PZ Myers is for the most part an honest atheist. He worships and mimics Dawkins for his hate speech.
Case in point: Richard Dawkins. How often have you heard the phrase, “I love Dawkins’ books, but” followed by excuses that he’s too arrogant, he’s too hard on the religious, he’s a militant atheist? He’s “far too fierce”, as if that were a shortcoming.
It’s a strength. Creationists hate the guy because he doesn’t just stand against one ludicrous symptom of their belief system, he goes straight to the root with scathing rhetoric against the whole monumental pile of rickety confabulations. Look at how they react to him:
When creationists carp at the uncompromising atheism of people like Dawkins, let’s not pander to them and thereby validate their complaints by offering up some more palatable Christian proxy, but instead stand up for them. We like them. Have you got a problem with that?
I have no problem with that. As a matter of fact, I welcome it. I am formally extending an invitation for Myers to come here and defend his adulteration of Christianity. I want him to justify why Christianity is worst than child abuse and it is a mental illness, explain why he thinks Mere Christianity was such a lame book and the flaws of Lewis’s trilemma. I am not going to hold my breath for Myers to take up this invitation. He is a coward like Wesley Elsberry. Their rhetoric disintegrates under scrutiny. He is even too cowardly to allow my posts to trackback to his blog.
Myers boast of his bravado for the anger that he incites from the Creationists. I think he really has a thin skin and yelps like a crybaby. His latest diatribe against the Creationists is on Coral Ridge’s program Darwin’s Deadly Legacy
Myers disputes Kennedy’s claim that Hitler’s sadistic rampage was largely based on Darwin’s theology of evolution. I thought he likes to be hated by Christians. You think it would make him ecstatic to be compared with Hitler by the Christians. Besides why act like a little crybaby when he regularly eviscerates Christians and Christianity with the most abusive language possible. Why can’t Myers take just a small portion of what he dishes out, without acting like a little crybaby? 
Aside from acting like a little crybaby how did Myers respond to the program? Well Myers is an educated man, a professor of biology, a self profess intellectual and scientist. He responded with his usual impeccable systematic logical dissection of the program. He did a point by point analysis of the arguments presented and he countered with facts disputing the arguments put forth by Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. Oops, I’m sorry, I got confused. It was the program that made the systematic dissection of Darwin’s theory and it’s consequences. Myers just started with ad hominem attacks on all the people that appeared in the program. 
“FRANCIS COLLINS??!? WTF? So this is the guy we’re all supposed to be grateful to for showing us how Christianity and evolution can be reconciled, and now he’s going to be a talking head for some creationist propaganda? Thanks, Francis. I guess I’ve been too kind.”
Myers was much kinder to Collins than what he remembers. 😆 When he thought that Collins was a useful idiot for his Darwinian Atheism, Collins was one of his leading lights. Myers went as far as saying Collins was able to do good science as long as he keeps his religion in the closet. So now Collins’s religion is out of the closet, he can’t do good science anymore? What has he done from a scientific perspective that is different? 
Myers, like a vampire, whose had his fill of blood, in this case his ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to disagrees or criticize his religion, goes on to make 2 unsupported response to the program.
The premise has two strikes against it. One is that it is ridiculous; Darwin himself was an enlightened fellow for his time who opposed the racism endemic to his culture, and while individuals have twisted the science to support social Darwinism or eugenics, that whole line of reasoning is repudiated by the majority of biologists now. For another, it wouldn’t matter if Darwin had been a vicious anti-semite who had launched racist diatribes the theory is not the founder. William Shockley’s racism did not mean that transistors do not work. Social Darwinism is not the same as evolutionary biology.
So it doesn’t matter if Darwinists are racists but Darwin was not a racist. Let’s be honest here, Myers knows perfectly well that it matters a lot if Charles Darwin was a racist or not, regardless if it has any implication for evolutionary fairytale biology. If Darwin were a racist, it would be a tremendous blow to the Darwinists PR campaign in today’s society. Imagine a teacher teaching evolution in a biology class, telling the children that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact like gravity is a fact. Charles Darwin was the creator of this great theory. He was also a racist. Please don’t tell the NAACP about this but this is what he said.
Finally, although Darwin opposed slavery, he firmly believed that the evolutionary process had created superior and inferior races. He maintained in Descent of Man that human intellectual development was the product of natural selection and that natural selection had produced significant differences in the mental faculties of men of distinct races. [See Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, pp.109-110, 160, 201, 216.] In the same book, Darwin disparaged blacks and observed that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans fell between the negro or Australian and the gorilla, indicating that he considered blacks the humans that were the most ape-like. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201] Darwin also predicted that [a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin’s thought is difficult to deny.
