went, his mentor was Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who rejected Darwinism as materialist. The 1935 edition of the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, Die Bücherei, contains a list of banned books. One of the entries in this edition of Die Bücherei is “Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)”.

    The first eugenics lab at Cold Spring Harbor was the Station for Experimental Evolution– the applied science that followed logically from Darwin’s theoretical science.

    But then @19:

    Chuckie did pioneering work in tautological logic–survivors survive

    Do try to keep the lies straight, Egnor: how could an applied science possibly follow logically from a tautology?

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    The lump on the lawn opines:

    ‘Things change and survivors survive’ was a real breakthrough, and “On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” certainly set the stage for a century of artificial selection to rid humanity of all those unfavored races.

    That zzzzooooomming sound, Lil’ Pup, is Darwin’s insight flying right past you. All you take from it is the fear that you are obsolete.

    So, that artificial selection; how’s that working out for you? Are you grateful or are you trembling in your rubber boots? Please tell me, and all the folks at home, just how your life has been ruined by Darwin’s observations and hypotheses. Have you any answer, any means of refutation, any way to save yourself while others die? If you do, what does it mean for humanity at large that you have survived to this day?

    Observational minds want to know.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    @Addie (21)

    Adopt Hitler, get out your ice skates.

    autocorrect or not, this is one of the best non sequiturs I have even seen. You should print T-shirts!!

  • addiepray

    @dukedog7

    I’ll save you some time. Just a theory, why are there still monkeys, never observed, Newton believed in God, Piltdown man, irreducible complexity, more Hitler.

    Sorry if I left any devastating arguments out.

    Yawn.

  • Larry

    To be fair, the crew of the Beagle did kill and eat some animals on the Galapagos, thus conforming to the conservative ideals of randomly killing things. That should work in favor of the movie.

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    You left out divine intent, addiepray. Let me get that for you . . .

    BECAUSE I SAID SO DAMMIT!!!!

    That aught to keep the little creep busy for a while.

    What? It’s already busy? Well, who’d a thunk?

  • scienceavenger

    @30 No new information, micro-macro, Haeckel, polonium halos, 747’s in junkyards, crocoduck, and Hitler.

  • addiepray

    The thing that drives me crazy is even if the Hitler stuff were true, so what? the morally depraved actions someone might take based on their interpretation of a scientific theory hasn’t the slightest bearing on whether or not that theory is true. The fact that ISIS throws gay people out of high windows is not an argument against Newton or Einstein’s theories of gravity.

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    @33 Surprising that you didn’t mention magic or something like overwhelming universal will that goes against all observation of Life, the Universe and, ah, Everything.

    That the dichotomy exists at all certainly indicates that a grand puzzle exists. One that is a welcome challenge to some and a mortal threat to some others. Pity, that. How nice if we were all in agreement. Failing that I submit that the current state of affairs, including the puppy dog, is the best we can expect.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    addiepray “The thing that drives me crazy is even if the Hitler stuff were true, so what?”

    Look, everybody knows that “is ought”. Once people know that things happen, they start doing things like those things, often at great harm to themselves or others. It’s the Naturalistic Factuacy.

  • D. C. Sessions

    As soon as I saw this post title I thought to myself, “Ed has noticed the recent disruption in The Threads, and is trolling the canine fecal bolus.”

    And so it proved to be: the usual dispenser of vacuous talking points arrived.

  • Hoosier X

    Dukedog is just trying to take his rightful place among the conservative intellectuals like Jonah Goldberg, George Will, Thomas Sowell and Sarah Palin.

    You go, girl! The Democrats are the real Darwinists!

    Suck it up, libtards!

  • theDukedog7 .

    @Nick Gotts-no-idea-what-he’s-talking-about:

    The Darwinian influence on Nazism was obvious and is not a matter of debate. Richard Weikart documents it meticulously in several books.

    There was some opposition to materialism among Nazi philosophers, including Chamberlin, who favored a Hegelian idealism over crude materialism. Chamberlin’s problem with Darwinism was with its materialist assumptions, not with its inference that man was the product of an essential violent process of extermination of inferior races, which obviously fit the Nazi paradigm like a glove.

    The Darwinian view that the highest races of man evolved by exterminating lower races of man, and that such extermination was natural and essential for the biological health of the pure higher races, is obviously Darwinian. This point is made particularly well by Hanna Arendt in her The Origins of Totalitarianism, in which she describes the Darwinian view of man as absolutely essential to the Nazi worldview and in fact essential to all totalitarian worldviews in the 20th century. She observed that it was the Darwinian view that violence and extermination were unavoidable natural processes that motivated totalitarians to exterminate whole classes of people–the whole idea that genocide was an acceptable option is Darwinian in its essence.

    Arendt points out that Darwin’s claim to discovery of a law of development of organic life was the basis for the Nazi and Communist totalitarian claim of discovery of a corresponding law of development of political, economic and social life.

