Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
And in the Worldnutdaily, naturally. It's the same old argument we've heard from creationists time and time again - that Darwin was a racist - oblivious as they are to the obvious hypocrisy of it all. And it's pretty standard demagoguery: start with a kernel of truth (yes, by today's standards Darwin was certainly a racist), pretend any mitigating factors don't exist (the fact that virtually all of Western society was imbued with racism at the time) and ignore the fact that the argument cuts against their position just as strongly as it does the one they're trying to criticize (do we really need to list all of the racism of that age justified by the Bible?). Stein begins with a giant logical fallacy:
Let's make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.
That may be a world record, Mr. Stein, for shifting the ground of the argument within a single sentence. Notice how he conflates the terms ideology, worldview, and theory, as though they were equivalent. They are not. And this is one of the classic mistakes made by creationists, thinking that evolution is a worldview or an ideology.
Evolution is a scientific theory. As such it explains a given set of data and nothing else. It is not a "worldview" or an "ideology" at all. It does not tell us how we must think on any subject, it does not prescribe a moral perspective or tell us how to behave toward others. One can accept evolution as a valid scientific theory and still embrace a vast number of distinct and conflicting ideologies, from Christianity to atheism (which is also not properly an ideology) to objectivism to post-modernism to who knows what.
Evolution does one thing and one thing only: it explains the biodiversity on this planet. That's it. It does not tell us how we ought to think about anything else and thus cannot be called an ideology or a worldview by anyone who wants to be taken seriously (which of course lets out Ben Stein, who clearly doesn't care about being taken seriously so much as about making money and keeping himself in the public eye).
In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air. They come from the era in which they arose and are influenced greatly by the personality and background of the writer. (In law, this theory is known as "legal realism." Judges make up their minds on the basis of their prejudices and then rationalize their decisions by pretending to be bound by prior case law. One might call what happens with ideologies "political realism." Persons make up their ideologies based on their times and their life situations.)
As usual for the anti-evolution crowd, Stein commits the is/ought fallacy and confuses a description of reality with a prescription for behavior. Of course ideas are influenced by the culture in which they arise; no one in their right mind would doubt that. But legal realism is not merely a description of that reality, it is a prescription for how judges ought to make decisions.
Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed - i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well-organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called imperialism "... outdoor relief for the upper classes"?)But it fell to a true imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was "owned" (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized imperialism. By explaining that imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out, Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither liberal nor conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for imperialism.
First of all, he is clearly misstating what evolutionary theory says about survival of the fittest. Being the fittest does not necessarily mean being the strongest and most dominant, nor does it necessarily mean killing off one's adversaries. In many environments, the fittest is, in fact, the organism best able to hide from its predators, not dominate them. In many cases, the fittest is not the strongest but the fastest, the stinkiest (think about the defensive mechanism of skunks) or the most able to hide itself in cowardice rather than the one that dominates or kills its prey. Survival mechanisms vary enormously, as does their success; the notion that natural selection must favor the strong and the aggressive is simply false.
Second, notice that he admits that England was an imperialistic power long before Darwin came along and only claims that Darwin somehow was the man who rationalized what they did. So did England justify its imperialism by reference to evolution before Darwin came along? Of course not. They justified it in large measure by reference to the religious beliefs of that day, which were profoundly racist in and of themselves.
Lastly, Stein misses completely the one genuine reason for imperialism: money. It was all about power and money for every imperial power, including the US. That is the real reason that powerful nations take over weaker ones, to exploit their resources for their own profit. And those who seek to do so can and did reach for and use any possible justification they could, even if they had to distort things in order to do so.
Adolf Hitler used a vast range of justifications for what he did depending on the audience he was talking to. He would speak of science to a scientific audience and of religion to a religious audience. He used whatever ideological means he could to rationalize his real goal, which was simply the accumulation of power and the destruction of his enemies. That is how the powerful nearly always operate, using whatever justification they can to convince their followers to go along with them even if those justifications contradict one another and reality. This is the unmistakable historical truth that Stein ignores completely.
