…and this is a 
How the West was ‘Won’: with spin and rewriting history
Category: Creationism
Posted on: December 2, 2007 10:21 AM, by PZ Myers
The Discovery Institute is spinning wildly to make excuses for West's performance on Friday, and to declare him the "winner".
I got two calls last night about Dr. John West's presentation at the University of Minnesota on Darwinism's fathership of eugenics. It appears that the scholarly and well-delivered lecture, derived from the new West book, Darwin Day in America, was successful in influencing the thinking of a largely skeptical audience. (The dyspeptic and ad hominem blogger/biologist Dr. P.Z. Myers was there and brought a Darwinist claque. West generously introduced him and acknowledged him as Minnesota's Richard Dawkins, which is about right.)
It was not a very "scholarly" lecture. As Mark Borrello discussed in his too-brief rebuttal, there's more to history than just listing the facts, which is the bare minimum expected of the historian. West got the facts right, and then twisted them all into a distorted and unconvincing argument for a Darwinian source for eugenics. It was poorly done; perhaps the Disco Institute thinks that interspersing animal sounds in a presentation is good cover for a bad argument?
It is simply not true that he succeeded in influencing his skeptical audience. I talked to quite a few people afterwards; I found none who thought he was at all persuasive, and we had a good time poking holes in his argument…which hole-poking we would have more gladly done in the Q&A, if the organizer hadn't tried to run down the clock.
Now here's something revealing. At a couple of points, West would quote some scientist who'd said something about humans as animals, and call that "dehumanizing". It was peculiar; is it the DI's position that humans aren't animals? It seems that maybe it is.
The Darwinists also want you to think that eugenics was all a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. But eugenics has been revived in our time and the New Eugenics Movement is also product of Darwinism and Darwinists. You only have to read Dawkins, Singer, Pinker and the rest to see the same disdain for human exceptionalism that fueled the original eugenics movement. Therefore, West's history is not just "academic", it's urgent.
Ah, so humans are supposed to be exceptional, and any scientist who tries to claim that we're also animals, evolved from animals is going to get slapped with the label "eugenicist". Charming.
And let's see what kind of dishonest nonsense Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute chooses to close his screed…
The Darwinists hate hearing about the history of eugenics because it is true and there really isn't much they can do to spin it or control it. I like it for the same reasons.
We do? In my last post on this subject, I mentioned Stephen Jay Gould's essay on Carrie Buck, and I could also suggest his book, The Mismeasure of Man(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) — in case the Discovery Institute is unfamiliar with Gould, I'll explain that he was not a creationist. I'll also refer you to John Wilkins (again, not a creationist), who has written a whole series on this topic, and has also berated the DI for their appalling distortions. As I said to West on Friday, the overwhelming majority of modern biologists, who are also in the DI's parlance "Darwinists", deplore and reject eugenics. We do not try to "spin it" at all — I think we're reasonably unambiguous in damning it all as an ugly episode in our social history, and one we should not try to repeat.
Chapman likes it because it allows him to parrot a false syllogism: people who accept the scientific evidence for evolution and see Homo sapiens as a species of animal are all eugenicists who want to forcibly sterilize 'undesirables' and march the people they don't like off to the death camps. This is their contemptible strategy: lie about their opponents and impute the vilest, most Nazi-like motives to them. It makes his opening insult, that I'm the "ad hominem blogger/biologist", painfully ironic.
Politics
Comments
Also, ad hominem is neither an adjective, nor does it mean "insulting". It's an argument "at the person" instead of against the person's argument.
"X is a True Christian, therefore I believe him" is an ad hominem argument, too...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 2, 2007 10:54 AM
They're also down-grading you: yesterday, you were "America's Richard Dawkins" (my emphasis), but today you're only the Dawkins of Minnesota. Oh, the calumny!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 2, 2007 10:57 AM
Dyspeptic?
Damn. I'd hate for nice Christians to label ME dyspeptic.
I already have to take antacids.
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 2, 2007 10:57 AM
I have never seen you "dyspeptic," either.
hmmmm.... two links from Pharyngula in one month. My server is going to boot me for too much traffic. I had better go back to being irrelevant.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | December 2, 2007 10:59 AM
Oh, Truth is Truth, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Young Earthers Lie, and presently they'll spin this new defeat;
But there is neither place to spin, nor squirm, nor run, nor hide,
When at the talk, they opened the doors,
And they let PZ inside!
Posted by: Cuttlefish | December 2, 2007 11:01 AM
Claque: A group of persons hired to applaud an act or performer, as in a theatre or night club; a group of syncophants.
PZ, can I be one of your syncophants? I really could use some extra income right now.
If you like, you can even address me as "lowly toad" or "witless thrall," and I'll call you Master.
Depends on the salary, of course.