    Totalitarianism was merely the political system best adapted to man as an evolved creature.

    Most of Arendt’s discussion of the essential role Darwinism played in totalitarianism is in chapter 6 of OoT–a must read if you actually want to understand this, which I doubt.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @39:

    “The Darwinian Nazi view that the highest races of man…”

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Perhaps it is time for conservatives to begin to launch boycotts of their own…

    Beck reeeeeally doesn’t pay attention to his own side at all, does he? I’m sure One Million Moms will be shocked to discover they’re a bunch of raving liberals, so that’s something.

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    Modus, as always, sneaks up on a point and absolutely drives it into the ground like a delicate, sweet melody played by a hair metal band:

    Once people know that things happen, they start doing things like those things, often at great harm to themselves or others. It’s the Naturalistic Factuacy.

    Well, sure. What else can we do? I mean, everyone else is teaching me how to behave. Should I ignore all instruction?

    Sheesh, waddaya want? Rubber biscuit?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    theDukedog7 has a point. People weren’t shitty to other people until Darwin showed them that living things in nature can be shitty to other that living things in nature (peas, in particular). You can read all about that in Joshua.

  • psweet

    Dukedog, at least try reading Darwin’s work before mangling it. Just like most creationists, you’re combining a series of selective quotations, made-up quotes, and mis-interpretations into something meaningless. (Heck, the closest thing I’ve seen to a new argument in 30 years on this topic is the CSI stuff, and that depends upon an elementary misunderstanding of the math they try to use.)

  • scienceavenger

    The [Nazi] view that the highest races of man evolved by exterminating lower races of man, and that such extermination was natural and essential for the biological health of the pure higher races, is obviously Darwinian.

    Except that Darwin didn’t believe some races evolved by exterminating other races. Or is this the part where words mean whatever you want them to mean? Obviously…

  • scienceavenger

    Dukedog, at least try reading Darwin’s work before mangling it.

    But he did read it. It’s tautologies all the way down.

  • Synfandel

    I was complete unaware that Charles Darwin buckled swashes.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @modus:

    [theDukedog7 has a point. People weren’t shitty to other people until Darwin showed them that living things in nature can be shitty to other that living things in nature (peas, in particular).]

    People have been shitty for a very long time. What Arendt observes is that Darwin enshrined “people are shitty” as a ground-breaking scientific insight, and shittiness as a scientific process that drove the evolution of the highest races of man.

    Darwin’s theory made shittiness not something to be ashamed of but something to be proud of–nature red in tooth and claw was what gave us the highest levels of civilization. Totalitarians took him at his word, and made shittiness a system of government.

    One doubts that truth won’t be mentioned in the Disney film. Much of the syncopatic hagiography of Darwin is no more than a Disney film.

  • maddog1129

    “we have created a vacuum. We do nothing,” Beck said.

    Oh, wait … he admits that praying and fasting and wailing on the airwaves and gnashing of teeth is “do[ing] nothing”?

  • colnago80

    Apparently, Schmucknor is either unaware or is lying about Frankenberger supposedly being a Darwinist. Quite the opposite. Schicklgruber rejected common descent in Mein Kampf and Darwin’s seminal work, On the Origin of Species was banned in Nazi Germany and copies were burned, just as Stalin rejected natural selection in favor of Lysenkoism. So Schmucknor agrees with Hister and Stalin, making him a Communist/Nazi.

    Darwin’s views on racial issues are completely irrelevant relative to his theory of natural selection and common descent. Just as Johannes Stark’s antisemitism is irrelevant to the truth of the Stark effect for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. Just as Phillip Lenard’s antisemitism is irrelevant to the truth of the independence of the energy of electromagnetic radiation from the intensity for which he too was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Crudely Wrott, it’s like after Newton and his so-called “Theory” of “Gravity”, and the single step from that to the falling blade of The Terror’s guillotine, or how Sir Ernest Rutherford’s “discovery” of so-called “half-life” lead to people decaying.

    Frankly, the world would’ve been better off had we never started looking at stuff.

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    Lil’ Pup:

    The Darwinian influence on Nazism was obvious and is not a matter of debate.

    Bullshit. 1930s German adventurism neither knew nor cared about Darwin in any scientific sense. All they knew was application of threat and force. They would have done the same things had Darwin never existed.

    Just like you, little dog. A dangling treat made of poison is as enticing as one mad of pure pork. You should quit while your ahead now before you get your pork handed to you.

    (That you already have had it handed to you and you don’t realize it only reinforces the point. And, listen: just because your head is pointed doesn’t mean you know which way you’re going)

  • colnago80

    Incidentally, if one is going to hold Darwin responsible for the Holocaust because his theories were misused by the Nazis, then one has to hold Einstein responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki because his theory E = MC^2 is the basis for nuclear bombs.

  • theDukedog7 .

    One has the sense I’ve insulted someone’s religion. Without Darwin, what will you have for a creation myth?

