Hitler as a Darwinist?: prof accused of academic dishonesty

Recently, several people have generously devoted considerable time to padding the comments section of the Post-Darwinist on the question of whether Hitler was a creationist or a Darwinist. Now, one recent commenter, Mitchell Coffey, went over the top, accusing Cal State prof Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler, of being dishonest. Critiquing my post, he scolds, in part:

This is to be expected if you rely on the immorality of dishonest academics like Richard Weikart. Most of his assertions about Darwin's beliefs are contradicted by the historical sources -- often by the historical sources he himself cites for support! In one case, he out-and-out lies about what he calls Darwin's "system."

But if you want to see a straight-out lie by Prof. Weikart, locate his one quote from H.G. Wells. Weikart makes extravagant claims about the significance of the quote, which Weikart wants you to believe meant that Wells believed in killing off "inferior" races.

Weikart, who is fluent in German, replies,

Mitchell Coffey’s claim that I engaged in academic dishonesty is patently ridiculous.

I should note that my overall argument in no way depends on the Wells’ quotation, since the vast majority of my book is about German thinkers, and most of my quotations are from primary sources, unlike the Wells quote, which I provided to show that Germans weren’t the only ones advocating racial extermination. If anyone can show that my primary source quotations are wrenched out of context, this would be troubling indeed. To date, no one has raised such a criticism, despite many reviews by historians in historical journals.

To me, the really interesting aspect of this whole exchange is why it should matter so much to some people whether Hitler was a Darwinist, a creationist, or something else. After all, what if Pol Pot was a Darwinist and Idi Amin a creationist? Do we think the better or the worse of mass murderers on such an account? So I asked Weikart for some thoughts, as he deals frequently with such attacks.

His reply was interesting:

The reason why people care about Hitler being a Darwinist was because his version of Darwinism influenced his murderous ideology. It wasn't incidental to his mass murder, as it might be in the other cases you mentioned. Darwinists have to distance themselves from his social Darwinist views, so they campaign against it as against heresy. Also, it's remarkable how many websites run by atheists and anti-religious people prominently feature articles about Hitler being a Christian, and they blame Christianity for Hitler and the Holocaust.

It's also remarkable that many Darwinists idolize Darwin so much that they cannot come to admit that he was a social Darwinist (though many scholars, to their credit, have conceded this).

Hmmm. I have often suggested that Darwinism would repay study by social scientists. It does come with a worldview, including a number of positions on hotly contested but apparently unrelated topics. For example, I would like to hear from a single serious Darwinist who disapproves of stem cell research on discarded human embryos on ethical grounds. It is easy to find non-Darwinists who disapprove such things.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

O'Leary's review of Weikart's seminal work From Darwin to Hitler

I first determined to make a point of reading historian Richard Weikart's meticulously researched book, From Darwin to Hitler because Darwinists were very clearly upset by the implications of his work.

Some seemed obsessed with proving Weikart, who teaches at California State University (Stanislaus) not only wrong but dishonest and irresponsible - which he certainly isn't.

I am glad I read this magisterial work, because I now understand much better the relationship between 19th century Darwinism and the rise of Hitler. Weikart unearths so many old, almost buried 19th and early 20th century German sources. Indeed, one can only wonder at his patience, systematically reading through the many, many articles and books of long-dead eugenicists, imperialists, pacifists, socialists, and such.

Weikart unearths several lines of evidence that are critical for understanding what happened. (Clicking on the link gets you the rest of the review.)

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 4: Hitler's Ethic and the Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress in Nazi Policy

On this episode of ID the Future, Logan Gage interviews historian Richard Weikart on his new book, Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, and how Darwinism influenced and inspired much of Nazi ideology.

Weikart’s provocative book, out tomorrow, argues that Hitler's immorality was not the result of ignoring or rejecting ethics, but rather came from embracing a coherent -- albeit pernicious -- ethic of improving the human race through "evolutionary progress." Directly inspired by Darwin's theory of evolution, this ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improved human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination. By embracing this particular brand of ethics, Hitler perpetrated much greater evil than he would have had he been merely opportunistic or amoral.

Go here to listen.

[From Denyse: Personally, I have never understood why Darwin's fans freak out when anyone tries to talk about the relationship between Darwinism and eugenics, Darwinism and racism, and Darwinism and the Nazis.

It is a hands down, no contest fact that Darwin made eugenics and racism seem "scientific." There was a time when racism depended on obscure arguments from the Bible and such, but Darwin changed all that with The Descent of Man. There is no question, either, that the Nazis were inspired in part by German translations of Darwin's Descent. Dr. Weikart has been subjected to predicable attempts to muddy the waters by claiming that someone other than Darwin is always to blame for making mayhem respectable.

To one such effort, Weikart replies,

Hoppe claims in this blog that Bronn inserted progressivism into Darwin’s theory in his translation of _Origin of Species_. However, anyone reading _Origin_ carefully can find many passages where Darwin embraced progressivism, for example:

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.

This is laced with progressivism, and many other passages reinforce this point.

The part I find intriguing is that the Darwin fans would do themselves such a big favour if they just admitted it and got past it. No one holds them responsible individually or collectively for what happened in centuries past. It is their continued defensiveness and misrepresentation, creating a continued need to set the record straight, that keeps the issue alive. And they have only themselves to blame for that.

See also:

Expelled: Did Darwin really lead to Hitler? Better question: Did the suggestion lead tofree publicity?

Finnish school shooter: Social Darwinism's role in mass murder

O'Leary's review of Weikart's seminal work From Darwin to Hitler.
]
Next: Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 5: Seeking God in Science: An Atheist
Defends Intelligent Design

Hitler as social Darwinist: Another salvo in the barely civilized controversy

The story regarding flunking students sympathetic to intelligent design theory got plenty of attention. But there are a few other things going on that might also justify a bit of attention.