And there is this,
In reality, Charles Darwin was an early booster of both eugenics and the application of his biological theory to issues of race and economics. Darwin’s book The Descent of Man has an entire section devoted to the application of natural selection to civilized societies. Darwin’s discussion opens with the following remarkable complaint, which was echoed again and again by later eugenists:
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.
[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168); emphasis added]
Both of these 2 issues were mentioned in the Coral Ridge program. So when Myers tells you that it is ridiculous; Darwin himself was an enlightened fellow for his time who opposed the racism endemic to his culture, who are you going to believe, Myers or your lying eyes? If you think people have problem believing in Darwinism now, just wait ’til they learn the truth about the founder of this theology.
But Myers did say the theory is not dependent on the personal believe of the founder. This is a fair argument. As a Christian, I’ve made the same argument against the injustices perpetrated in the name of Christianity. The only thing is that ideas do have consequences. Darwin’s idea as espoused by him linking his theory to racism and eugenics has consequences. His disciples in the form of Hitler and Karl Marx led to the deaths of millions. Regardless if his theory of evolution is scientifically correct or not it did have tragic consequences. This was at least part of the message in the Coral Ridge program. Myers can complaint all he wants but the program was factually correct.
Myers boasts his prowess as a scientist, his ability for rational and logical thinking compared to the mentally insane Creationists, but all he can come up with to rebut the Creationist propaganda are ad hominem and a couple of factual errors.
Myers made this brilliant rebuttal before he’s even seen the program. Well, you can imagine his response must have been even more dazzling after he saw Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, right?
Yup, you guess it. He went right to the ad hominem and then tossed out a laundry list of quotes by Hitler that supposedly link his actions to Christianity. I wonder if this brilliant scientist, a loving (unscientifically speaking of course because there is no prove of that) father, a genius logician and defender of science against the mentally ill Creationists, can demonstrate if anyone before Hitler or after Hitler, or Hitler himself, how his genocidal homicides can be found in the pages of the Bible? Did the Jewish writers of the Bible or Charles Darwin the founder of evolutionary theology gave justification to the views that Hitler espoused?
Related Posts
23 Responses to “PZ Myers’ Review of Darwin’s Deadly Legacy”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think the Bible has been used to justify all manner of evil, including slavery. Indeed, Jews have been persecuted in various ways by Christians over the centuries with the crucifixtion as justification. Don’t get me wrong – I agree with your comments regarding the insufferable Panda Boob, but the rhetoric of the last sentence is in poor form. Google ‘genocide’ and ‘Old Testament’ (or ‘Torah’) and you’ll find portions of scripture which certainly lend themselves (precedent-wise) to God-ordained slaughter of entire races of people, down to the last goat.
The alleged inferiority of races has been with us much longer than Darwinism, which lent scientific credibility to state enforced eugenics. It was purportedly God who ordained the White man his place as master over African ‘savage’ races well before Darwin came along. In fact, if one looks at other contemporary writings of his day, they are full of similiar verbage. Even the Great Emancipator, old ‘honest’ Abe Lincoln, viewed negros as inferior to whites.
When reaching back to an age where racism (the real kind) was virtually ubiquitous among Western societies, one must tread with due caution, in my opinion.
Hey moderator! I posted something last night – could you check the junk filter and see if I got trapped? Thanks…
Hi Todd,
Thanks for posting and welcome, first time commenter gets moderated.
I might not be as well-versed in the history of racism as you are. Could you show me how people in history justify the White supremacy was ordained by God of the Bible? Again my point was that people can attribute all sorts of claim to the God of the Bible but I like to see Biblical references for their claim.
I don’t doubt that racism is as old as races. But as you’ve pointed out it wasn’t until Darwin, that an intellectual justification was given to racism and eugenics. It was not my intention to make Darwin the origin of racism. The point of the program, Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, was that people like Hitler and Marx justified their actions with Darwin’s theory of evolution and selection.