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 2, 2007 11:03 AM
Is eugenics immoral? Christians who rely on the absolute moral authority of the Bible will find it difficult to find support there.
Eugenics has had a long history in societies thousands of years before Darwin (or more importantly Galton.)
It's just about breeding, a concept well understood before evolution by natural selection was thought of. Genocide, prohibitions about marrying outsider's, keeping the bloodline pure and ensuring the disabled are excluded are common themes throughout God's inerrant word. Leviticus 21:17-21 for example.
It's certainly true that Darwin's work was the inspiration for Galton's ideas and that eugenics was supported by many influential philosophers, scientists, politicians and religious leaders at the time. It was not considered wrong or immoral at the time and is a perfect example of how moral vales change over time. (If Slavery were not already sufficient to persuade everyone)
By using science and reason the systematic study of ethics allows us to reach complex moral decisions more readily than the crudely superficial "thou shalt not kill" can ever do. Eugenics was shown to be bad science and bad ethics hence is rightly condemned.
If the religious consider eugenics to be immoral, they read that into the bible rather than deriving it from the bible.
Posted by: Quiddam | December 2, 2007 11:04 AM
Tiresome people.
And they think it is fine to make a career out of being tiresome.
Well it's not.
Do something useful with your fucking lives, you boring, foolish DI wastrels.
Posted by: CalGeorge | December 2, 2007 11:07 AM
The DI has dropped their pretense of being a pseudoscience disguised creationist institute. They are now a propaganda arm of the Xian extremists.
They take their place with Fox news, doublethink tanks of the neocons, the various magazines, newspapers, and websites of the extreme Xian right, and of course, the Death cult churches. Smart move really, their funding will probably go way up.
Don't make the simple complex. Goebbels said it years ago. Lie big and lie often.
What a few have pointed out and the DI ignores. Evolution is a scientific theory about how and why life changes through time. It has proved critical and useful in medicine and agriculture. It has been misused from time to time. The misuse has zero bearing on whether the theory is correct or not.
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2007 11:08 AM
If the DI theory that what happened long ago is important, they got a lot of explaining to do.
1. The sectarian violence of the Reformation lasted 400 years, killed tens of millions, and fizzled out in N. Ireland a whole 7 years ago.
2. Xians killed thousands or tens of thousands of witches in the middle ages. One of the shining moments of theocracy in America was the Puritan's murder of 26 alleged witches.
3. Sectatian violence has flaired from time to time in America. The Puritans also killed Unitarians and Quakers. Other Xians killed Mormons who returned the favor by massacring some Xians.
4. More recently Xian terrorists have been assassinating MDs in the USA.
There is more. I expect a press release from the DI explaining and acknowledging these activities when hell hits .001 degree of above absolute zero.
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2007 11:17 AM
Just out of curiosity, how many here have actual degrees in the Life sciencies (Physics, Biology, Chemistry for instance)?
Posted by: octopussy | December 2, 2007 11:19 AM
The Discovery Institute is making an ad hominem argument in the correct sense of the term: like Mathis on Friday, by calling me "America's/Minnesota's Richard Dawkins", they're just shouting "He's an atheist!!!".
And yeah, I'm being steadily demoted. Tomorrow I expect they'll announce that I'm "Morris, Minnesota's Richard Dawkins". And then my wife will tell me that I only get to be Richard Dawkins when I'm in the living room, and no more English accents allowed in the bedroom.
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 2, 2007 11:20 AM
Well, you have to admit, it is at least a bit more decorous than using fart noises, like Dr. Dr. Dembski did with the original version of The Judge Jones School of Law
Posted by: carlsonjok | December 2, 2007 11:20 AM
This is just another example of the wider right-wing strategy to drive a wedge into everything and make an issue where none exists. They do this to keep reasonable people on constant defense so they never have an opportunity ti fight back. Call this what it is: cry-baby whining and stamp-my-feet finger-in-ears bratism taken to gallingly dishonest heights.
They don't care that they're wrong. Their elitism is enough to show that. This is all the product of the right-wing worldview that people are inherently evil, and that nothing good can come from a human construct; it all has to be passed down from some place to be right or usable. It's a glimpse at illogic at its most ugly.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 2, 2007 11:20 AM
One doesn't need a degree in life sciences to understand the disingenuous frauds the DI regularly commit. Meyer, DeWolf, Dembski, and a lot of their other leading clowns don't have life sciences degrees either.
Posted by: lone pilgrim | December 2, 2007 11:25 AM
But of course, Raven, the way many of these people think, the misuse of a theory has everything to do with its validity. I won't do the DI the kindness of granting them that assumption, mainly because we know it isn't true for at least some of them. But for a lot of their target audience, this really is how you establish "truth." The scientific method is trumped by their pastor's authority and their own desires.