    I’ve definitely committed a hate crime. I should have given you all a trigger warning.

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    Sometimes, Modus, I get really, really tired of looking at stuff. Er, I mean looking at people. Stuff is OK. Stuff is neutral. People, on the gripping hand . . . hooo boy!

    The reason that there is a saying that goes: “It takes all kinds” is because we are plagued with “all kinds”. That we manage to muddle along as good as we do (with exceptions for murder for dogma) is testimony to our inherent good nature. I think . . .

  • scienceavenger

    Here’s Hitler on the subject of 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. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.”

    Obviously Darwinian, atheistic, and beyond debate.

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    One has the sense I’ve insulted someone’s religion.

    Say what?????????

    There’s that zzzzzoooooommmmming sound again.

  • John Pieret

    Darwin’s theory made shittiness not something to be ashamed of but something to be proud of

    As if the Catholic Church wasn’t proud of Tomás de Torquemada and rooting out heretics in the name of Christ, instead of being ashamed of that.

  • scienceavenger

    One has the sense I’ve insulted someone’s religion.

    An understandable mistake for someone for whom all views are so founded.

  • addiepray

    It is undeniable that Hitler drew inspiration from Martin Luther’s copious anti-Semitic writings. Therefore Protestantism is false.

    That settles that then.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @53:

    [Incidentally, if one is going to hold Darwin responsible for the Holocaust because his theories were misused by the Nazis,]

    That’s the problem–genocide isn’t a “misuse” of Darwinian theory. Genocide is an application of Darwinian theory. If man is a mere animal evolved by natural selection, then genocide is how man became man. In the Darwinian view, you get to be a higher race by preventing the proliferation of lower races, generally by killing them.

    Nazi genocide is applied Darwinism, and is not a “misuse” of Darwin’s ideas. It’s merely taking evolution in hand, speeding it up and making it more efficient, which is the way eugenicists explicitly described their work.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    James Watt’s “Theory” lead to cattle cars, and where did cattle cars go? Auschwitz! Checkmate, External Combustionists!

  • theDukedog7 .

    [It is undeniable that Hitler drew inspiration from Martin Luther’s copious anti-Semitic writings. Therefore Protestantism is false.]

    Lutheranism had a profound influence on Nazism, and Luther’s antisemitic rants presaged Hitler’s.

    Many aspects of Modernism–Darwinism and Nazism included–have roots in the Reformation.

  • Hoosier X

    Except for Ben Stein and other great conservative thinkers saying it over and over, I’ve never seen any actual evidence that Hitler was influenced by Darwin.

    I guess I just don’t have enough faith in their integrity.

  • caseloweraz

    “Wow, this sounds like a swashbuckling thriller that we are going to have to take our families to see,” Beck said sarcastically. “Doesn’t it sound great? It’s Charles Darwin….

    Actually, the young Charles Darwin was quite the swashbuckler. He thought nothing of hiking 30 miles a day in rough country with a full pack, weather notwithstanding. Anyone who’s read Irving Stone’s The Origin realizes the truth of this. (I suspect Modus has read it.)

    Add in the perilous voyage, the risky encounter with the denizens of Tierra del Fuego, and the disputes between Darwin and Fitzroy, and you have the makings of a very lively story. Let’s hope the Disney Company does it justice.

  • theDukedog7 .

    Darwinism was as much as a metaphysical revolution as it was a scientific revolution.

    According to Darwinian theory, the highest qualities of man were evolved by a process of natural genocide. Genocide was indispensible to human progress and fulfillment. Nature did the genocide slowly, selection the fit and eliminating the unfit generation by generation.

    The totalitarians saw that this slow natural process could be speeded up and made much more efficient if done deliberately. Why wait for the inevitable Darwinian genocide, when you can get the genocide today, and help evolution along.

    The appeal of this view to eugenicists and Nazis is obvious, and even Communists used Darwinian metaphysical influences (as a struggle among classes rather than races).

    Communism is class Darwinism, and Nazism is race Darwinism.

  • theDukedog7 .

    And note that applied Darwinism is not a misuse of Darwinism–it is a logical course to follow if you seriously believe the Darwinian explanation for man to be the whole truth about man.

    As Darwin himself said in Descent of Man–“Only a fool would allow his worst animals to breed.”

  • peterh

    Back to Glen Beck & one of his particular bits of stupidity: “… the discoveries that brought [Darwin] to the theory of evolution…”

    They did no such thing. The general tenets of evolution were pretty much in place before Darwin was born. His contribution, near-simultaneously with Wallace’s, was seeing natural selection as a winnowing factor.

  • http://artk.typepad.com ArtK

    Over on Orac’s blog, Dr. Egnor demonstrated very clearly that he is the poster child for willful ignorance. This to the point that the sobriquet “Egnorance” was coined in his honor. It’s amusing, if unsurprising, to see that he applies the same skills to history and politics.