Over the past few months, this blog has been host to quite the little controversy over whether Hitler was a social Darwinist or a creationist. If you want to pursue that in detail, try
"Does Darwinism devalue human life?" (July 2, 2006)
What did Hitler believe abut evolution? (September 2006)
"Hitler as a Darwinist: Prof accused of academic dishonesty" (September 15, 2006)
Recent posts (October 9, 2006) (Scroll down to Coral Ridge for the Anti-Defamation League flap.)

Now, I was brought up to believe that Hitler was one sick puppy. Indeed, I have Jewish friends who will not use his name, calling him only "that man." So I don't know how much it matters in principle what he thought about origins. But having listened to both sides, I think that he was, for all practical purposes, a social Darwinist who doubted the creative power of natural selection alone.

Anyway, Professor Richard Weikart , an expert on Nazi ideology, has often been the target of Darwinists who need to believe that Hitler was exclusively a creationist, which Weikart can hardly confirm for them. Prof. Weikart writes me to say:

Nick Matzke at Panda's Thumb has been critiquing my book, and his latest salvo from early Oct. deserves a response, I think (but it's too late to respond to the discussion board on that blogsite, since the discussion on it ceased long ago). I e-mailed Nick to ask him to post the following response to Panda's Thumb, but thus far I haven't heard a peep from him. Maybe I don't have his correct e-mail address. In any case, I'm wondering if you would mind posting this response on your ID blogsite.

Here is the text:

Recently Nick Matzke unearthed a neat piece of evidence that he (and others at Panda's Thumb) thinks delivers a knock-out blow to my arguments in From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. Unfortunately, his evidence is to the history of Nazism what the Nebraska Man is to evolutionary theory an extrapolation of fragmentary evidence that wildly misses the mark. To be fair, Matzke makes a few comments showing that he recognizes some of the problems with his evidence, but nonetheless he persists with nonsequitur comments, such as: "The above lists do not prove that books by Darwin or Haeckel were actually physically burned, only banned [by the Nazis];" Do they really?

Before I get to this, though, I'd like to clear up one big misunderstanding about my book that Matzke promotes. He has claimed more than once that my thesis is hopelessly confused because: a) I criticize Daniel Gasman's Haeckel to Hitler thesis, b) I argue for a Darwin to Hitler thesis, but c) Haeckel was obviously a bigger and closer influence on Hitler than Darwin was. Matzke's objection fails, however, because while I concede point c), points a) and b) are misleading, at least to those who haven't read both Gasman's book and mine. Gasman claimed that Haeckel was THE progenitor of Nazi ideology (and in his second book, he argues the same for European fascism in general). My approach is quite different, because I overtly state in my book that Darwinism does not lead logically to Nazism nor the Holocaust (Gasman thinks Haeckel's ideas do lead inevitably to Nazism), and that Darwinism is not the sole influence on Nazi ideology (Gasman thinks Haeckel's ideas are the only significant influences). My book confirms the point that Haeckel was a bigger influence on Hitler than Darwin was (you only need to look in the index to see that I spend a lot more time discussing Haeckel than I do discussing Darwin). In fact, you might be interested to learn that I seriously considered entitling my book, _From Haeckel to Hitler_. I finally decided against it, because a) few people know who Haeckel is; and b) I didn't want my position to be confused with Gasman's.

So just how do Matzke's objections destroy my thesis, which properly stated is this: Darwinism [note: not just Darwin I discuss many Darwinian-inspired scientists and scholars] produced new thinking about morality and ethics, especially medical ethics, helping bring about [note: I didn't say "inevitably producing"] the rise of ideologies such as eugenics, infanticide, euthanasia, and racial extermination. I never claimed Darwinism was the only influence on these ideologies (I stated the exact opposite in my book). However, even if Darwin had believed in the equality of races (he didn't), even if he denied that races were annihilating each other in the struggle for existence (he argued the contrary), even if he completely rejected eugenics (he only rejected compulsory eugenics measures), and even if he viewed infanticide and euthanasia as immoral (lo and behold, he did!), and even if he was anti-militarist (he was, and I say so in my book); this would not undermine my point that leading Darwinian biologists, anthropologists, medical professors, physicians, and other social thinkers in Germany overtly used Darwinian principles to promote eugenics, infanticide, euthanasia, and racial extermination. I'm sorry if you don't like this, but it happened. Instead of criticizing me for pointing it out, you should argue with these nineteenth and early twentieth-century Darwinists.

Having cleared this up, what is this new evidence that Matzke produced in his October 1, 2006, blog, that allegedly demolishes my thesis? He perceptively discovered that in guidelines for banned books issued by the Nazis in 1935, one of the categories of banned books were those about "primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel)." Matzke then claims that Darwin was banned under the Nazis (once he concedes that it might just have been something called "primitive Darwinism," so he apparently recognizes one of the huge problems with his claim but he persists nonetheless).

There are many reasons why Matzke's discovery, interesting though it is, does not present a serious challenge to my own scholarship.

First of all, Matzke himself apparently realized that by modifying Darwinism with the word primitive, this list did not really mean Darwinism per se. Good observation, but then why does he persist in maintaining that Darwin's works were banned? Darwinian biologists (and Darwinian theory) under the Nazi regime were promoted, not silenced. There are many good scholarly books that clarify this issue, such as Ute Deichmann's Biologists under Hitler (Harvard UP, 1996)and Paul Weindling's Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945 (Cambridge UP, 1989). These works and many others show that Darwinian biologists thrived under Nazism. Hans F. K. Guenther, who was appointed to a professorship in social anthropology by the Nazi minister Frick after the Nazis came to power in the state of Thuringia (against the objections of the faculty there), was committed to Darwinian theory. Eugen Fischer, a Darwinian anthropologist and eugenicist, was named rector of the University of Berlin in July 1933, and he headed up the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute on Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics, a leading research institute. In 1944 (that's still under Nazi rule) the institute was even named after Fischer! Many other Darwinian biologists landed in important positions under Nazism: Fritz Lenz, Emil Abderhalden, Konrad Lorenz, and the list could go on and on.