Finally, let us make one thing clear: none of this has anything whatsoever to do with whether evolution is true or not. Not a thing. Scientific theories are either true or they are not, and we determine that by their ability to explain the data. The fact that some people may draw non-scientific inferences from them that we don't like has precisely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the theory itself, and even less do the personal beliefs of the person who invented the theory affect its truth or falsity.
Would Stein seriously argue that because William Shockley was a racist, the transistor that he invented must not work? Or that Newton's belief in alchemy and his weird religious beliefs make his laws of motion suspect? Anyone? Stein? Bueller? I thought not.
For his day, Darwin was actually relatively enlightened on the matter of race. He was a staunch abolitionist on slavery. Contrast that with his creationist adversaries like Louis Aggasiz, who believed that blacks and whites were separate species, created so by God to be separate. I could easily provide a long list of creationist justifications for slavery, racism and imperialism, but all my readers probably already know them.
I bet Ben Stein does too. But Stein is not engaged in serious historical analysis here, he is engaged in demagoguery; and that is why he does not bother to mention the long history of religious justifications for imperialism, slavery and racism. Those are inconvenient facts and they must be ignored. We mustn't let reality interfere with a good polemic.
Comments
Trying to discredit evolution by attacking Darwin = automatic fail. I attended a conference last year at which a biologist-- a biologist, who should know better-- argued that sexual selection is a myth in part because Darwin was sexist.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 5, 2008 9:52 AM
Was this Joan Roughgarden?
Posted by: Wes | March 5, 2008 10:10 AM
Why, yes it was.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 5, 2008 10:18 AM
Re Joan Roughgarden
The same Ms. Roughgarden who used to be Mr. Roughgarden.
Posted by: SLC | March 5, 2008 10:20 AM
I love WND. Chuck, Pat and Ben all together being veiwed as experts in fields they continually demonstrate owning deep wells of ignorance. I know a few people (my brother in law in particular) who take this site as a viable honest news source and bring me articles like this all the time. Frequently throwing it up in my face as some sort of refutation of some stance I've previously taken. If only they knew how stupid it makes them look.
I doubt they'd care though, because they got Jesus on their side.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 5, 2008 10:27 AM
Ed, good job debunking this
I would just add - bunnies!Posted by: Taz | March 5, 2008 10:36 AM
Ben Stein:
"Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others..."
Here Stein demonstrates that he is under the same misapprehension as even the most doltish creationist.
Individuals do not evolve. Individuals usually do not even compete. Populations evolve and populations ( or traits within them) compete. Evolution is not about individual organisms.
This basic mistake is why creationist talk about monkey-crocodiles. It needs to be explained, somehow, to these people, because it is the basis for 3/4 of all the misunderstanding out there.
And may I propose the following? That whenever we write about a scientific theory, we should capitalize the the "t" in "Theory", eg, the Theory of evolution. Perhaps it will make it easier for the lay public to tell the difference between a mere theory, and a scientific Theory. :)
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 5, 2008 10:47 AM
Is Ben Stein a creationist or is the WND merely using his thoughts to their advantage? He seems smart but his intellect is obviously parochial, therefore limited.
Thank you Ed for dissecting his statements.
Posted by: Rod | March 5, 2008 10:48 AM
Wait, what? Stein is a Creationist? Color me ... stunned.
Posted by: Andrea | March 5, 2008 11:16 AM
You people don't understand, scientific theories justify behavior. Evolution says it's okay for strong people to bully weak people, just like gravity says it's okay to shove people off cliffs. If Nature didn't want that person dead, gravity wouldn't pull them down, so clearly it's not your fault for pushing them. This is what atheistic gravitationalists believe.
Newton stole credit for calculus from Leibnitz and used his political power to surpress the work of others. Political realism thus demands that if we believe in the gravitational worldview, we consider the philosophy of it's founder, and accept that stealing is okay, as is bullying. Truly, gravity itself is a big bully, forcing us all down, so you can see how Newton's personal beliefs flavored the worldview he created.