Then there’s A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery and A Southern Christian View of Slavery
My point went to your rhetorical question at the end of this blog: “Did the Jewish writers of the Bible or Charles Darwin the founder of evolutionary theology gave justification to the views that Hitler espoused?” While it may be true Hitler never used the bible to justify his doctrine of ‘inferior races’ (though I find it unlikely), the bible has passages that at best allow for slavery and none which condemn it outright and has been used by fellow travellers of the fascist/racist variety. So I find no problem with the point of DDL and agree a materialist/athiest world view was the basis of several of the most destructive modern states, I just advise caution where genetic fallacy is concerned – because it is a sword that cuts both ways. (note: Marx had no actions to justify – Darwinism gave sense to his manifesto, but it was Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler who took action)
An related aside: Years ago I was working the seafood counter at Winn Dixie and one of the meat cutters heard me going on about Ross Perot’s 1992 run for president. He came to me one day with a small stack of newspapers called The Spotlight or The Advocate (I don’t recall) and told me they would fit with my populist ideals. Well, it was full of anti-semitic and racist bilge and was as amusing to read as The Weekly World Workers paper (a commie rag) – I recall none of the actual content, but for an ad in the back for a tape series explaining how Jesus himself went into the Caucus mountains and founded the Caucasion race! While I did not succumb to the mighty temptation to git some learnin’ ’bout my her-ee-tage, it made me realized some people will believe ANYTHING!
Todd,
Welcome. I presume you were the Tood I saw at the Cornell Website and Telic Thoughts.
Salvador
Hi Todd, thanks for your reply.
I understand your desire to equate the Bible with Darwinian ilk. I am trying to cut back from the debate on Biblical theology. The purpose of this blog is to discuss subjects related to intelligent design. Part of that discussion naturally involves the failure of the theory of evolution to explain certain aspects of biotic reality. Granted this current topic is more on social Darwinism than biology, the purpose of this post is in response to atheistic Darwinists like Myers.
However, I don’t want to just leave you hanging with some of your questions on the Bible. Although I am not interested in dealing with it right now, there are numerous resources that critics of the Bible can seek out, in books and on the internet, for the answers to your questions. Some suggested book readings are “How Should We Then Live” by Francis Schaeffer, “Church History in Plain Language” by Shelley, “Hard Sayings of the Bible” by Kaiser, “Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible” by Packer. Some online links to your questions, Why does the Bible seem to tolerate the institution of slavery?, Objections Answered, The Christian Think Tank, and St. Augustine (354 – 430) saw slavery as the product of sin and as contrary to God’s Divine plan.
Now back to the question at hand, you said you were responding to my question, Did the Jewish writers of the Bible or Charles Darwin the founder of evolutionary theology gave justification to the views that Hitler espoused? Maybe I was not clear, but my question was in response to Myers’s implied assertion that Hitler used Christianity to justify his actions. My question was to point out that it would be impossible for Hitler to make such a claim because all the Biblical writers are Jews (except maybe Luke).
The second problem with your response is that you are confusing the human justification for evil with the tenets of a particular school of philosophy. As I said before there is no shortage of evil and ignorant men who justify their actions by appealing to the Bible. However, a careful study of the actual text would reveal that those justifications are unfounded. An honest critic would refer to the core philosophical tenet and base his critique on that, and that alone, and not on the rhetoric of some putative adherents. Based on this I categorically reject any merits from the Bible, that can be attributed to justify Hitler’s actions.
On the other hand, there is no doubt that Hitler’s murderous rampage can be directly linked to the core tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution. From the Coral Ridge program,
Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, apply the principle of selection to eugenics. A result of the eugenics movement spawn groups like Planned Parenthood.
In Dr. Weikart’s book From Darwin to Hitler he detailed how Hitler’s society drawn its justification directly from Darwinian concepts. Hitler referred many times to evolution/development in Mein Kampf. Hitler used the concept of selection to eliminate what he thought was evil, the Jews.
Columbine shooter Eric Harris wrote,
Let me repeat. It is true; racism is as old as there are races. Saint Augustine wrote racism is a sin as the result of a fallen nature. Darwin didn’t invent racism nor was he necessarily anti-Semitic. However, his theology did give the intellectual, so-called scientific basis for racism, eugenics and genocide. You must know the high value we place on science today, right? Who would dare to argue against science and be branded as some ignorant, mentally ill Creationist, right? The difference between your misguided attempts to link certain group’s actions to the Bible is inane. On the other hand, if Darwin’s theology of evolution and selection is true. These evil individual certainly does have justification to perpetrate the evil that they do. You and I might find their actions heinous and abhorrent, but from a godless Darwinian point of view, they are only doing what comes naturally from evolution. The fit survive and the rest are eliminated from the gene pool and thereby enhancing the species adaptation to its environment. It is a normal and natural core tenet of differential survival. Do you even understand this? Regardless what you might think of the Bible, can we at least agree that there are ample evidence to support the link between Hitler and Darwin?