Another problem for Matzke's critique of my position is that just about all historians discussing Nazi eugenics, euthanasia, and racism have mentioned the importance of Darwinism as a precursor to Nazi ideology and policies. Also, most historians writing about Hitler's ideology have discussed the role of Darwinism in his thinking. Many other Nazi leaders were enthusiastic about Darwinism, too. Sure, some of these historians may call it "vulgar Darwinism" or "social Darwinism," or some other such appellation, but these still all had Darwinian elements of some sort. You cannot be a "social Darwinist" without first embracing Darwinism. This should be an obvious point, but apparently it eludes some people.

Finally, you might be interested to learn that historians (including myself) already know that Haeckel's ideas were not universally well-received in Nazi circles. An essay I published in 2002 about the Monist League showed that Haeckel and the Monist League supported pacifism and feminism, which did not sit well with the Nazis. Also, the Monist League had many socialist members, making it suspect. No wonder the Nazis dissolved the Monist League when they came to power. But it had nothing to do with any supposed antipathy toward Darwinism. (My article is: " Evolutionare Aufklarung'? Zur Geschichte des Monistenbundes" in Wissenschaft, Politik, und ™ffentlichkeit: Von der Wiener Moderne bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Mitchell G. Ash and Christian H. Stifter, Vienna: WUV Universitatsverlag, 2002. pp. 131-48).

The infighting about Haeckel (but not about Darwinism!!) merely shows what many historians have been saying for years: Nazism was not a monolith (Matzke points this out, to his credit, but he doesn't point out that it undermines his critique of me, since I only discussed Hitler in my final chapter, not Nazism in general). There were considerable disagreements within Nazism. Weindling and others have shown that Haeckel's views were contested: some Nazis liked his views and others didn't. According to Deichmann, Walter Gross, the head of the Nazi Office of Racial Policy, was an avid Darwinist, but opposed Haeckel's monistic philosophy. However, Karl Astel, rector at the University of Jena, along with SS member and biologist Gerhard Heberer and biologist Viktor Franz, were all enthusiastic about Haeckel, as was Heinz Bruecher, who in 1935 published a tribute to Haeckel in the Nationalsozialistische Monatschrifte. This article, by the way, was published in a major Nazi journal the same year that the banned book list included Haeckel on the list!

So, Matzke's piece of evidence only proved what I already knew not all Nazis liked Haeckel. So what?

Note: If anyone with access to Panda's Thumb sees this, please post this or a link to this to Panda's Thumb. I e-mailed Nick Matzke asking him to post this, but I received no response, so maybe I don't have the right e-mail address for him.

Okay, Prof, I posted it. If anyone needs the link to this blog post, this is it.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy att he University of Minnesota.

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being granted tenure at Baylor after a long struggle - even after helping in a small way to destroy the Baylor Bears' ancient glory - in the opinion of a hyper sportswriter.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Uncommon Descent Contest Question 17: Why do evolutionary psychologists need to debunk compassion? Winner announced

Here, we asked, as per the title, why do evolutionary psychologists need to debunk compassion?

That's always been a puzzle for me because ... why indeed? Only if one is a slave to basically stupid ideas like "the selfish gene," would debunking compassion, which is widely noted in my local society - and most working societies - seem a worthwhile project. Yet that project generates many useless research papers and other goofy projects.

You'd think more people would be interested in sponsoring compassion than debunking it. But hey.

Anyway, the winner here is Aidan at 6 for this entry (and Aidan needs to get in touch with me at oleary@sympatico.ca with an address to which I can mail the prize):

Proponents of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy are instinctively aware of certain awkward anomalies they need to undermine and contradictions they must cover up if their Big Picture View is to appear to trump all others. In the case of compassion, they are required to show that, whatever else it may be, it isn’t *really* compassion. Compassion as it is – in its raw, undebunked state – is particularly threatening to the materialist worldview because it is a universally accessible and entirely tangible demonstration of the reality of higher orders of being.

True selflessness lies not in the exclusion of oneself but in seeing another person *as* oneself. This is essentially ennobling not only because it rises above self-interest but because, in spirit (and in action), it lifts the other to the precisely same degree as ourselves, to the point where their interests and ours are seen as united within a much greater context. The existentially elevated ground upon which both are then able to stand – ground upon which neither could have stood alone – transcends both the material arrangements of the situation and the confines of each one’s personal mentality. Compassion has the power to free us from ourselves and thereby set us upon a very different road.

It is not sympathy, where you suffer along with the person in the hope that this will make them feel better; neither is it pity, where you look down on the person and feel sorry for them from the position of your own safety. As a form of understanding – of oneself, other people and life generally – true compassion is astonishingly rich in content. It is intellectual and spiritual rather than emotional in nature, possessing a power to transform the character beyond recognition. On such a foundation, there is a sense of resonance and alignment with far higher orders, the contours of which we can hardly begin to discern, along with intimations of universal laws profoundly unlike those proposed by materialist observers yet plainly in harmonious accord with laws long since codified by spiritual tradition.

For ideological reasons, materialists and Darwinians cannot allow anything to be in this world that is not of it. If they can show that every instance of compassion fits the grim calculations of one survival strategy or another, they can dismiss every spiritual teaching without further examination. Then they win!

What I liked best about Aidan's entry is that Aidan helpfully distinguishes compassion from mere sentiment - you know what I mean: Blubbing all over someone's sofa about the awful time they are having.

Chances are, the afflicted person secretly wishes that "Blubber" would just go away. Almost any problem is easier to deal with than useless blubbing. Compassion transforms people; blubbing means that the upholsterer must be called in, for advice re the sofa.

Readers in general, in my view, "evolutionary" psychologists are generally poseurs. I respect the paleontologist who toils in the Badlands or Death Valley. But "evolutionary" psychologists are tax-funded intellectual parasites on a once Big Idea.