Newtonists refuse to equate gravity with its logical consequences: social acceptance of theft, bullying, and murder by induced falling, but these are inevitable as any clear thinking mind will recognize. I suggest you abandon atheistic, Newtonist gravity and accept the clearly better Intelligent Falling theory, which must be taught in schools. Will no one think of the children? If we teach them they are nothing but objects in space, can we be surprised that they will act like objects in space?
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 5, 2008 11:28 AM
Michael, I can't tell if you're kidding or not. Are you?
Posted by: Andrea | March 5, 2008 11:34 AM
Don't come crying to me when your children, taught by atheistic Newtonist gravity that there are no little angels pulling things down, reject all religion and morality, Andrea! Next thing you know, they'll be not-killing gays and respecting the rights of others to freedom of religion. ON YOU WILL BE THE SHAME OF THIS!
(Satire is a wonderful thing. I'm quite proud of the last sentence in the previous post. :-)
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 5, 2008 11:46 AM
Excellent parody, Mr. Suttkus. Bravo.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 5, 2008 11:49 AM
Whew. I'll make a mental note of your name for future reference, that was eerily good. He got me, Ed!
Posted by: Andrea | March 5, 2008 11:53 AM
[NIGEL]So? What's wrong with being sexy?[/NIGEL]
Andrea, you should consider just how horrifying it is that Michael's satire was believable. No matter how stupid or crazy, you can find someone on the internet who believes it.
Posted by: pough | March 5, 2008 12:04 PM
Pough, that's exactly why I was gabberflasted. It looked completely believable, considering some of the comments I've seen on this blog ... but somehow, it seemed just a little too intelligent to be real.
Posted by: Andrea | March 5, 2008 12:16 PM
Thank you brother Suttkus. Keep preaching the Truth that we may be saved. What many people don't understand it that atheistic Newtonian "theories" don't explain the origin of the universe. That's a pretty big hole for something calling itself "science." So it can't be true.
Besides, if were true, wouldn't clouds plummet to the ground? And everybody knows that science proves bumblebees can't fly. So gravity can't be real.
I challenge any atheist to answer this simple question. If atheistic Newtonian gravity exists, how come when I jump on a trampoline it takes me so much longer to come down? Check mate!
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 5, 2008 12:29 PM
You've really got to wonder about people living in glass houses throwing stones like that. It's no coincidence that racist groups today tend to be explicitly Christian and in many cases explicitly creationist. The Christian Identity movement, for example, derives its racist belief system straight from the creation story in Genesis:
This is something that we haven't hammered them on, but we should. Their desperate attempts to connect evolution with racism are often countered on the basis that they're irrelevant, or that they're historically inaccurate, but probably a far more telling fact is that racists overwhelmingly tend to be conservative Christians, and as such they use the Bible, or some creative bit of Christian theology, to justify their racism. The IDists need to be brought to task to explain this embarrassing state of affairs.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 5, 2008 1:04 PM
"Let's make this short and sweet" -evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Posted by: ShellyD99 | March 5, 2008 1:12 PM
Not *that* is sexual selection!
Posted by: Ferrous Patella | March 5, 2008 1:14 PM
Posted by: Patrick Ashton | March 5, 2008 1:16 PM
Posted by: Taz | March 5, 2008 2:01 PM
Not to mention the atheistic Theory of Magnetism: "opposites attract." Teach that to our kids, and they will end up marrying outside their religion.
Stein:
Like Ed, I fail to see how Christians can be so one-dimensional in their understanding of the concepts of "strong" and "dominant." In their churches, their own sermons often emphasize how "real strength" is not just physical, but involves kindness, consideration, character, and integrity. Even if you look at it from their thought experiment "survival of the fittest" situations -- given a war, who do they think would be the first to be hustled into the safe caves: those highly esteemed families who have been honorable and honest, or the village assholes who screwed everybody blind?
Stein's argument seems to go against their own assumptions on the powerful characteristics which lead to human flourishing, and gain the respect and protection of the community.