Sal,
yes, one and the same. Thanks for the welcome.
teleologist,
I certainly don’t want to be off topic and didn’t really intend to get your dander up! I had thought I made clear that I totally agree darwinian naturalism justifies eugenics rationally and scientificly. Indeed, the Peter Singer’s of this world are examples of rigidly honest materialists!
Second, I’m making no misguided attempt to link anyone’s actions to the bible, I’m only making a point on your rhetorical comparison of darwin’s theory and the bible, that such a question can cut both ways. The references you gave explaining slavery in the bible are fine ones, though I’ve reasoned the answers well enough in my own meditations on scripture.
Also, I’ve encountered a number of non-prominent atheists/materialists in forum debates over the years and most find some way to reason moral values of human life and would reject Hitlerian justifications of genocide based on darwinism.
I was also unaware Darwin was a theologian or that Origins was a theological tract. Before Darwinism, what was the intellectual basis for racism, eugenics and genocide? What you describe is merely a new morality, based upon so-called enlightenment values of reason and science. CS Lewis exposed it brilliantly in That Hideous Strength.
Anyway, one more kick of this dead horse – I don’t think I can agree there is ample evidence to support the link between Darwin and Hitler – I think the link is broader and goes to materialist philosophy, which Darwin’s theory lent ‘credible’ scientific weight. As we both know, philosophy informs and precedes observation and materialism as a philosophy logically leads one to a non-telic creation myth, for a reality with telic origins throws materialism on its head.
From Mein Kampf:
Here’s something else regarding Hitler’s (ab)use of the bible: http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm
It occurs to me this whole topic violates Godwin’s Law!
I guess I might be off-topic here, but I wanted to add a line that I have been unable to find on the ‘net.
It is from Harvard historian, Steven Ozment’s A Mighty Fortress: A New History Of The German People.
(all notes Adolf Hitler, Table Talk)
Hi Todd,
It is unfortunate that you chose to ignore the evidence linking Darwin to Hitler. I guess the readers will have to judge for themselves. I would just add these quotes for others to connect the dots.
A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called humaneness of individuals, in order to make place for the humaneness of nature, which destroys the weak to make place for the strong.
Adolf Hitler
You certainly have the right to disagree and refuse the evidence that links Darwin’s theology to Hitler, but at least make an attempt to dissect Hitler’s statements and demonstrate how it is incompatible with Darwin’s theology of evolution. Your attempt to obfuscate the debate by claiming that the sword can cut both ways doesn’t help your argument to deny the link between Darwin and Hitler. Especially, in light of the fact that no orthodox scholars present or in the past even to the time of the early Church Fathers could have the exegesis that Hitler did.
Darwin was a theolgian?
I’m not refusing the evidence linking Darwin, I just think the link is more broadly joined to materialism, which Darwinism lent scientific credibility. My whole point in saying anything was to merely caution your rhetoric at the end of your post.
Yes, Darwin’s theory (not theology) helped Hitler justify his hatred of inferior races, but then he used whatever what handy, including Christianity and a bastardized version of the bible, stripped of all Jewish references.
Golly, you are a bit quick to assume I disagree and want to justify PZM’s view of Hitler and Christianity! I’m not, really. What I’m trying to say (apparently poorly) is that the evil here is materialism, to which Darwin lent scientific credibility (intellectually satisified atheists, etc).
As has been noted by many others much smarter than me, Darwinism allows for anything and anything fits into darwinian narratives because ‘just so’ explanations are accepted. So altruism, morals and other real aspects of humanity which post problems to the survival of the fittest meme, must fit because darwinism is True (for the True Believers). There were Darwinists running things in America who didn’t have such a deadly legacy during the same time has Hitler, where are their deadly horrors?
Anyway, I do think this is an unfruitful path to attempt to discredit Darwin, reserving the right to largely agree with the main point. See Godwin’s Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law Darwin can be discredited without invoking Hitler. There was much, much more to his madness than Darwinism.
Hi Todd,
Was Darwin a theologian? Yes, I think so, a bad one but a theologian nonetheless. But don’t just take my word for it. Osprey, a Darwinist, from ARN posted this on the thread “The Essence of Macroevolution” (sorry the links don’t work anymore on ARN)
Also this from Wikipedia: In 1827, his father, unhappy that his younger son had no interest in becoming a physician, shrewdly enrolled him in a Bachelor of Arts course at Christ’s College, University of Cambridge to qualify as a clergyman. This was a sensible career move at a time when many Anglican parsons were provided with a comfortable income, and when most naturalists in England were clergymen who saw it as part of their duties to explore the wonders of God’s creation.