Posted by: rrt | December 2, 2007 11:31 AM
An ad hominem argument attacks the argument through the character of the person offering the argument. Therefore, if someone says, "Person X is a person of bad character" that is NOT an ad hominem argument, that is character assassination.
An ad hominem argument argument would look something like this:
Person X says argument Y
Person X is a person of bad character
Therefore argument Y should be rejected.
That is form of the direct or abusive ad hominem argument. Contrary to what we often read on blogs, ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious. In particular the circumstantial ad hominem argument is often non-fallacious:
--Person X says argument Y
--But Person X has engaged in actions indicating they are committed to the opposite of Y.
--Person X is thus a person of bad character
--Therefore argument Y should be rejected.
So, if I argue:
--John West claims to be interested in objective historical inquiry.
--But John West's speech clearly shows him to be a partisan demagogue who distorts history.
--Therefore John West is a person of bad character.
--Therefore I will reject his argument that he is interested in historical inquiry.
That is circumstantial ad hominem argument. And it is not fallacious.
Posted by: fardels bear | December 2, 2007 11:34 AM
More to the point... what's the point? Even if Darwin inspired eugenics -- of course he didn't; our distant and perhaps not so distant ancestors used to abandon defective children to die -- but if he had, what bearing does that have on the reality of evolution? Does the fact that bombs can be used for bad purposes mean that chemistry and physics have everything wrong? If religion motivates people to do ill, does that mean religion is wrong?
And last but not least... what has any of this got to do with Intelligent Design? It is utterly devoid of evidence -- nay, substance -- regardless of how bad their spin can make science look. Did West have a point in there somewere? Was his talk supposed to be anything other than propaganda for consumption by people who are desperate to rationalize their rejection of reality?
Posted by: Bobby | December 2, 2007 11:34 AM
@1: Also, ad hominem is neither an adjective...
If you're going to quibble, then get it right. It is an adjective. Sheesh...
Posted by: Joe Bob | December 2, 2007 11:36 AM
Ad hominem:
John West advocates kicking grizzly bears in the groin. Therefore, his arguments should be rejected.
Posted by: Hank Fox | December 2, 2007 11:39 AM
(cheerfully) You can count on the Disingenuous Institute to pretty much misrepresent anything that serves their agenda. How doth they mangle the truth? Let us count the ways:
1) (Biology) Evolution is routinely portrayed as entirely the product of chance, or else conflated either with natural selection/abiogenesis, or described as the product of a worldview ("Darwinism"), or based entirely on evidence open to interpretation, etc. etc.
2) (Nature of Science) Scientific practice is routinely conflated with the monotheistic culture in which science emerged ("Christianity's child"), while attempts at delimiting science as practiced from religion are denounced as naturalism/atheism.
3) (Theology) Advocates routinely protest the application of any conclusions about the Designer, to the ludicrous point that they claim that they are not, in effect, proposing a 'God of the gaps' argument. "We're not, we're not! Don't confuse us with facts."
4) (Religious Motivation) The DI routinely asserts that ID is not religious, nor motivated by religion, it's a 'big tent'.
5) (Sociology of Science) There is an enormous CONSPIRACY, dontcha know, to keep critiques of "Darwinism" out of sight, out of mind. Never mind that some of the greatest lights in evolutionary biology (S.J. Gould is a sterling example) made their reputations precisely through such critiques.
6) (Current Events) "We nevah, I repeat nevah encouraged the Dovah School Board to place design in theah curriculum, and the Dovah decision has nothing to do with the validity of ID. Oh, and that conservative Bush-appointed Republican John Jones III, he's a judicial activist..."
7) (Secondary Science Curriculum) Biology textbooks are "laced with Darwinism", are filled with dishonest or misrepresentative 'icons of evolution', says the Rev. J. Wells, who only had to change his name once and schools thrice to acquire (at the expense of the DI and his church) the academic credentials needed to pose as a scientist.
8) (Probability Theory) "For my next trick," says Bill, "I will misappropriate a fellow mathematician's work in this field (NFL theorems), resist all attempts to make the supposed math in my derivations explicit and characterize the source of this imaginary math as an aspect of God's nature. [Didn't get the memo about item #4]
Due to time constraints, this post must end. Point being, why would any of us at this point be surprised that a DI shill who happens to be a historian would misrepresent history, given their track record in other fields?
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | December 2, 2007 11:41 AM
#11:
BSc (Hons) Biology & Physics, with Math minor
MSc Neuroscience
DVM (Doctor of Veterinary Medicine)
Now working on DVSc (Doctor of Veterinary Science)
Regular reader of this blog... just don't comment that much because I'd be preaching to the converted ;)
Posted by: CthaWorld | December 2, 2007 11:42 AM
Clever of them to not allow Q&A... Is there a recording of this anywhere?