Other comments:

Barb, as always, had an excellent comment at 1: This point particularly struck me:

If materials are solely responsible for morality, as E. O. Wilson asserts, then Hitler simply had bad molecules. He holds no moral accountability for what he did. People not versed in the art of logic and debate as well as those who are Ph.D. candidates in philosophy know this is sheer nonsense.

The observation particularly struck me, because that was one of the motivations for Richard Weikart's involvement in investigating the role of Darwinism in Nazism. The irrational attacks on Weikart for simply documenting the facts were one of my reasons for continuing to follow the story.

qwertyuiop at 4, I hope you are not running for office anywhere near where I live. Your comments in general, about how materialist mechanist explanations are useful, tell me much. You write,

Would you claim that someone who studies how the brain processes music or the physics of music does not still appreciate music? If not, then why is their seeking of a physical explanation different from “Darwinists and materialists”?

I doubt very much that such a person appreciates music, because they are looking for a debunking explanation. People who get past that can appreciate music - as opposed to being thought well of by fellow members of their herd because they supposedly appreciate music, when all they really offer is a clever putdown.

Here are the contest rules. I gather that Contest 19 is still open.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Finnish school shooter: Social Darwinism's role in mass murder

Note: If you were linked to this story, be sure to see Update 1, Update 2, and Update 3 below.

I just got done rejecting a large number of comments from people who claim to enjoy this blog but nonetheless consider the report last evening of the Darwinist sympathies of the Finnish school shooter to be in poor taste.

(I suppose the Finns didn’t know they were supposed to suppress that part of the story, so that it would only be discovered thirty years from now by a gutsy researcher ... )

First, it’s rubbish that anyone who enjoys this blog was upset. This blog has published many more pungent stories and I urge anyone who doubts that to investigate the archives. While you’re there, have a look at the way in which scholar Richard Weikart found himself the target of similar attacks for his careful study of social Darwinism in From Darwin to Hitler.

Second, if people honestly think that the boy’s social Darwinism played no role in his shooting spree, I assume that they also think that toxic religious beliefs play no role in Middle Eastern-directed suicide bombings.

I disagree in both cases. Beliefs have consequences.

While we are here, I think that - while individual atheists can be highly moral - materialist atheist creeds in the twentieth century were demonstrably more likely to exterminate vast numbers of people than any traditional orientations.

There are several good reasons for that, but the most obvious is this one: The materialist atheist does not believe that there is any underlying mind, meaning or purpose in the universe. In principle, then, it is not true that humans are of more significance than tent caterpillars. And if they are a problem, the materialist atheist who is in power need not have any compunction in dealing with them in the same way as a gardener deals with tent caterpillars. He faces no judgment if he is wrong. He will someday be a corpse just like the ones he surrounds himself with.

Yes, of course, an atheist may choose to behave differently from that, as most do - except that materialist atheists do not in fact believe in free will. So they aren't choosing to behave differently - they are merely happening not to behave that way. Not much on which to build a society.

And I'm supposed to take their "offended" posture seriously?

Someone mentioned Ann Coulter to me recently, and I happen to have her book Godless out of the library. Those of you who get off on being offended will really appreciate this:

The path between Darwinism and Nazism may not be ineluctable, but it is more ineluctable than the evolutionary path from monkey to man. Darwin's theory overturned every aspect of Biblical morality. Instead of honor thy mother and father, the Darwinian ethic was honor thy children. Instead of enshrining moral values, the Darwinian ethic enshrined biological instincts. Instead of transcendent moral values, the Darwinian ethic said all morals are relative. Instead of sanctifying life, the Darwinian ethic sanctified death.

So it should not be surprising that eugenicists, racists, and assorted psychopaths always gravitate to Darwinism. From the most evil dictators to today's antismoking crusaders, sexual profligates, and animal rights nuts, Darwinism has infected the whole culture. And yet small schoolchildren who know that George Washington had slaves are never told of the centrality of Darwin's theory to Nazism, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, "racial hygiene" societies, genocide, and the Soviet gulags. (p. 269)

Apparently, they don't need to be told about it, actually. Young Pekka Eric Auvinen only needed to embrace the ideology.

(I wonder if news authorities will be pressured to remove any references to Auvinen's views from the story, to avoid "confusing" people about Darwinism. That happens a lot here in Canada with fanatical Islamists, who allegedly represent a broad spectrum of society. That is about as true as Darwinism is, as you will see from reading the linked story.)

Coulter goes on to say,

In his magnificent book From Darwin to Hitler, Richard Weikart documents the proliferation of eugenics organizations in Germany around 1900, all of which asserted their "scientific imprimatur by claiming harmony wit the laws of evolution." Darwin's theory was quickly and widely accepted among German biologists, a fact Darwin noted with approval, telling a friend, "The support which I receive from Germany is my chief ground for hoping that our views will ultimately prevail." Darwinism provided the lingo for "scientific" racism at the onset of the twentieth century. Not only were all eugenicists Darwinists, but nearly all Darwinists were scientific racists.

I never thought social Darwinism made sense, being more in Stephen Jay Gould's anti-social Darwininst Mismeasure of Man camp myself. But most Darwinists thought it did make sense, and that is very well documented. And, come to think of it,for much of his life Gould was an indifferently loyal Darwinist.

Update 1:

Barry Arrington, the lawyer for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine responds to the combox below:

As the attorney for the families of six of the students killed at Columbine, I read through every single page of Eric Harris’ jounals; I listened to all of the audio tapes and watched the videotapes, including the infamous “basement tapes.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that Harris was a worshiper of Darwin and saw himself as acting on Darwinian principles. For example, he wrote: “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms . . . but it’s all natural! YES!”

Elsewhere he wrote: “NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards.” I could multiply examples, but you get the picture.

Here, Arrington reflections on the ethical agonies of questioning the parents of Eric Harris.

Sorry, fanatical Darwinists. You must eat this one or back off. And don't bother bugging the University of Toronto either. They know I am teaching an adult night school course and they DON'T care.