I think I understand your call for caution, but I just don’t think it is warranted. Over the years Hitler is an incendiary name, and any attempt to draw equivalence to him will incite fierce anger. However, that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be exposed if the evidence is there.
I agree with your point of Darwinism’s ubiquity to explain anything and it is certainly materialistically based. I also agree with you that Hitler appeals to many ideas to support his sick evil rampage. The point in Weikart’s book was that Hitler tapped into a philosophical thought that the whole of Germany has bought into, and it gave them the intellectual rationalism (your point of modernism), and scientific justification to murder without remorse. Frankly it doesn’t even matter, IMO, if Hitler believed in Darwinian evolution or not. His action and rhetoric is perfectly compatible with the theory of evolution.
Finally, I didn’t go that far to claim that you are siding with Myers. However, your comment that the sword cuts both ways, was certainly incorrectly equating Christianity as a possible source for Hitler as Darwin was a source for Hitler. What I tried to do was to point out that your caution was unjustified because of your conflation of the idea and the rhetoric/person. Hitler’s rhetoric matches Darwin’s theology, but it is opposite of the teachings of the Bible.
I thank you for your comments.
I am having trouble with the login here, so I am reposting this comment presuming something went wrong last times(s)
If it is just the case that you do not want it here and omitted it please forgive my repeated posting.
I’m also going to remove some links (available if desired) in case I have just submitted too many.
Hi Todd,
I think you are absolutely correct that discrediting Darwin as a man has nothing to do with discrediting his, or subsequent theories. Likewise, showing the obvious link from Darwin to Social Darwinism, to eugenics does not falsify evolution by common descent and natural selection.
Nobody says it does.
What about America, you say, where Darwinism was also accepted?
First, America did have a eugenics movement which was an influence and inspiration for Hitler’s.
The Nazi’s were looking for an example where the ideas had been put into effect already and cited American eugenics as that example.
(Link removed)
The American eugenics movement
You know, of course, who Francis Galton was and who influenced him.
A little more on Galton:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:quhD9IK_EisJ:www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n1/eugenics.html+american+eugenics+based+evolution+social+darwinism&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=safari
What were the American horrors?
(link removed)
From Publishers Weekly
(link removed)
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:7sf-cbmO7JkJ:www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/299.html+atrocities+america+eugenics+experiments&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&client=safari
ÂÂ
Sorry for the problem with your comments. I’ve increased the link limit to 12. We don’t get rss feed on the comments that are in moderation holding.
Daron, I can repost the comments you have in holding if you want.
Thanks teleologist, but I doubt anyone cares for those links, and I have them if they are wanted.
Otherwise the comments are the same as what I’ve posted.
Cheers
Damon,
Your posts have brought me greater clarity on the subject at hand. I believe it was the writings of John Jay Ray available on his many websites, which first referred me to fascism’s roots in the US and Great Britain, but I didn’t recall examples of their programme being put into action, thanks for opening my eyes on that score.
Teleologist,
“Sword cuts both ways” was a poor choice of words. I truly was trying to caution when using comparative rhetoric. I think you make a fine point regarding conflation of the idea and the person, we have not been in disagreement there. Let me mirror what you seem to be saying – Hitler may have justified his policies appealing to any number of sources, but where Christianity and Darwinism are concerned, he had to distort scripture to make it fit his ideas, while darwinism needed no distortion to make the fit. Does that sum it up?
teleologist – looks like my comment from earlier today hasn’t been freed from the queue yet…
Rather, it appears to have been junked..
Sorry about that Todd. We seem to be having an inordinate amount of confusion with the comments. I’ve rescued your early posting from the spam pile.
I think I can agree with the summary of your rescued comment.
Denyse O’Leary posted a comment from a blogger at UD, who claims Hitler was a creationist. She has some interesting quotes.
BTW, anecdotally, this is a common view from Darwinists, such as Prof. Steven Weinberg.
Just to add to your discussion, about Nazi ideology, one small thing. When quoting Hitler or anyone else from that period of German history one should not forget their flair for propaganda. If Nazi official was addressing group of Catholic Bishops (for example) you will find surprisingly amiable and very “Christian” tone of the speach. It is misleading to draw a conclusion from the speaches without finding out who the recipients of the message were.