Posted by: Sastra | March 5, 2008 2:30 PM
I point out that in Newton's day, one of the big mysteries was why gravity didn't pull the moon down into the earth and the planets into the sun. Newton came up with the profoundly silly idea of "orbits", which consist of the planets flying away from the sun at exactly the same speed at which they're falling into the sun. The coincidence factor of this begars belief. Are we supposed to believe that the planets just HAPPENED to be moving in just the right direction and speed, out of an infinite number of possible directions and speeds that they could be travelling in? That makes even evolution look probable!
No, Taz has convinced me. Microgravity is a real, confirmable fact, but macrogravity runs against every observation made by real scientists.
(Taz, I am so going to steal that the next time I need it.)
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 5, 2008 2:31 PM
Until I read that article, I was unaware that the Biology department of my alma mater was a hotbed of Imperialism, Racism, and White Supremacy.
I must alert my alumni association. Let's hope we've caught it in time! Thank heavens Mr. Stein was here to warn us!
Posted by: andy.s | March 5, 2008 2:33 PM
Posted by: Taz | March 5, 2008 2:49 PM
The movie's promoters sent me one of those postcards inviting me to organize a school field trip to see the flick next month, enticing us with promises of monetary rewards. I put the card in File 13, but I did blog about it.
The "saint" in our school's name fools people. They think we're a Catholic school, or at least a religious one. Neither one. I could try to weasel an invite to a preview of the movie, though ... Hmm...
Posted by: wheatdogg | March 5, 2008 2:50 PM
Andrea, if you really want to witness the dark depths of the human soul, check out www.fstdt.com
Posted by: Brandon | March 5, 2008 2:50 PM
Gretchen said
If I were to suggest that the "biologist" was influenced by the view that since Sigmund Freud's psychoanalitic theories were mere subconscious reflections of Freud's own sexuality, therefore all theories are reflections of their progenitor's
subconscious, would I win a cigar?
A big one?
Posted by: grasshopper | March 5, 2008 3:30 PM
grasshopper: "would I win a cigar? A big one?"
Yeah, but it would just be a cigar.
Posted by: jba | March 5, 2008 3:37 PM
I can't help but enjoy the irony in Stein's accusations of Darwin's alleged racism. As Ed has pointed out in a previous post, many Worldnetdaily enthusiasts are themselves repugnantly racist.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 5, 2008 3:38 PM
Ben Stein: "Let's make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory."
It would seem that Stein here is arguing against the idea that the Communist regimes, Nazi Germany, Pol Pot and others often pointed out by Christian commentary, were violent not because they were atheistic, but were atheistic because of their culture, worldview, and personality of their leaders. Stein here, at least, does provide a service to a different argument, more culturally historical than scientific.
Posted by: B8ovin | March 5, 2008 3:44 PM
B8ovin, the Nazis were Christians, not atheists.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
Don't repeat this Christian lie
Posted by: Priya Lynn | March 5, 2008 4:19 PM
Sutkuss, Taz,
Great work! Not to dismiss Ed, but gems like that are the real reason this is a great blog.
Posted by: JoH | March 5, 2008 4:22 PM
Hey Priya, here's a hint: if you want to show evidence that Hitler was a Christian, don't link to an atheist propaganda site.
Here's the Wikipedia link. Wikipedia is more often than not credible, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs
Posted by: Brandon | March 5, 2008 4:41 PM
Sadie Morrison wrote:
It's a tactic they're using in order to take advantage of the tactics used by the Liberal Hegemony In Charge or Our Schools.
So, the Liberals are against racism? We'll tell them Darwinism is racist! The Liberals are in favor of empowering children with the 'right' to make up their own minds? We'll tell them ID should be taught in school so kids can decide for themselves! The liberals are concerned with school bullying? We'll tell them we're being bullied in the schools. The Liberals are in favor of affirmative action for minority underdogs? We'll tell them Intelligent Design is a minority underdog fighting against an Unfair Majority Establishment! The Liberals are against Big Business? We'll tell them evolution is the theory which supports unbridled capitalism! The Liberals are against imperialism? Hey, guess what we're going to tell them now!