Update 2. The Finnish school shooter's video has been removed from the Internet. A source tells me

The Finland school shooter's video has been removed from the internet. It is understandable that few media now want to cite his ideology at length. Here website here still has a long citation of the boy's statement. His strong ideological roots in Darwinism are more obvious than you will learn from the mass media.

Here is a still-working link for what are said to be Auvinen's views.

Go here for story updates.

Here is a still-working link for what are said to be his views.
Go here, here, here or here (German) for other copies/believed authentic items so far not purged.

Update 3

A friend sends a video clip of Dawkins making the point that a fanatical faith can cause people to become violent.

Dawkins said [01:14 - 02:17]:

“If you teach children or teach people, that there is a virtue in faith. If you teach people that it's OK to believe something in the absence of evidence. Maybe even it's more virtuous to believe something if there's no evidence than if there is and that's certainly part of the message that gets across.

And that's what is told by the moderate, decent, middle of the road, religious teachers. If you believe that, then if you have any tendency toward extremism at all, there is really nothing to stop you pushing your extreme views to the logical conclusion which is to kill people. Why would you not if you've been persuaded that this is what Allah wants you to do or Jehovah wants you to do? And you really really really truly believe it and you've been talked to really really truly believe it by those moderate teachers, then why wouldn't you blow people up, blow yourself up, etc.”

So, here we have a case of someone killing in name of Natural Selection!

(My friend hat tips Telic Thoughts.)

Final reflections on this topic:

This tragedy has provoked an enormous outburst of protest from Darwinists on account of my noting that the shooter's motive was social Darwinism. On the rare occasions when a shooter's motive has been anti-abortion advocacy ( Rudolph) or fundamentalist madness ( Yates), I have NEVER been excoriated by an anti-abortionist or fundamentalist for openly discussing that fact. Indeed, these types of cases were openly discussed among Christian journalists at a number of gatherings in which I participated over the last decade, with conspicuously little defensiveness. We had long accepted that some forms of anti-abortion advocacy and fundamentalism are toxic.

So this storm of comments has been a real eye-opener for me (and I probably rejected more than I accepted, so readers never saw all the somniferous posturing I did). The storm suggests that - despite claims - Darwinists have never dealt with the legacy of social Darwinism in an emotionally healthy enough way to just put it all behind them. Now that may be because the actual worldview of Darwinism necessitates social Darwinism. Or it may be because no one has said, "let's just do it." Or someone has said that, but the troops didn't get it. It's not really my problem though.

I have now shut off comments to this post. That is principally for reasons of time management. I wanted to provide a resource on this subject, and have done so. Conspiracy theorists are welcome to invent additional reasons for my actions if preferring to spend my time on more productive areas seems unbelievable.

Expelled: Did Darwin really lead to Hitler? Better question: Did the suggestion lead to free publicity?

Bioethicist Arthur Caplan is convinced that Expelled isn't only bad, it's "immoral." and that principal character Ben Stein is guilty of "Holocaust denial." Forthat matter, Dave Springer over at Uncommon Descent has been pretty upset about it too.

Actually, it is a historical fact that the Nazis were very much influenced by Darwin. That doesn't mean Darwin or anyone else agreed with the Nazis. But people who go ballistic when his profound influence on the Nazis is discussed are just not facing reality - just as they were unable to face reality about the Finnish school shooter who was motivated by Darwinism.

Historian of Germany Richard Weikart's April 8, 2008 article in American Spectator offers:

As I show in meticulous detail in my book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, the Nazis' devaluing of human life derived from Darwinian ideology (this does not mean that all Nazi ideology came from Darwinism). There were six features of Darwinian theory that have contributed to the devaluing of human life (then and now):

1. Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, attacked the "anthropocentric" view that humans are unique and special.

2. Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul. He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes. ...

Weikart recently defended his view against Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse as well, in a debate at Stanford.

Here is my own view for what it is worth: I think the Holocaust link was a marketing ploy on the part of the producers. A film like Expelled risks being a flop d'estime, as Malcolm Muggeridge liked to say. Another worthy documentary. Yawn.

Okay, so how to avoid the death sentence of mere worthiness? Well, first, didn't some of the same marketers work on The Passion of the Christ? Some Anti-Defamation League people, among others, saw early rough cuts and spread the word that the film was anti-Semitic.

Well, after that, the lib-left commentariat guaranteed that EVERYONE knew about The Passion. Tsk. Tsk. How awful that those Christians would do this! And isn't that just like them too? You could hear the pundits gloat miles off.

And, every bit as helpful for the Passion film, lots of yer-grannies and Christianettes, male and female, obsessed in print about the film's alleged anti-Semitism.

Instant critics, many of whom had never been invited to see a cut, trotted out all kinds of alleged problems, like "We are told that Jesus speaks Latin with Pontius Pilate? Shouldn't the two speak Aramaic or Koine?" (Many are critics, few are screenwriters.)

The buzz continued until the opening, and of course the Passion was a huge success. IMDB says it had more pre-ticket sales than any other film in history. The anti-Semitism accusation, having got people's attention, faded into the ka-CHING of the box office. (Viewers saw that the Jewish leaders don't come off well in the film, but the Romans are the real creeps.)

Curiously, it later came out (2006) that Mel Gibson did have anti-Semitic tendencies (at least when tested over the limit for alcohol). Obviously, his film's critics didn't know that in 2003. Had they known, their revelations would have had a devastating impact. But years later, that all just sank out of sight. Timing isn't everything, but it's 50% of marketing.

So now, back to Arthur Caplan: I recall Caplan defending the firing of people who doubt Darwinian evolution years ago. So if he thought the film was good, he would keep quiet about it, wouldn't he? And silence from the commentariat has killed more non-materialist projects than any attacks have ever done.

So wouldn't the Expelled marketers use a surefire ploy like "Darwin leads to Hitler" to get Caplan talking about Expelled? Sure Caplan thinks it's all lies, but what else is new? No one thought he'd like it. The goal wasn't to get him to like it, but to get him to talk about it.

If he keeps it up long enough, he will earn what they didn't have to pay him.