Posted by: Joe Bob | December 2, 2007 11:43 AM
@octopussy,
Somewhere north of 1 but south of 10,000, I would assume. I have a degree in the life sciences... an actual one from a non-Bob Jones university, even.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | December 2, 2007 11:44 AM
Whether Chapman was "poisoning the well" or using an ad hominem is irrelevant to the article. It is ironic that he should follow the adjective "dsyspeptic" with the term "ad hominem blogger/biologist."
John West misdirects his audiences about the science standards in Minnesota, therefor anything he says about the connection between "darwinism" and "eugenics" should be rejected.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | December 2, 2007 11:45 AM
ROFLMAO, Hank!
Posted by: thalarctos | December 2, 2007 11:46 AM
--Person X says argument Y
--But Person X has engaged in actions indicating they are committed to the opposite of Y.
--Person X is thus a person of bad character
--Therefore argument Y should be rejected.
Careful with that one. Thomas Jefferson says that all men are created equal. Thomas Jefferson owns slaves. Therefore we should reject the claim that all men are created equal.
Posted by: Ray C. | December 2, 2007 11:47 AM
Ah, but if you see humans as animals, that will lead first to eugenics and the death camps -- and next thing you know, vegetarians advocating animal rights! And then they will try to take away our guns!
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 2, 2007 11:48 AM
In about 10 minutes time I shall be strolling up the road to have supper with my sister, an intelligent woman but also an unapologetic young-earth creationist. Ironically, it was in what is now her bedroom that Francis Galton died nearly 97 years ago. The two of us do not discuss the Theory of Evolution together because, according to her, there are no intermediate forms. I am debating with myself whether or not to buy her for Christmas Prothero's excellent "Evolution. What the fossils say and why it matters". Should I?
Posted by: Samphire | December 2, 2007 11:50 AM
BS Chemistry, though it's from Baylor, so I think it only counts for like 3/4 of a degree. Not a big commenter here, but I check Pharyngula at least three times a day, so I think I count.
Posted by: mr_subjunctive | December 2, 2007 11:51 AM
This is the "clap your hands and believe real hard", model of reality.
If we all bought into this, we would still be living in caves. And clapping a lot.
Posted by: raven | December 2, 2007 11:54 AM
Social Darwanism:
The application of Darwin's theory to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority. It has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin or the theory of evolution, those that claim it does are banking on the ignorance of their followers (and that ignorance is vast)
Posted by: richCares | December 2, 2007 12:04 PM
--John West claims to be interested in objective historical inquiry.
--But John West's speech clearly shows him to be a partisan demagogue who distorts history.
--Therefore John West is a person of bad character.
--Therefore I will reject his argument that he is interested in historical inquiry.
I don't see that the third step necessarily follows or is relevant to the general argument. John West could really believe that his particular distortion is as 'true' as any interpretation crafted by his fellow historians. What matters is that evidence can be presented that the presentation does not meet the standard of objective inquiry, and that the conclusions of said presentation can be freely rejected.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | December 2, 2007 12:06 PM
I think you misunderstood the argument when he refers to Singer, and I'm sure most people here don't agree with Singer as I was arguing for his point recently in comments and was certainly not met with agreement. He's not calling those people eugenicists, he's saying that by spreading the idea that humans are animals you are elevating animals and denigrating humans, something I was accused of here as well.
I don't agree that that's the case. I think that we can elevate animals and not denigrate humans, and we are doing a great job of denigrating humans as it is.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 2, 2007 12:08 PM
Eugenics is awesome!
There. That should give the Disco-Institutionalized, quote-mining horde enough fodder to carry them through the holidays.
Of course, the opinions stated above do not necessarily reflect those of Pharyngula or any employees of PZ Myers Global Media Empire.
Posted by: Dan | December 2, 2007 12:33 PM
re #11: Just out of curiosity, how many here consider chemistry and physics to be "Life Sciences"? (eyes a-rollin')
As for me, I have a couple of degrees in biological sciences. But who cares? You really don't need much higher education of any kind to pick up on the fact that people like West are full of shit.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 2, 2007 12:35 PM
Dyspeptic?
I thought you said you shook hands with Mr West, not regurgitate digestive enzymes on him in an attempt to eat him.
Posted by: Stanton | December 2, 2007 12:36 PM
Only Johnathan Wells is dyspeptic...he also has diverticulitis. I think they meant skeptic."
Posted by: danley | December 2, 2007 12:42 PM
Those Discovery Institute goons are perfectly comfortable lying about Darwin. What creeps. Its unabashed lying. They are bold faced liars. To think they have to lie to such an extent, I find very disturbing. Whats the next step for people so willing to lie or be lied to? Scary!
Posted by: The Stone | December 2, 2007 12:43 PM
Samphire: Yes. If it won't cause too many bad feelings, that is.