    Again, I’m very, very happy that neither I nor anyone I care about, is in a position to have him perform surgery. That kind of rigid thinking is a real liability in a profession where the unexpected is normal.

  • scienceavenger

    The glaring hole in all ths self-serving bollocks is that what Hitler applied to people were the principles of animal husbandry, which, depending on how strictly one defines it, predated Darwin by hundreds if not thousands of years. This could hardly be called a Darwinian concept. His contribution was the notion that nature, over time, could produce similar results sans a guiding hand, which is not at all what Hitler was about.

  • John Pieret

    Egnore-breaker-of-the-8th-Commandment:

    Here is the actual quote:

    There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

    The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

    I guess Catholics have become inured to lying, since their bishops were so dishonest over pedophile priests.

  • theDukedog7 .

    @70:

    [the principles of animal husbandry, which, depending on how strictly one defines it, predated Darwin]

    The Darwinian revolution was to see man as wholly the product of natural animal husbandry.

    The Nazis made the perfectly logical inference that since we were naturally bred animals, we could speed up the breeding deliberately, by culling the unfit, rather than waiting for nature to do it slowly.

    That is the Darwinian idea, and it has transformed politics and culture.

  • addiepray

    @72

    And again, even if that was true, it hasn’t the slightest bearing on whether or not Darwin was right.

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    Lil’ doggy, attend: the principles of animal husbandry are glaringly distinct from human reproduction. That is, unless you are terrified of the whole idea.

  • Al Dente

    Egnor, you know various popes have said that evolution and Catholic dogma have no conflict. Why are you rejecting the dogma of your church?

  • scienceavenger

    The Darwinian revolution was to see ALL LIFE as wholly the product of natural animal husbandry. You’d be amazed how little “The Origin” mentions humans. But then that would require reading it.

    The Nazis made the perfectly logical inference that since we were naturally bred animals, we could speed up the breeding deliberately, by culling the unfit, rather than waiting for nature to do it slowly.

    That makes it a Nazi idea. Your argument refutes itself. Or are you going to similarly reason that since Einstein clued us in to the notion that splitting atoms could result in a mushroom cloud, that the bombing of Hiroshima was on Einstein, and not the government that ordered it.

  • Crudely Wrott, lurching towards recrudescence

    @76 In the same fashion that Democritus of Abdera is responsible for modern nuclear reactors.

    It’s simple: put two dots on a piece of paper and draw a line between them.

    Works every time.

  • Hoosier X

    Eh, I still haven’t seen any evidence that Darwin influenced Hitler.

    Great conservative thinkers saying things like “it is clear that Darwin influenced Hitler” aren’t nearly as convincing to most people as they must sound in the great conservative thinkers’ heads.

  • cptdoom

    @colnago80 #53 – Don’t forget Alan Turing, who is responsible for identity theft and cyberstalking, because he invented the computer.

    Although I don’t support Beck’s boycott, I am not sure focusing on Darwin is a great idea. Like Freud, he invented a science that has come to provide a lot of benefit for mankind, but later scientists have so greatly and profoundly expanded and reshaped his ideas that the originator seems incredibly naive. Darwin’s original writings don’t explain bees and ants, for instance, and the study of genetics and evolutionary biology have provided a wealth of insight tof which Darwin simply never dreamed.

  • whheydt

    About the only way to insult someones religion in this thread would be to point out that Hitler was a Catholic.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Hey Dr. Egnor. Still waiting for you to answer some of my questions.

    Do you hold that evolution by natural selection is falsifiable or unfalsifiable? The model of evolution by natural selection makes clear predictions of population genetics, and these have been tested, and confirmed.

    Do you hold that all cases of SCOTUS review of law is contrary to the constitution? Or only some of them? If SCOTUS can void laws passed by congress on the basis of the 1st and 2nd amendment, why not the 9th?

    Do you have evidence that your religious beliefs are true? Do you have evidence that your god exists, that Jesus was a magic man who performed magic, died, stayed dead for 3 days, and rose again? On what basis do you hold these beliefs?

    Why should I care about the moral opinions of a god? It’s just the opinions of one dude. God is just a dude. A very powerful dude, but a dude nonetheless. Might does not make right. God might exist and punish me for violating its opinions, but that’s also equally true of the police. Might does not make right. God’s opinions about morality are no more important than any random human being.

  • EnlightenmentLiberal

    Eh, I still haven’t seen any evidence that Darwin influenced Hitler.

    If you see anything that purports to, chances are good that it come from the English translation of Hitler’s Table Talk, which is a blatant forgery aimed at smearing atheists, IIRC and Darwin and evolution too. Our very own Dr. Richard Carrier identified this fraud, and wrote a paper about it. Unfortunately this English fraud “translation” is commonly used in German studies and Hitler studies in English-speaking universities et al, and so the misconceptions are widespread.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    caseloweraz “Anyone who’s read Irving Stone’s The Origin realizes the truth of this. (I suspect Modus has read it.)”