They think they're being so clever. Very kung fu -- use your opponent's strengths against them. Or, perhaps, the old childhood strategy of "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Posted by: Sastra | March 5, 2008 4:44 PM
This is (at least substantially) a reprint from http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/10/31/darwinism-the-imperialism-of-biology/ where three thousand comments were filed without response by Ben Stein.
So it is NOT copyright 2008, it is NOT orginal to WND, and it is NOT ignorance that cause this to reappear here in WND but evil. Perhaps this reprint appeared without Ben Stein's involvement -- perhaps someone is trading on his name -- but Ben Stein has the responsibility to make sure his name is not associated with gross error.
Posted by: rpenner | March 5, 2008 4:52 PM
Thanks for the info folks, this explains those microgravity experiments NASA has been performing for years. I no longer feel it necessary to deny them.
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | March 5, 2008 5:05 PM
Taz -- You are mistaken. Bunnies dominate through cuteness. Cruel, rapaciousness cuteness, through which they force human children into subservience to their imperialistic ends!
Posted by: Invigilator | March 5, 2008 5:11 PM
If Ben Stein argues on WND that Darwin fueled racist theories, shouldn't that make the average WND reader hail Darwin as a sort of godfather?
It's very, very sad to see a good and fruitful idea (that theories are not born out of thin air, that they're a product of their times ; SJ Gould couldn't have said better) appropriated by Mr BS (the initials tell everything), twisted, distorted, injected with a frightening dose of errors and mere lies, and served as if they offered any argument for his stupid ideas. Sad, sad, sad.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 5, 2008 5:45 PM
"Adolf Hitler used a vast range of justifications for what he did depending on the audience he was talking to."
That reminds me of a lecture I attended in college. The philosophy department invited someone from the Holocaust Museum in D.C. to give a presentation on Nazi propaganda and WWII political cartoons. One cartoon made fun of the way Hitler presented National Socialism to different audiences. In the first frame he was speaking to the working folk and the sign behind him looked something like "national SOCIALISM." In the second frame he was speaking to the rich folk and the sign behind him looked more like "NATIONAL socialism."
I guess the analogy to intelligent design creationism would be "INTELLIGENT DESIGN creationism" as opposed to "intelligent design CREATIONISM," depending on the intended audience.
Posted by: Bob | March 5, 2008 5:55 PM
Evolution says it's okay for strong people to bully weak people, just like gravity says it's okay to shove people off cliffs.
Ahh, the Wile E Coyote argument, well played.
Posted by: dogmeatib | March 5, 2008 6:37 PM
B8ovin, I don't get your problem with the link Priya posted. The Wiki link you posted doesn't conflict with Priya's at all.
Under "Christianity" the Wiki article states that Hitler was all crazy about Jesus but thought the Christians of his day were weak, corrupted versions of Jesus's teachings. And then, of course, blaimed it all on the Jews.
Also, if you can find anything historically incorrect in the link that Priya posted, I'd be interested to see it.
Posted by: Caliban | March 5, 2008 7:01 PM
Being the fittest does not necessarily mean being the strongest and most dominant, nor does it necessarily mean killing off one's adversaries.
As a prime example of this fact, I give you (TA DA) the lowly cockroach. Any individual one can easily (and in fact are frequently) killed by a bigger stronger adversary. But the cockroach was here long before any humans, and likely will survive any cataclysm man can produce. And they're icky!
The best explanation I ever heard of evolution (and wish I could find the source) was that it does not maximize an individual's chances of survival - or even a species'. Rather, evolutions rewards the adequate for now - if the species' adaptations happen to make it also adequate for other climate and biological realities, the species lasts longer. Not because it is inherently superior, but because it barely makes it.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 5, 2008 7:09 PM
Cockroaches are not icky. They're actually very clean. Remember that commercial that declared with horror that roaches spread "six known diseases!" Ask yourself for a second, how many hundreds of thousands of diseases do your pets spread? How many do humans spread? Six known diseases? Roaches are cleaner than you are.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 5, 2008 7:23 PM
Sutkuss, Abby and Taz are on an absolute hot streak today. I'm adding this page to my browser's "favorites" list to look at when I need cheering up.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | March 5, 2008 7:29 PM
This kind of thing happens so often that I have to think that it's not so much a mistake as it is a carefully crafted and quite deliberate twisting of the words and facts involved.