Posted by: octopod | December 2, 2007 12:45 PM
Maybe West and Chapman and these other hypocritical degenrates at the Disco should read this book...
Posted by: slpage | December 2, 2007 12:46 PM
re #11.
I've got no formal post-secondary ed in any of the life sciences. I got re-hooked on evolution by reading Gould and Dawkins twenty years ago. I know enough about it to understand that vigorous debates, such as the ones about the relative importance of selection on genotype, phenotype, or species, are the signs of a fruitful field of inquiry that's producing testable ideas, not the death throes of "a theory in crisis" as the IDiots would have the public believe.
Posted by: Philip T. | December 2, 2007 12:52 PM
"Just out of curiosity, how many here have actual degrees in the Life sciencies (Physics, Biology, Chemistry for instance)?"
BA Physics, JD, working part-time (as in one course a semester) on an MS in Computer Engineering.
Physics isn't a life science, is it? We always thought of ourselves as the only real scientists, w/ maybe electrical engineering and chemistry worthy to even whimper in our shadow. ;)
Posted by: ryana | December 2, 2007 12:53 PM
I have been visiting this blog frequently during the last few months and find it educational, inspiring, insightful and an excellent source of links to pertinent data and arguments concerning the ID/Evolution debate.
Being, simply, a high school graduate (a Doctor of Divinity degree is honorary) I find myself reaching for a dictionary or an encyclopedia to clarify or verify statements made from either camp.
Being in the Evolutionist camp, I have been provided with ample ammunition to frame informed arguments and have the resources to back these arguments.
Thank you to PZ and all the posters for your input.
Posted by: The Reverend | December 2, 2007 12:56 PM
BTW, I forgot to mention this part of my education. Once when my partner forgot to buy TP, I had to make a decision between last weeks Sunday newspaper & my JD diploma from a top tier law school. I figured that if I crinkled the newspaper up it would at least help start a fire in the fire place, so I used the JD diploma. All my friends from law school are actually amazed that someone finally was able to get something of value from a JD. I call it the $75,000 wipe.
Posted by: ryana | December 2, 2007 1:03 PM
Samphire (#29): You know your sister best, so you have to decide whether she would be intrigued or offended by a book on evolution. Her mind is already made up and she denies the existence of transitional fossils. Is she open to evidence to the contrary, or will she merely take offense?
A few years ago I noticed my mother was reading trash by Coulter and Noonan (esp. the latter's smarmy Case Against Hillary Clinton) and decided to give her Clinton's autobiography as a gift. If she was going to suck up all the trash from the smear artists, perhaps a sense of fairness would prompt her to read the words of the smear target herself. Oh, no. Mom was deeply offended and upset. Her mind was made up and how dare I suggest she was getting only one side of the story!
Will your sister's reaction be more moderate? Answer that question, and you'll know what to do.
P.S.: The fact that a YEC can sleep soundly in Francis Galton's death chamber suggests there is no lingering spiritual influence from the dear departed. Has she thought of that?
Posted by: Zeno | December 2, 2007 1:21 PM
Yes, indeed, one needs to use ad hominem arguments carefully. My point was simply that we cannot come out with a blanket declaration that "all ad hominem arguments are fallacious" because some are and some aren't. Douglas Walton has quite a bit of work on this. For example:
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers%20in%20pdf/00case.pdf
Posted by: fardels bear | December 2, 2007 1:22 PM
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | December 2, 2007 1:26 PM
'dyspeptic...ad hominem...'
Somebody at DI forgot to attend their 'irony as a foreign language' classes.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | December 2, 2007 1:31 PM
Oh, your last sentence. Sorry PZ.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | December 2, 2007 1:34 PM
Dyspeptic:
-adjective Also, dys·pep·ti·cal.
1. pertaining to, subject to, or suffering from dyspepsia.
2. gloomy, pessimistic, and irritable.
-noun
3. a person subject to or suffering from dyspepsia.
- from dictionary.com
Posted by: J Myers | December 2, 2007 1:34 PM
Also, off the top of my head, I know for sure Mennonites, Catholics, Baptists and others were persecuted, and sometimes killed, by various other faiths specifically for their religious beliefs.
Posted by: Moses | December 2, 2007 1:35 PM
The main error of creationists regarding evolution and eugenics is that they think eugenics is an inevitable implication of evolutionary biology. The eugenicists thought so too, of course. For the former, this association condemns evolution; for the latter, it commends eugenics.
There are two parts to this notion of inevitability: descriptive and prescriptive. The descriptive part is the belief that the human gene pool would actually be improved by such measures, rather than having no beneficial effect or even being harmful. The second part is whether it is desirable and acceptable to put such policies into practice. 'In the Descent of Man' Darwin himself seems to recognize the potential efficacy of such measures - a section opportunistically quote-mined by creationists - but then concludes that such practices would be unacceptable. The eugenicists differed from Darwin in that they failed to distinguish between description and prescription.
Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, beginning on p. 168:
Quote mining heaven for creationists: "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 part, which soon follows, which they leave out: "Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by 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 a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind..."
Darwin goes on to note that social mobility, both upward and downward, and other social phenomena should help counter the selection-thwarting effects of civilization. He is much less pessimistic than the later eugenicists and he firmly rejects the social Darwinist/eugenicist ethos.
As for the pre-Darwinian, even pre-modern antecedents to eugenics: certainly, "eugenic" infanticide is very common in traditional societies. But modern eugenics was in practice much more than infanticide of the defective or, as some have suggested, a rationale for genocide (just like The Bible). It also involved mass sterilization of non-criminal citizens whose performance on tests were deemed too low, measurements of phenotypic traits against a "scientific" ideal, and many other distinct practices. But more importantly, eugenics was not just practice, it was theory.
That theory had many streams and variants, not just Darwinism, but also orthogenesis, Lamarckism, and saltationism. And eugenics was informed not only by biological science but by folkloric notions about race, age-old agricultural practices of breeding plants and animals, and esoteric beliefs (like the weird racialist-theosophical hybrids of Germany). But the same features are true of legitimate sciences: ancient antecedents, beliefs and practices from outside science shaping scientific models, popularization and translation into public policy.
(For an example of a blend of scientific and folkloric/mythic ideas, consider the pro-eugenicist movie The Black Stork (1917), in which a defective infant who was allowed to die at the urging of a eugenicist physician is taken into the arms of Jesus.)
When considering the history of the eugenics movement, it is advisable to ignore creationist claims and consider the narratives made by other groups, especially ethnic minorities historically targeted for eugenic control and disability rights activists.
An anthropology professor told me that anthropologists honor their ancestors by crucifying them over and over again. (For the sins of colonialism, paternalism, ethnocentrism and so on.) That seemed a little self-indulgent to me, but I see the wisdom in that now. There are some biological ancestors who are in need of crucifixion - not to expiate our sins, but theirs. Not Darwin so much (he was fairly progressive and humanitarian for his time) but others certainly come to mind.
Posted by: Colugo | December 2, 2007 1:39 PM
Every time some group says don't marry outside the group, they're practicing eugenics. Are Christians sure they don't want to support eugenics?
Posted by: Denis Loubet | December 2, 2007 1:46 PM
The Leader of the Claque, vroom, vroom.
Posted by: PhysioProf | December 2, 2007 1:49 PM
JD, BA (Philosphy/Linguistics)(not concentrated on biological lingusitics)
Re: #17: I disagree. Your example is fallacious, as one can see from the parallel example: There are people who say that God does not exist; yet they sometimes act as though they believe God does exist; therefore, God exists. Ad hominem arguments are fallacious because by conventional definition they are not directed to the subject of the argument. Nevertheless, there are some kinds of arguments which resemble ad hominem arguments but are legitimate: (1) If the topic of the argument is a person, then a direct argument about the person, if otherwise material, is legit; (2) If the person is a source of evidence for a proposition, then an argument that the person is an unreliable source is legitimate to counter that evidence. In legal settings, there are detailed rules regarding the use of "bad character" evidence because it tends to be over-effective. Cognitive bias against arguments shared by or benefitting those of bad charcater, and for the opposite, usually distorts the weight which a person will attach to those arguments.
Re: #19: In English, it is used as a single word, usually as an adjective but also, less commonly, as an adverb, noun, or even a verb. In Latin, it was a prepositional phrase, essentially performing as an adjective.
Posted by: pholidote | December 2, 2007 2:07 PM
There was no eugenics movements before 1849?
I've got to admit, I just don't get this "darwinist"/eugenics connection. I understand, as an intellectual abstraction, most other Darwin-immorrality connection ("darwin says life is random, without purpose, and humans are unexceptional, and therefore is, take your pick a)immoral b) nihilistic c)anti-god, etc. etc") but, sheesh...
Posted by: woozy | December 2, 2007 2:10 PM
Re 11:
BS Physics, also BS Electrical Engineering, and MBA Tech Management. Mainly a skulking evo, but I have commented once or twice.
Posted by: Pineyman | December 2, 2007 2:20 PM
Re #11: My bachelor's and master's degrees are in math. My Ph.D. is in math education. I've never even taken high school biology. This clearly demonstrates that I could be an expert on intelligent design for the Discovery Institute, as well as a trenchant commentator on all matters evolutionary and biochemical.
Unfortunately, while the true statement "ID is creationism with an extra layer of crap" reflects my actual sentiments and demonstrates that I am, indeed, an expert on ID, it tends to disqualify me from being a visiting "scholar" at the DI. Pity!