    Hardly. I boycotted it. Now I’m waiting for the movie so that I can go not see that, too.

  • http://wanderinweeta.blogspot.com Susannah

    the DukeDog7 #54:

    I should have given you all a trigger warning.

    It’s OK. Doesn’t matter; your name is warning enough.

  • Dave Maier

    I’m surprised no one has mentioned this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974014/ .

  • D. C. Sessions

    Rover may have a point (hush!) although as usual any truth has been homeopathically diluted.

    In short, Darwin (by identifying the mechanisms in nature that lead to one population’s success vs. another’s, and to the distribution of phenotypes over time) very likely did influence the weltanschauung of the early 20th century, leading to some of the mid-20th’s systematic violence.

    By analogy, one might (as Rover intimates) blame the Enlightenment for the French Reign of Terror and in particular for Dr. Guillotine’s eponymous invention because Newton, after all, described the mechanics of gravity.

    The really interesting challenge will be for him to blame “liberals,” “Darwinists.” and in particular Democrats for the Thirty Years’ War and the Spanish Inquisition. Although it’s quite possible that he approves of the latter and justifies the former as Catholic (Bourbon and Habsburg in particular) resistance to Lutheran and Calvinist revolt against ecclesiastical authority.

  • Dave Maier

    I see what you’re saying, D.C., and I do approve of the basic analogy (Darwin: Hitler :: Newton: Guillotin), but what I find distracting about it is that while the Darwin-Hitler link is fanciful at best, I might very well blame the Enlightenment for the Reign of Terror. Minor point in the context, but I don’t think we should deny the historical fact of the 18th-century Enlightenment’s dark side, as manifested above all in that sorry episode, albeit with the blame for that falling of course mainly on Robespierre et al rather than Newton or Galileo.

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    Oh gods. Colnago is arguing with DukeDog and Schicklgrubers are being thrown around. My eyes are tearing up, it’s all so glorious!

  • peterh

    @#83:

    I think you might not boycott The Source James A. Michner, Random House 1965, LC#66-11255. While being an historical novel on two levels which intertwine, the poetic exposition of how a monotheistic religion can/did/might have arisen is compelling. Further, I commend this novel to all fundamentalists (and even nut jobs like DukyDoggy) as a gentle and pleasant exercise in How To Spread Your Message without stridency or sounding like idiots. There are elements of theism in some slight degree, but the main thrust is humanism and humanity.

  • Anri

    theDukedog7 @ 61:

    That’s the problem–genocide isn’t a “misuse” of Darwinian theory. Genocide is an application of Darwinian theory. If man is a mere animal evolved by natural selection, then genocide is how man became man. In the Darwinian view, you get to be a higher race by preventing the proliferation of lower races, generally by killing them.

    Nazi genocide is applied Darwinism, and is not a “misuse” of Darwin’s ideas. It’s merely taking evolution in hand, speeding it up and making it more efficient, which is the way eugenicists explicitly described their work.

    That’s exactly as stupid as saying that giving someone a carcinogenic is “taking evolution mitosis in hand, speeding it up and making it more efficient”.

    Eugenic application of artificial selection to human populations is based on the assumption that there are ‘lesser’ humans. Evolutionary theory in no way mandates that assumption, in fact, it shows that genetic diversity is spread much more evenly though the human species than eugenicists think it is, or wish it to be. Eugenicists balk at modern evolutionary theory, because is upsets their base assumptions.

    If you start from a false premise, you can’t help but misuse a theory. (“I built a castle, and it sank into the swamp. I built a second castle, and it sank into the swamp…”)

    More to the point, genocide occurred long before Darwin’s writings. People do use his writings as an excuse for genocide, but then again, they use the Bible, too. I guess that puts them on equal footing in the morality department, yes?

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    peterh “I think you might not boycott The Source James A. Michner, Random House 1965, LC#66-11255. While being an historical novel on two levels which intertwine…”

    Two levels? I can barely pull of a single entendre!

  • throwaway, butcher of tongues, mauler of metaphor

    Bombing Hiroshima was an application of nuclear physics. So is powering Egnor’s computer. Shut it down, Egnor.

  • dingojack

    Oh BTW Lil Dookie

    a) What new laws did the recent ruling on Marriage Equality (ME) create?*

    b) What laws did the Supreme Court Justices break in coming to that decision?*

    c) How will the ME decision impact on your life in any way?*

    d) How many times does the phrase ‘by the states’ appear in the ACA?*

    That’ll do for a start…

    Dingo

    ———

    * precisely

  • llamaherder

    An odd thing about this:

    Glenn Beck is a Mormon, and Mormons believe in evolution.

  • Lady Mondegreen

    Darwin enshrined “people are shitty” as a ground-breaking scientific insight, and shittiness as a scientific process that drove the evolution of the highest races of man.