Now, whether or not Mr. Stein had the idea to do this himself or he's just parroting someone else is another matter.
Posted by: twincats | March 5, 2008 7:57 PM
I prefer to think of evolution as the survival of the good enough, rather than survival of the fittest, myself.
Posted by: Skemono | March 5, 2008 9:13 PM
Or as someone (I can't recall who) so eloquently put it, "fit enough to fuck".
Posted by: pough | March 5, 2008 9:51 PM
I think claiming that Hitler was a Christian and blaming that for the holocaust is every bit as simpleminded and absurd as saying Hitler was a Darwinist and blaming that for the holocaust. As I said, Hitler was an ideological opportunist - pretty standard for a dictator, really. He invoked Christianity when he needed to. At other times he invoked science. At still other times, it was nationalism. None of those ideas are to blame for the Third Reich. I do think one can make a strong argument that centuries of Christian anti-semitism, and particularly that of Martin Luther, Germany's most influential theologian, helped pave the way for the holocaust. I think that's virtually undeniable. But that doesn't mean that Hitler did what he did because of Christianity; it means he used Christianity as one of many justifications for what he did.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 5, 2008 10:02 PM
Brandon - I've had more than one giggle on that site before, even if half those comments are probably Sutkuss passing time.
So no really - is Stein a creationist or does he just like to blah dee blah about stuff he knows will piss people off?
Posted by: Andrea | March 5, 2008 10:12 PM
Oh, that's good.
Posted by: itchy | March 5, 2008 10:24 PM
Ed - Could it be that Matrin Luther was simply a product of his times? (If it works for Darwin why not Luther?) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 5, 2008 10:31 PM
From the late President of the Institute for Creation Research discussing the so called "Hamitic curse" (he refers to it as a "prophecy"):
To be fair he also went to great pains to disclaim racism, but this sort of comment is still pretty hinky in my opinion.
Posted by: Troy Britain | March 5, 2008 10:38 PM
I am in awe of this thread, sarcasm at its finest.
Posted by: James K | March 5, 2008 11:25 PM
Ben Stein, in a letter to the editor a few years ago, blamed the Great Depression on the New Deal.
--
Posted by: marquer | March 5, 2008 11:35 PM
I have been arguing this point for many years, without necessarily much success: Most of the bad behavior critics of religion point to has nothing intrinsically to do with religion. Rather it is political behavior for which religion provides a convenient justification. This is not to deny that there has been plenty of religiously-motivated misbehavior in history, merely to point out that such behavior (rather conveniently) benefited a specific group of people at the expense of another group. The true motivation is economic and political, rather than religious; therefore it is illogical to saddle religion with the full cost.
Intellectually, it is rather the same logical fallacy as some people make against warfare: All of its costs are assumed, without questioning whether there might also be benefits. In reality, if there are benefits, then the cost of warfare should not be charged against religion, or race, or whatever other ideology is used as the pretext, but against the social good (usually population reduction) that inevitably results from warfare.
Both questions are interesting, but unfortunately tend to be clouded by ideology. Good post, Ed.
Posted by: kehrsam | March 5, 2008 11:37 PM
What a nutcase. I hate to think that people have to deal with these types every day.
It sure is annoying to have the "expelled" banner pop up on every post mentioning evolution, but then again, all the advertising dollars sunk into science blogs means that the ad will reach fewer people who will actually believe it...