What did Hitler believe about evolution?: From the Comments box

I'm not sure how many people read the - often very interesting - comments in the comments boxes, so I want to draw your attention to a pair of them:

In response to the post on the Coral Ridge TV special on social Darwinism, blogger Steven Carr commented that Hitler was a creationist:

Hitler, of course, believed that mankind was specially created.

Hitler explicitly rejected Darwinism and the evolution of man.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for the night of the 25th to 26th 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.
A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

However, Cal State prof Richard Weikart, who specializes in Hitler and the Nazis' view of Darwinism, responded to Carr, saying:

Stephen Carr has perceptively located a passage from Hitler's table talks (which were off-the-cuff conversations he held with his colleagues), which seems to deny that humans evolved from apes. If this were all we knew about Hitler's views on the subject, Mr. Carr would have a strong case; we could conclude that Hitler did not even believe in human evolution (though this same passage implies that he does believe in the evolution of animals and plants).
However, Mr. Carr ignores a multitude of passages in Hitler's writings (which should carry more weight than off-the-cuff comments) and speeches. In _Mein Kampf_, especially in the chapter, "Nation and Race," Hitler expostulates on his evolutionary views and their application to humanity. Hitler's _Second Book_, especially the first two chapters, spend even more time discussing human evolution and the human struggle for existence. And, Mr. Carr also overlooked some passages in the table talks (see Oct. 24, 1941, for example), where Hitler explicitly rejected creationism in favor of evolution.

I should also note that I don't know of any reputable historians who claim that Hitler was a creationist, but almost all historians admit he was a social Darwinist.

My own view is that the reason for the controversy around films like the Coral Ridge special is precisely the fact that Darwinists have never really dealt with the implications of social Darwinism, so it keeps coming back to them like a bad penny.

While we are on this subject, here are some other recent posts on Hitler/ Hitler fans and Darwinism, to add to the mix:

Prof Richard Weikart, again, as horrified by student views on the moral neutrality of Hitler:

A number of years ago two intelligent students surprised me in a class discussion by defending the proposition that Hitler was neither good nor evil. Though I kept my composure, I was horrified. One of the worst mass murderers in history wasn't evil? How could they believe this? How could they justify such a view?

They did it by appealing to Darwinism.

H.L. Mencken as Hitler fan:

H.L. Mencken, who popularized the view that only the booboisie would oppose Darwinism, supported eugenics. While I am here, I have noticed a tendency in American literati to refuse to face up to the fact the Mencken was a Hitler fan and an anti-democrat, as Terry Teachout shows. I am always hearing excuses, excuses, excuses for Mencken from the lar-di-dah quarters. Why?

Steve Gould on Darwinism as promoting racism by orders of magnitude:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850 but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Philosopher Fr. Edwin Oakes on Darwinism as unmitigated disaster:

But leaving aside whether natural selection actually does any explanatory work, the importation of that concept into human relations has been nothing but an unmitigated disaster for the 20th century: Karl Marx, John D. Rockefeller and Adolf Hitler were all enthusiastic Darwinians.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

New Film Special: Darwin's Deadly Legacy?

Apparently, Coral Ridge Hour, hosted by Dr. D. James Kennedy, is hosting a special called Darwin's Deadly Legacy, on the legacy of social Darwinism (= sterilizing or murdering people who are thought to be unfit, sometimes called eugenics). There is a whole history there, ably recounted in a sober way by Richard Weikart's From Darwin to Hitler.

I think it quite worthwhile that Coral Ridge wants to explore the legacy of social Darwinism, on the "never again" principle.

However, some cautions might also be well advised.

Strictly speaking, the social Darwinists were completely off the wall in their understanding of Darwinism, as agnostic Australian philosopher David Stove points out.

For example, Darwin himself disapproved, apparently, of vaccination because it preserved weak people. He wrote in 1874:

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 poorlaws; 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. (p. 9, quoting Darwin, c. (1874) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (2nd edition) John Murray, London, Vol. I, pp. 205-6.)

Now, in writing as he did in this specific instance, Darwin was being a true Darwinist (though according to Stove's Darwinian Fairytales, he often wasn't).

That is, if you believe that natural selection is the main force that creates diversity and adaptation in the world, you should not interfere via eugenics. After all, the prison sociopath's selfish genes are probably much better adapted to sheer survival and continuance than are those of the musical genius. The prison socio may well produce eight children on his "trailer weekends," whom he compels taxpayers to support. The musical genius, by contrast, may produce one or two at best, but very often none.

Yet most human beings who have ever lived would prefer to forego the evolutionary benefits of the sociopath's selfish genes. Whenever they can, they execute him or keep him locked up, and offer awards, prizes, and fan clubs to the musical genius instead. That approach to human survival seems quite sound to me - but it is hardly Darwinism.

Here's where the social Darwinists went wrong: They took from Darwinism the lack of respect for the human being as anything other than a brainy ape. But they still wanted to smuggle into Darwinian philosophy at least some respect for human culture and decency, because they were not willing to give all that up. So they developed the worst possible solution: Instead of helping the halt, the lame, and the blind, as well as bumpkins and dullards, because God loves them (the traditional view) OR letting nature take its course (the only reasonable Darwinian view), the social Darwinist came up with a new view that was far worse than either: A system for mass riddance of people who fail a cultural or medical standard.

If they were true Darwinists, they would have just done nothing instead of done murder, for the same reason that Darwin saw a problem with vaccinations.

So we need to be clear here: Social Darwinism is very bad. But, strictly speaking, it is not Darwinism. No human being can live with what Darwinism entails, which is why it so quickly morphed into a bastard social Darwinism.

Neither Darwin nor most of his loyal followers clearly saw the problem because they could not live with the consequences of their own theory. The confusion continues: After the Nazi eugenic horror was fully revealed, people decided to get rid of social Darwinism, but assumed that it was Darwinism in some sense. They couldn't have lived with Darwinism either, but they did not realize that.