    Darwin’s theory made shittiness not something to be ashamed of but something to be proud of–nature red in tooth and claw was what gave us the highest levels of civilization.

    I hate to break this to you, Rover, but, no, he didn’t.

    Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection says that the fittest survive. Not “the shittiest”: the fittest.

    You take an animal that isn’t particularly strong, or fast; that lacks camoflage, or big teeth, or sharp claws; however might it survive?

    Well, it might evolve to be a highly social creature. Social creatures generally aren’t shitty to each other. They certainly can be in certain circumstances, but a capacity for aggression is not their salient characteristic. Cooperation is. Cooperation, and intelligence, (they tend to evolve together; funny, that.)

    You’re making the same scientifically ignorant mistake made by the capitalists of the Gilded Age and the Nazis: you’re confusing “Social Darwinism,” the popular misconception (a mighty convenient one for Robber Barons and fascists,) with the scientific theory. And you’re doing it for the same reason: ideological convenience.

  • StevoR

    Let me give you this story, they’re doing a new movie, kind of an Indiana Jones swashbuckling spirit of a five year voyage in 1831 on ship H.M.S. Beagle to the coastline of South America to find and follow the man who made discoveries that made him one of the most influential figures in human history.”

    Only the coastline of South America? I think those offshore Sth Am / Pacific ocean islands called the Galapagos had a fair bit more to do with coming up with the theory via observations there actually plus some of the stuff Darwin saw in a whole lot of other places – including Australia – on his world trip in that first (non-Mars related) Beagle trip yeah?

    @2. colnago80 :

    Darwin was one of the three most important scientists who ever lived, the others being Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

    Its obviously going to be a subjective list but what about Galileo, Copernicus and Marie Curie? Mendel? Francis Bacon? Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham? Among others ..

  • Morgan

    In the Darwinian view, you get to be a higher race by preventing the proliferation of lower races, generally by killing them.

    It’s true; the breakthrough on the voyage of the Beagle came when Darwin witnessed the Finch Wars on the Galapagos Islands, seeing the aftermath of the butchery of bird by bird over the superior beak shape.

  • Nick Gotts

    Michael Egnor, liar and racist@39

    The Darwinian influence on Nazism was obvious and is not a matter of debate. Richard Weikart documents it meticulously in several books.

    Weikart is a “senior fellow” at the self-styled “Discovery Institute”. Academic reception of his absurd and dishonest screed From Darwin to Hitler is summarised here.

    There was some opposition to materialism among Nazi philosophers, including Chamberlin, who favored a Hegelian idealism over crude materialism. Chamberlin’s problem with Darwinism was with its materialist assumptions, not with its inference that man was the product of an essential violent process of extermination of inferior races, which obviously fit the Nazi paradigm like a glove.

    Nazism was systematically anti-materialist, and Chamberlain was one of its most revered thinkers, who lived to give his personal blessing to Hitler.

    The Darwinian view that the highest races of man evolved by exterminating lower races of man, and that such extermination was natural and essential for the biological health of the pure higher races, is obviously Darwinian.

    That is not a valid”the Darwinian view”, liar, nor a valid inference from Darwin’s theory of natural selection. (I note again, by the way, that you were pretending earlier that this theory is a tautology, and of course no empirical assertion about how our species came into existence could possibly follow from a tautology. Evidently you don’t even care enough about truth to try to keep your lies consistent.) The theory of natural selection is about differential survival and reproduction of individuals, not about “an essential violent process of extermination of inferior races”.

    This point is made particularly well by Hanna Arendt in her The Origins of Totalitarianism, in which she describes the Darwinian view of man as absolutely essential to the Nazi worldview and in fact essential to all totalitarian worldviews in the 20th century. She observed that it was the Darwinian view that violence and extermination were unavoidable natural processes that motivated totalitarians to exterminate whole classes of people–the whole idea that genocide was an acceptable option is Darwinian in its essence.

    Arendt points out that Darwin’s claim to discovery of a law of development of organic life was the basis for the Nazi and Communist totalitarian claim of discovery of a corresponding law of development of political, economic and social life.

    Totalitarianism was merely the political system best adapted to man as an evolved creature.

    Most of Arendt’s discussion of the essential role Darwinism played in totalitarianism is in chapter 6 of OoT–a must read if you actually want to understand this, which I doubt.