Posted by: Zeno | December 2, 2007 2:30 PM
The other factor to keep in mind here is the psychological model conservative Xians use to read. They take things by the letter, not by the spirit. Thus that is why they take what Darwin says to mean that eugenics is good. This of course is flawed thinking, and in that they would actually be poor followers of their savior. After all, Jesus was (supposedly) about the spirit of the law, not the letter. They would in that sense be followers of the Old Testament.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | December 2, 2007 2:39 PM
#54: It's like I've said before, the real meaning of eugenics and the real historical advocacy thereof, and the actual modern-day discussions thereof, and whether Christians have then or now practiced some form thereof, are utterly irrelevant to the cdesign proponentsists and the sheep they herd. "Eugenics" is merely a code word for what Sastra so elegantly summed up in comment #28, i.e., a vaguely defined horror of half-remembered, half-invented elements from Brave New World and the Nazis and the Commies and the Libruls.
It doesn't even have to make sense.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 2, 2007 2:44 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
So, let's pretend that science comes up with an absolute cure for cancer (or diabetes, or heart disease, or old age, etc), but it requires a little bit of (gasp) genetic engineering to eliminate or "fix" a failed gene (or set of genes). Oh, and by the way it will also mean that all your descendants will be free of the scourge too. If the DI were honest and consistent they should be vehemently opposed to such a cure, because it is "Eugenics", and everyone knows that "Eugenics" is the work of the Devil.
Is that about right?
Posted by: Scott | December 2, 2007 2:47 PM
Oh, and since I dearly love polls, I have a BS in Wildlife Biology*, hopefully entering an MS program in the next year.
* Well, actually the University of Idaho saddled it with the clumsy title of "Wildlife Resources", presumably to assure all the rural folks that I'm merely here to make sure that there will be enough hoofed mammals to shoot and I won't be peddling any devil science.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 2, 2007 2:50 PM
Oh I don't know about this as he was pretty darn clear that not one jot or tittle of the law would change.
They maybe correct and you may be very wrong.
Posted by: JimC | December 2, 2007 2:54 PM
I suspect that a major factor in connecting eugenics with evolution is the popular tendency to view evolution through a vitalistic, spiritual, teleological framework: evolution is progress through a Great Chain of Being. If evolution happens, then changes are improvements. So working along with it towards the goal of improvement is the right thing to do.
Even a lot of so-called progressives only "believe in" evolution because they think it actually reinforces their spiritual views. Maybe fundamentalists are reacting to religious liberals along with materialist atheists on this one.
From the DI:
At least they called you "dyspeptic" instead of "militant," and referred to your "claque" and not your "army."
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 2, 2007 2:59 PM
Interesting point, Sastra, which Julian Huxley, eugenicist, transhumanist, and brilliant biologist (plug: Problems of Relative Growth) addresses.
Julian Huxley, The New Divinity, 1964 (Essays of a Humanist):
"Evolution is a process, of which we are products, and in which we are active agents. There is no finality about the process, and no automatic or unified progress; but much improvement has occurred in the past, and there could be much further improvement in the future (though there is also the possibility of future failure and regression)."
Transhumanists (posthumanists, extropians) generally reject the coercive, classist, and racist aspects of eugenics but retain the goal of improving the human gene pool - not to counteract "dysgenic" forces, but to create a new and enhanced humanity that transcends the failings and limitations of natural evolution. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that transhumanism is the successor to eugenics. (As I mentioned earlier, Shalini Sehkar and Dawkins recently confused eugenics and transhumanism. And Leon Trotsky's musings on eugenics are really transhumanist.) There are marked differences, to be sure, but the dream of a better human is the same. As for the coercive and involuntary aspects, no one can secure permission from future generations about conducting potentially lethal and debilitating experiments on their genomes for the sake of non-medically necessary enhancements.
Eugenics lies in the past. The struggle is now over transhumanism. That is a struggle not only of interest to evolutionary biologists and creationists, but to everyone.
Peter Singer, 'My Better Nature,' Sydney Morning Herald, 2002:
"Within the present century, we are likely to learn how to change the genes of future generations to make human nature flow in the direction we want it to flow. That knowledge will bring an awesome responsibility, a responsibility that some think should never be exercised: the responsibility of deciding to improve human nature. ...
Should we try to enhance the capacities of humans to care about others? The prospect offers the greatest hopes of improvement in the human situation that we have ever known, but it will also pose the most daunting ethical challenge we have yet faced."
Posted by: Colugo | December 2, 2007 3:42 PM
Darwin`s legacy was basically to explain how the diversity of life on earth came about in natural ways. Now,Eugenics, or any future genetic engineering, has more to do with man trying to "intelligently" design life and impact its future evolution in non natural ways. So I really don't understand how one can blame Darwin for this.
I think the ones who are to blame are all those who think one will find quick fix solutions and won't think twice about the future consequences. Whether they are scientists, engineers, politicians or business men.