Then we reacted by vilifying the Nazis - which is 100 percent fine with me, as far as it goes - but, as Richard Weikart points out, we must see clearly the origin of the problem or we have no assurance that we won't repeat it: Darwinism cannot provide a reasonable account of the human being.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Intelligent design film: Volunteer's account of what really happened when Darwinist was kicked out of the screening

Update March 28, 2008 4:45 pm:

I was in a press conference a few minutes ago for the Expelled documentary (about scientists who are persecuted for questioning Darwinism and other materialist evolution theories). Ben Stein, the film's lead, producer Mark Mathis, and others were there.

Mathis confirmed that he kicked PZ Myers out of the film to make a point (Myers endorses the destruction of the careers of those who question Darwinism, yet he was really upset about getting booted from a film).

And ... Myers apparently somehow got into the press conference itself! - "under false pretences" according to the moderator. He was told to be quiet, and he rung off (to the best of my knowledge). He told the media to phone HIM instead.

Greg, at Hollywood Jesus live blogged the affair and is promising updates.

Strangely, while he was in the telemeeting, Myers insisted that Darwinism had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. Of course, historically, Darwin was an enormous influence on the Nazis because his Descent of Man appeared to put racism on a scientific footing. That does not mean (and the Expelled guys made clear that they did not think it means) that today's Darwinists have anything to do with Nazism. But it is a historical fact that Darwin was one of the Nazis' heroes, as historian Richard Weikart painstakingly shows.

Update March 28, 2008 6:51 pm EST A friend writes: "PZ explains on his blog that he dialed in 5 minutes early and overheard the Motive staff describe the secret password required for two-way talking (which some of the interviewees needed to know).

No super spy stuff required…just dialed in early and got lucky."

(Actually, I think, friend, that the Motive staff are NAIVE! They don't understand how bankrupt Darwinism is and what Darwinists will do to protect it. Why didn't they understand this before they got involved?)

Update March 28 2008 10:15 pm EST: Another friend writes to say, "If I was a betting man, I’d put my money on a Motive staff plan to intentionally leak the two-way password five minutes prior, knowing that PZ could not resist dialing in and crashing another party. I think these guys are a little more savvy then you give them credit for…their job is marketing and they are good at what they do…they sit around and dream this kind of stuff up!"

Okay, 10:15 pm EST friend, my own view is that PZ craves attention because he has neither good evidence that his theories are true nor a distinguished publication record. If it was a Premise Media strategy, as my friend believes, it may be miscalculated. Many journalists in the legacy media are about as independent in these matters as dairy cows. (Cows who are not milked face really, really serious suffering, so they must go along with barn routines.) I myself am perpetually amazed at the stupidities that science journalists will believe, but then I co-wrote a book in which that was a major theme, The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul. Most of the time, their gullibility was hilarious.

Update March 29 2008 11:05 am EST: Here's PZ on the stunt. He doesn't "feel" set up, but I just don't know.

March 29 2008 5:46 am EST: Here's an account of the teleconference that gives some idea of the sort of people who seek to ruin the careers of scientists who doubt Darwin. Note that, in this account, all errors and crimes of Darwin's followers are denied - indeed, definitions constantly shift so no error can ever be pinned down - until you look for a more rational, less hate-filled account. In an era when the Catholic Church has apologized for historic wrongs, this sort of thing should arouse suspicion, quite apart from the general bad character and free indulgence of hate that the site exhibits.) Note: It was submitted, I think twice, to the combox and I don't publish naked URLs, so I have placed it here.


Here are some clips from Expelled.


March 28, 2008 3:45 am: Re the new level of caution around the screenings of Expelled (the documentary about the suppression of scientists whose research shows that there is design in the universe), line producer Mark Mathis writes back to say, "Yes, that's the concern, that illegal recording will occur with the intent to damage the film."

The part I don't get is, why didn't Mathis think of that before? There's a huge scandal just under the surface - the suppression of evidence against materialist theories of all kinds. The suppressors are deadly serious ideologically, and most are funded by tax money.

Plus, they have thousands of media allies who have never considered for a moment the possibility that materialism might not be true - because they never hear, let alone report, the evidence that disconfirms it.

Well, in my experience, people who land up in this arena almost always learn the hard way what they face ...

March 28, 2008 10:49 AM I interviewed Mark recently, and he said,

MATHIS: The national media has a very high concentration of people who are liberal, agnostic, or atheist. That creates self-reinforcing feedback.

DOL: Self-reinforcing feedback ... you mean, they don't know many people who disagree with them? So they keep hearing that they are right all the time and they believe it. Their own opinions bouncing from wall to wall?

MATHIS: That's right. Today, we have a very large percentage of agenda journalists - so convinced they are right that they don't protect themselves against their own biases.

These agenda journalists tend to be at the top - they are outspoken, absolutely convinced, and determined to tell stories according to their own philosophy. At a lower level, you get people who are really not thinking about it. They tell their stories with a bias that they don't even realize they have.

So the big question is, can Mark's film survive the onslaught? Given that he was in TV news for ten years, I will put my lunch money on that.

While I am here, here's a video interview between American evangelical RC Sproul and Ben Stein, star of Expelled. I presume you can see Ben in long pants again, but write to tell me if it ain't so.

Update March 27 2008 7:22 pm EST : Line producer of Expelled, Mark Mathis, writes to say, re the cancellation of some screenings, "Some cancelled, most rescheduled. Big concerns about piracy. Also very hard to keep up with all the demands."

I have written back to ask whether he means by "piracy" that surreptitious videocam-ing from the audience could result in, for example, stuff on YouTube - stuff that won't even make the final cut.

It is certainly true that they are concerned about piracy. I cannot get a DVD from them myself and, as a journalist and published author who makes her living by writing, I would be the last person to support violation of intellectual property rights. (This annoys me because it creates a problem for me, as the film won't open in Canada till AFTER April 18.)