    I have read it. Arendt actually traces the origins of racism, correctly in my view, to European imperialism: it was a convenient justification for imperialist expansion and exploitation. She also says more about Gobineau than Darwin. Of Gobineau she says he:

    without Darwinist or any other evolutionist theory to influence him, this historian boasted of having introduced history into the family of natural sciences, detected the natural law of all courses of events…

    and propounded the doctrines of Aryan superiority and the evils of race-mixing (which were at the core of Hitler’s thinking). Gobineau published his “Essay on the Inequality of Human Races” in 1853 – before Darwin published anything on natural selection. When Arendt does get to Darwin, she unfortunately shows that she misunderstands his theory almost as much as you do. It is not, as she believes, a theory of inevitable progress. Instead, it is a theory of adaptation to local environments, and how successive such adaptations can produce, over time, arbitrarily radical change in organisms. She also uses, repeatedly, the phrase “survival of the fittest”, which is not Darwin’s, but Herbert Spencer’s. Nor does “fitness” equate to physical strength or brutality: Darwin considered (rightly) that our capacities for empathy and altruism are themselves evolved adaptations to social life. Now it is true that these misunderstandings of Darwin’s theory were (and are) widespread; that both Darwin himself and many other 19th and early 20th century evolutionary thinkers were racist (as were practically all their white contemporaries); and that some (although not Darwin) propounded vile eugenicist policies (Darwin explicitly repudiated them in Descent of Man). What is not true is that either racism or eugenics in any way follow from Darwin’s theory. Indeed, no conclusions about how we should behave can follow from a scientific theory without at least one additional value-laden premise, and as Arendt says:

    Politically speaking, Darwinism as such was neutral, and it has led, indeed, to all kinds of pacifism and cosmopolitanism as well as to the sharpest forms of imperialistic ideologies.

    What is not only not true, but a brazen, barefaced, calculated lie, is the claim that Darwin inspired Nazism. Hitler’s ideology grew out of the stew of European racism that – as Arendt documents – goes back into the 18th century and even before, and out of the poisonous antisemitism common to most Christian denominations, including Catholicism. Again, I refer you to Derek Hastings Catholicism and the Roots of Nazism if you actually want to understand this, which I am absolutely sure you do not.

  • Nick Gotts

    Like Freud, he invented a science that has come to provide a lot of benefit for mankind – cptdoom@79

    I must protest at the equation of the great (and personally modest) scientist Darwin with the self-important pseudoscientist and cult-founder Freud. Psychoanalysis has, admittedly, provided a living for a considerable number of psychoanalysts, but beyond that, has done no good to anyone and considerable harm to many.

  • Nick Gotts

    Here’s Hitler on the subject of 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. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.”

    Obviously Darwinian, atheistic, and beyond debate.

    – scienceavenger@56

    I already quoted that gem from Mein Kampf (in which, as in all Hitler’s writings, Darwin goes unmentioned) on a previous thread. Egnor ignored it, as he does anything for which he has no answer. It won’t stop him repeating the same lies ad nauseam, because he lacks the least shred of integrity or self-awareness.

  • Nick Gotts

    Michael Egnor, quote-miner and quote-mangler@69:

    As Darwin himself said in Descent of Man–“Only a fool would allow his worst animals to breed.”

    Here’s the correct quote in context:

    With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

    The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.

    Now it’s worth saying that Darwin was factually wrong: the deleterious recessive alleles that cause most hereditary disabilities and ailments could not be eliminated by eugenic measures. As I’ve already pointed out elsewhere, Darwin was wrong about the mechanisms of heredity; and 20th century eugenics was also based on errors about heredity, although different ones. But the main point here is that Darwin sees clearly – as Egnor either cannot see or pretends not to see – that we cannot deduce what we ought to do from his (or any) scientific theory, without adding at least one value-laden premise. Here, he repudiates the suggestion that we can “neglect the weak and helpless” to avoid the outcome he fears, because doing so would be “an overwhelming present evil”. Egnor believes (or pretends to believe) that because the theory of natural selection applies to human beings as well as other animals, this implies that we can treat human beings as we treat (domestic) animals, breeding and slaughtering them to get the results we want*. But that is no more valid than saying that because Koch’s germ theory of disease applies to both human beings and other animals, this implies that we could ethically slaughter people to halt the spread of disease, as we sometimes do both domestic and wild animals*. Hitler, as it happens, was a great admirer of Koch’s, and frequently referred to the objects of his hate as disease germs, and to his genocidal crimes as treating disease in the “body” of the German people. so presumably Egnor opposes Koch’s germ theory just as he opposes Darwin’s theory of evolution. Another reason to steer wellclear of his surgery!

    *Whether we should do this to non-human animals is an important topic, but not one I’ll get into here.

  • colnago80

    Re StevoR @ #96

    We could add others such as Heisenberg, Dirac, DeBroglie, Bohr, Feynman, etc. to the list of important scientists. However, the three I mentioned particularly stand out because their contributions were the most important. A few examples:

    Newton: Integral and differential calculus, laws of motion, inverse square law of gravity, optics.

    Darwin: Natural Selection and common descent.

    Einstein: Relativity, photoelectric effect, nuclear stimulated emission, Brownian Motion.

  • pacal

    Dukedog no. 88

    Darwinism was as much as a metaphysical revolution as it was a scientific revolution.

    Well yes it knocked Mankind off his self created pedestal has the climax of all creation.