Posted by: Marek | March 5, 2008 11:38 PM
Marquer - nice to see Mr BS has a firm grasp of history (or a firm grasp of his nether regions at least). ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 5, 2008 11:42 PM
Really? I've never heard of anyone using "Hamite" or "Hamitic" to refer to Asians or Native Americans. They were generally classed as Semites, along with Jews and Arabs. Since the Curse of Ham was used almost exclusively to justify slavery, they had to keep the term "Hamite" narrowly applied to Africans, because that's the only race they were enslaving. Did Henry Morris really use the word as you've noted?
Although I feel I should note (just to highlight the complete randomness of the classification) that at least one person decided that Europeans were Shemites and Native Americans were Japhetites (because "Shem shall dwell in Japheth's tents" or something).
Posted by: Skemono | March 5, 2008 11:56 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
WW2 killed 7% of the available German population (with a little help from thier 'friends'), the highest per capita losses of any country involved. The Thirty Years' War (1610-40) killed an estimated 30% of the rural and 50% of the urban German population. The former was a war of imperialistic conquest, the latter a relgious war that degenerated into "ethinic cleansing" on the part of all sides. It seems to me that while relgion doesn't always cause wars, it sure helps make sure they are particully nasty.
As to to cost of war, yes war stimulates the economy and promotes invention, but at what cost? Is a mircowave oven really worth 55 million dead? Why not channel the 100 billion (or so) spent on the latest Oil War into science. It would stimulate the weak US economy and promote invention. Plus fewer people die that way. -DJ
When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?
Posted by: DingoJack | March 6, 2008 12:01 AM
BTW* - why WINGnut? What has the humble wingnut ever done to you? How about "jesusnut' (a jesusnut contects the rotors to the fusilage of a helicopter)? Just a suggestion ;) DJ
*see Dingo's Law posted on a eariler thread.
Posted by: DingoJack | March 6, 2008 12:55 AM
It's not surprising that religious wars are particularly nasty. Much of war is dependent on convincing people to do what is antithetical to their survival instinct. That's much easier if your soldiers feel they will be rewarded in the afterlife for killing and dying.
Posted by: Taz | March 6, 2008 1:24 AM
Yes USD 3,000,000,000,000 so far you are absolutely correct. I was thinking along the lines of the amount appropiated annually for the Oil War (USD 110,000,000,000). Three Trillion is approximately USD 9885.00 per capita. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 6, 2008 1:57 AM
"In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air. They come from the era in which they arose and are influenced greatly by the personality and background of the writer."
Given Stein's confusion between worldview, ideology and theory, I wonder what he makes of the fact that Christianity (and Rabbinical Judaism) grew out of the slave-owning; crufixion-crazy; misogynistic, imperialistic Roman Empire?
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 6, 2008 3:12 AM
"Mr BS".
Somehow I think that's how I'll be thinking of Ben Stein hereafter.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 6, 2008 3:26 AM
Remember also that the US has gone to war, on average, once every 14 months. Even is this war is a thousand times more expensive than average that's nearly USD3563 Billion (USD11740.09 per capita more or less) over 219 years.
I wonder whar Americans could have bought for that kind of money? = :( DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 6, 2008 3:39 AM
I have a serious question for the experts out there. Can you all please give the most supportive (of Mr. BS's statements) thing Darwin said or did in the context of developing and proposing the scientific concept of Evolution. I mean is there something like "man evolved from plants therefore tall skinny people are nothing but weeds and should be erradicated" out there I don't know about? I'd like to know so I can prepare myself for the best arguments of the mental supermen that inhabit the real world of the supernatural. Thanks.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | March 6, 2008 5:44 AM
Mr BS use an ACTUAL quote? Don't be silly. He'd just make one up (well hell worked for Madison didn't it?) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | March 6, 2008 9:36 AM
Talking about Ben Stein in regards to this movie doesn't make any sense. He might as well be credited as the voice over guy. Ben Stein couldn't have cared less about this before this paycheck movie, and will leave the stage shortly after the PR tour ends.
The 'producers' have had a bus traveling around deep south going to all of the bastions of crazy to sell them on attendance I will bet you dollars to donuts Ben Stein wasn't even in the same state as that bus.
Where are Ben Stein's pre-movie writings on creationism? Why has he never brought this up on Sunday Morning, his biggest mass media market audience?