The No Discovery Institute is just trying to confuse things a little more, afterall, when one thinks God has a monopoly on Design, it's natural to want man to keep out of it.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 2, 2007 3:44 PM
pholidote @ #56: I suspect you and I agree more than we disagree. What Walton and others are doing is reformulating the notion of "fallacy" in terms of dialogic argument. Walton's "pragmatic theory of fallacy" takes as its starting point the notion that arguments are not products (sets of statements) but processes (dialogic engagements between two or more arguers).
In some social contexts, therefore, the character of the arguer is a relevant basis for evaluating the argument they are offering. In other social contexts it is not. So, to evaluate arguments, one simply cannot offer counterexamples and claim that those counterexamples "prove" that the original argument was or was not fallacious. Evaluation must occur with a recognition that the argument existed in a larger social context.
Therefore, those legal contexts which you've pointed to are examples of places where evaluation of character are relevant to evaluation of the argument. They don't exhaust the possible places where character is relevant to argument evluation. Walton's entire theory is, of course, much more sophisticated than the thumbnail sketch I've presented here. If you want to read some of his papers on the pragmatic theory of fallacy and the circumstantial ad hominem argument you can go here:
http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/papers.htm
Posted by: fardels bear | December 2, 2007 4:12 PM
"I've got to admit, I just don't get this "darwinist"/eugenics connection."
While there had always been people who were for breeding humans the way they breed animals (aristocrats and wealthy people who'd want their children married off to fertile children of other aristocrats or wealthy people, for example), with the advent of Darwinian evolution some folk concluded that with human society (at least in the West at the time) having reached the point where famine and plagues couldn't be counted on to weed out the inferior sorts by natural selection, if we wanted to maintain the 'vigor' of the species we'd have to step in and do some artificial selection. A causal connection to Darwin is tenuous in the extreme, and, of course, even if it were true (and it ain't) that the idea of selective breeding of humans had never occurred to anyone until Darwin opened that particular Pandora's Box, it would say nothing whatever about the truth of the theory of evolution itself.
As with scientific racism, from Morton to Hernnstein, Murray and Rushton, folk will seize on anything to twist to support their pre-existing biases. The wealthy and powerful always fear the poor and 'Social Darwinism' and eugenics were ways of putting a scientific gloss on what suited the wealthy and powerful already.
The Disinformation Institute are a pack of liars.
My BSc(Math/Science) which included a number of uninspiring biology courses (which I only took to help out a friend who was trying to get into med school) together with my LLB would make me an expert on biology by Disinformation Institute standards. I really got into evolutionary biology (which is to say biology) when a friend loaned me 'The Flamingo's Smile' and I've never looked back.
Posted by: Mike from Ottawa | December 2, 2007 4:12 PM
#11 - My "FCD" is honorary, granted because I have signed up at Friends of Charles Darwin.
I have no other degree.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | December 2, 2007 4:48 PM
BA in Philosophy/Foreign Language with an emphasis in Logic and Epistemology. Dissuaded from further pursuit of Biology by shitty freshmen bio teachers. :(
All the same, West and the DI are full of crap.
Lastly, David's comment at #1 is an interesting reversal of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.
Posted by: G | December 2, 2007 5:12 PM
ROFLMAO, Hank!
ditto!
funniest ad I've seen in ages.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 2, 2007 5:18 PM
The Dishonesty Institute claims that a largely skeptical audience was won over by John West's golden tongue.*
This aspect has not yet been discussed. The audience was largely young and quiet. Coming in, rather few seemed to me to have strong opinions either way.** Going out, rather few seemed to have strong opinions either way.** One apparent grad student wanted to nail the DI on global warming, abortion, etc. in her question. One older man who identified himself as a lawyer defended the DI lukish warmishly. Claiming a "win" by the DI seems grossly overreaching. Do any other attendees have a different take as to the audience reaction?
There is one question that should have been asked but was not. I myself was too chicken to say: "Dr West, who owns the copyrights for the photos in your slide show?"
My undergrad and grad degees are in electrical engineering . (There was no such thing as computer science in those halcyon days, but my first computer program was written in 1956---in octal.) Then I got a JD and went into patent law to see the world of technology from a greater altitude. This landscape has included occasional swoops into biotech and medical devices.
=================
*---It was indeed golden, but also forked.
**---Aside from the Darwin Claque, of course.
Posted by: Olorin (Mike Anglin) | December 2, 2007 5:28 PM
To Octopod: Thanks. I'll try it and let you know how it went
To Xeno: Hmmm. I don't think she will be offended - she will just go "tut". She isn't a spiritualist so an "evil spirit" floating over her bed won't be a problem. She makes a lovely apple crumble, by the way.
Posted by: Samphire | December 2, 2007 5:47 PM