    According to Darwinian theory, the highest qualities of man were evolved by a process of natural genocide. Genocide was indispensible to human progress and fulfillment. Nature did the genocide slowly, selection the fit and eliminating the unfit generation by generation.

    First your use of the terms “highest”, “progress” and “fulfillment” show a lack of understanding of Darwinism and evolution. We aren’t going anywhere and we aren’t improving we are adapting and that is different from progressing. Further you really have not grasped just what genocide is have you. You simply have not grasped that the “unfit” are not so much “eliminated ” has they are on average less successful in leaving offspring that is hardly elimination.

    The totalitarians saw that this slow natural process could be speeded up and made much more efficient if done deliberately. Why wait for the inevitable Darwinian genocide, when you can get the genocide today, and help evolution along.

    Since genocide predates Darwin and so does the notion of exterminating “inferior” races I suspect that is more important as the background to modern genocide that Darwinism. While here may I point out the infamous ban passages from the Old Testament in which the ancient Israelites were o9rdered by God to exterminate the Canaanites and kill “all that breathed”. I could also go in to such unpleasant episodes has the destruction of Carthage and the extermination of entire Native American nations beginning in 15th century.

    May I point out that the Nazi justified their genocidal policies by a process of demonizing their enemies has some sort of existential threat not because of working to “improve” the human race. As for Communists / Stalinists please give citations in which they justify their slaughter of “class” enemies by giving Darwinian justifications. I suspect there aren’t any because the justifications given were invariably political not based on biology / racism.

    The appeal of this view to eugenicists and Nazis is obvious, and even Communists used Darwinian metaphysical influences (as a struggle among classes rather than races).

    Regarding Nazism I could of course mention the influence of Christian racism especially anti – semitism, ie., the belief that the Jews were literally the spawn of the devil. Or perhaps such things has the mid 16th century debate in Spain about whether or not the inhabitants of the New World were “really” human. Since the idea of class struggle long predates Marxism, (See the Greeks and Romans), and the Communist Manifesto predates Darwin we can reject the idea that Communism is somehow Darwinian.

    Communism is class Darwinism, and Nazism is race Darwinism.

    Yawn.

  • colnago80

    Re Pacal @ #103

    As for Communists / Stalinists please give citations in which they justify their slaughter of “class” enemies by giving Darwinian justifications.

    Since Stalin rejected natural selection (e.g. “Darwinism”), the Communists could hardly have based a justification for the murder of class enemies on it.

  • Nick Gotts

    pacal@108,

    Darwinian evolutionary theory also dealt a fatal blow to Aristotelian essentialism – the idea that things have essences, in virtue of which they are what they are. Thus, in particular, biological species, and specifically our own, have to be, on the Aristotelian view, absolutely distinct from each other, since they have different essences. Aristotelianism is still the core of Catholic (Thomist) “philosophy” (which has for the last few centuries been nothing more than religious apologetics). This view could survive the discovery that life had changed radically over time – each new species could just have its own essence, created by God; and even some pre-Darwinian evolutionary ideas, in which new species always arose in a single step (some do, of course, e.g. via both auto- and allopolyploidy in plants); but Darwinian gradualism, as well as subsequent empirical discoveries of cases where it is not clear whether two organisms belong to the same species, cannot be reconciled with it. This may be why Egnor hates Darwin personally, as he quite clearly does, and is quite willing to use completely incompatible arguments against his theory – that it is tautological, and that Nazi genocide was a logical consequence of it.

    May I point out that the Nazi justified their genocidal policies by a process of demonizing their enemies has some sort of existential threat not because of working to “improve” the human race.

    That’s true with regard to Jews, Roma, socialists and communists etc., but not with regard to their policies of first sterilising then murdering individuals who were not in these demonised classes, but had disabilities or certain diseases. These policies were conceptually continuous with eugenic sterilisations carried out in the USA, Sweden and other places, and some who regarded themselves as Darwinians did support such vile acts; and more distantly to the ideas of “positive eugenics” – encouraging supposedly superior individuals to breed. But eugenics derived ideologically from the idea that “nations” or “races” are competing individuals, to which the interests and preferences of the people making them up should be subordinated – which goes back to the first recorded eugenicist, Plato, has no justification in Darwin’s theory, and nowadays is found almost entirely on the far right – particularly among those alarmed by the low birth rate among white populations in Europe (I’m looking at you, jonathangray – it’s interesting that the only supporter of such ideas I know to comment here is Egnor’s fellow-Catholic).

  • Ichthyic

    And note that applied Darwinism is not a misuse of Darwinism–

    it is the way you apply it.

    I wonder why it is that racists throughout history have actually either abused or literally tried to ban reading Darwin.

    hmm.

    trend continues to this day.

  • Ichthyic

    and some who regarded themselves as Darwinians

    and were wrong to do so, since this view is entirely apposite to what darwin actually wrote.

    eugenecists were NOT darwinians, regardless of the label they misapplied to themselves.