And why are they paying people to attend the movie by offering rebates for ticket stubs?
This is all just another right wing ploy to get evangelicals out to the polls for whomever is the Republican candidate in 2008. Though I bet they would not have picked McCain. Release the movie. Position a few local candidates as opposed to evolution. Watch the polls overflow with evangelicals.
Posted by: JDH | March 6, 2008 11:17 AM
But that doesn't mean that Hitler did what he did because of Christianity; it means he used Christianity as one of many justifications for what he did.
And the Christians of his time didn't have the brains, or the balls, to actively debunk his justifications.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 6, 2008 11:45 AM
To their very great credit, a minority of German Christians did oppose Nazism. Some died doing so.
Which doesn't alter the fact that a great many more German Christians were active and enthusiastic Nazis.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 6, 2008 1:20 PM
Ian's right, Raging Bee. There were a lot of Christians debunking Hitler's arguments. Not enough, of course, but that's true as long as there's one guy sitting back and not raising his hand against the wrongs of the world.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 6, 2008 1:28 PM
Really, really. Here's a quote from another one of his books on this question:
This book has a whole chapter on this sort of stuff titled: "God and the Nations: Biblical Ethnology".
What I posted was a direct quote from one of his books (as is the above). Except, obviously, my notations within the brackets [-TB]. Remember that I noted that he denounces racism all over the place (blaming evolution for its existence of course), so my quote is somewhat out of context. However despite his denouncements he still turns around and talks about black people (and apparently Asians etc.) having "genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters". How he thought such statements wouldn't be perceived as racist I don't know.
Posted by: Troy Britain | March 6, 2008 9:47 PM
Keen! Thanks for that. I may have to look up the book.
Oh wow. 1984? I thought the phrases "Hamite" and "Japhetite" died out long before then. Ah, well; I really should know better by now.
Posted by: Skemono | March 6, 2008 10:15 PM
How interesting that the DNA (mitohonical and somatic), Paleotechnological and osteomorhological evidence shows the exact opposite. Humans seem to have spread out of Africa around c100,000 years ago, along the coast of southern Asis and into Australia before migrating into the more northern areas. Europeans arrived around 30,000 years ago, nearly the last group to reach thier "homeland".
But who would believe anything as crass as EVIDENCE, they have a 2,600 year old creation myth delivered (they said) from thier imaginary friend. -DJ
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" - Credo of biblical literalists
Posted by: DingoJack | March 6, 2008 10:47 PM
Henry Morris talks about how the Hamites are "marked to be servants of mankind".
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html
But he's not a racist, you see, because there *might* be exceptions, so just because you've labelled an entire ethnic group as geneticaly meant to be the servants of another, that's not racist if you assume the occasional black man might be capable of acting on his own. See?
But evolution causes racism, so is bad.
Posted by: Michael Suttkus, II | March 7, 2008 7:58 AM
I think claiming that Hitler was a Christian and blaming that for the holocaust is every bit as simpleminded and absurd as saying Hitler was a Darwinist and blaming that for the holocaust.
That doesn't necessarily follow from simply pointing out that the Nazis were Christians. B8ovin's comment implied that the Nazis were atheists. This is patently false, and is not contradicted by Brandon's wiki link. At best you could use that link to argue that Hitler might have made negative statements about Christianity in private according to one (1!) dubiously sourced book. It doesn't even show that Hitler was an atheist, much less the Nazi movement. Does anyone want to dispute that the majority of Nazis described themselves as Christians?
I agree that an attempt to blame Christianity for the Holocaust is absurd. (I think it's considerably less absurd than blaming the Holocaust on Hitler being a Darwinist, since Hitler was a Christian and certainly not a Darwinist.) Pointing out that Hitler was a Christian is going to be the easiest way to convince a Christian that sometimes people are just evil and a lot of evil is not driven by a particular ideology. (Throwing their historical ignorance back in their faces is a bonus.)
Posted by: Citizen Z | March 8, 2008 2:28 PM