Update March 26 2:04 pm: I have just been informed that further Expelled screenings have been cancelled for security reasons. I will update when I have more information. The film will open as planned in April, according to my sources. Also, the story is leading in the blogosphere. So is Ben Stein, I gather.

Update March 26, 2008 8:41 pm A credible source informs me that some of the screenings have been cancelled, but that others are planned, and that he himself was asked to chase guests for new screenings. Hmmm. Is it possible that the Expelled folk are changing venues to avoid planned disruptions? Well, we'll see.

Update March 26, 2008 4:09 pm According to the Web site, the film will be in theatres March 18, and you can find out from
Carmike when it is coming to town. (Or get together a party to phone them up to tell them not to show it, thus guaranteeing DVD sales.) Also, you can get group rates, so if you are Darwin fans, you can all go together and boo in unison. (Yes, I DO think that way about you. And NO, PZ Myers is NOT a nice guy. Anyone who doubts this, scroll down for some of his comments. Check out this, for example, but I quote some of it below, in what is becoming a very long post, I see. But at least it's all here in one place.)

Update March 26, 2008 4:31 pm: Here's some stats from Premise Media on the Technorati blog popularity results.

SANTA FE, N.M. (BUSINESS WIRE)--Something amazing happened yesterday. The controversy around Premise Media’s upcoming movie Ben Stein’s EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed became the hottest topic in the blogosphere. According to BlogPulse, a service of Nielsen Buzzmetrics, the issue held the number one slot throughout the day on Monday, March 24th (http://www.blogpulse.com). There were also over 800 results on Technorati (www.technorati.com).

“It is amazing to see the reaction of PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and their cohorts when one of them is simply expelled from a movie. Yet these men applaud when professors throughout the nation are fired from their jobs and permanently excluded from their profession for mentioning Intelligent Design,” said producer Mark Mathis. Mathis was at the event that has raised this controversy.

Mathis continued, “I hope PZ’s experience has helped him see the light. He is distraught because he could not see a movie. What if he wasn’t allowed to teach on a college campus or was denied tenure? Maybe he will think twice before he starts demanding more professors be blacklisted and expelled simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin's theory.”

I've got some calls and mail out to various places to find out why they cancelled the rest of the advance screening. Maybe security, as I first heard, or maybe they don't feel they need them now, or who knows?

PZ Myers, who was evicted from an Expelled screening last Thursday, was the person who said

The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.

Update March 26, 2008 12:51 pm

[Update notes from March 25 and following are below.]

A friend tells me Expelled was cut down from 8 hours to 90 minutes. That is more or less normal. It probably means that people who think they are in it may not be in the end. They will most likely be on the DVD.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette observes that Myers himself said,

Oh, well. I have two warnings for the creationists.

One, I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That's going to be fun.
Two, next time I'm asked to be recorded for a creationist propaganda film, I will demand more money, and a flight and a limousine to the premiere. They can pay for my tuxedo rental, too. And my hotel room will have a jacuzzi and a bowl of M&Ms — green ones only.

Well, I can certainly see why he didn't endear himself to Mark Mathis.

The prospect of him cheering "loudly" wouldn't endear him to me.

She adds

Sounds like disruption to me-- you try it sometime, bet you get kicked out of the movie.

Hat tip Ffs!

(Note: She originally posted this in the combox here.)

Someone whose comment I rejected wrote to tell me that PZ Myers is a nice guy in person. I don't care, okay. I am entitled to take him at his word as provided in his posts, linked above and below. And I intend to - unless he informs me personally that it is all hogwash, in which case, ....

Also, a friend asks, given Myers's well-advertised views,

Would a known Christian, especially one with a known ID persuasion, be able to take a course under Myers without fear of intimidation, ridicule, belittling and threats found on his web site?

Well, here is his university's policy on the subject:

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. Inquiries regarding compliance may be directed to the UMM Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Officer at (320) 589-6021.

While we are here, you would think that so zealous a defender of "science" as Myers would have a stellar publication record. Friends searched for me and this is all they could find (though it only goes back twelve years):

Ethanol teratogenesis in the zebrafish, Danio rerio.
Author(s): Myers PZ, Larson M, Hartwell M
Source: DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY Volume: 235 Issue: 1 Pages: 245-245 Meeting Abstract: 339 Published: JUL 1 2001
Times Cited: 0

2. Title: Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with calcium sensitive dye
Author(s): Dudkin EA, Myers PZ, Ramirez-Latorre JA, et al.
Source: NEUROSCIENCE LETTERS Volume: 258 Issue: 2 Pages: 124-126 Published: DEC 18 1998
Times Cited: 4

Dudkin EA. Myers PZ. Ramirez-Latorre JA. Gruberg ER. Calcium signals monitored from leopard frog optic tectum after the optic nerve has been selectively loaded with calcium sensitive dye. [Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] Neuroscience Letters. 258(2):124-6, 1998 Dec 18.
UI: 9875543

Stachel SE. Grunwald DJ. Myers PZ. Lithium perturbation and goosecoid expression identify a dorsal specification pathway in the pregastrula zebrafish. [Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.] Development. 117(4):1261-74, 1993 Apr.
UI: 8104775

Myers PZ. Bastiani MJ. Growth cone dynamics during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone. [Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] Journal of Neuroscience. 13(1):127-43, 1993 Jan.
UI: 8423468

Myers PZ. Bastiani MJ. Cell-cell interactions during the migration of an identified commissural growth cone in the embryonic grasshopper. [Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] Journal of Neuroscience. 13(1):115-26, 1993 Jan. UI: 8423467

Myers PZ. Bastiani MJ. NeuroVideo: a program for capturing and processing time-lapse video. [Journal Article. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] Computer Methods & Programs in Biomedicine. 34(1):27-33, 1991 Jan.
UI: 2036787

Metcalfe WK. Myers PZ. Trevarrow B. Bass MB. Kimmel CB. Primary neurons that express the L2/HNK-1 carbohydrate during early development in the zebrafish. [Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] Development. 110(2):491-504, 1990 Oct.
UI: 1723944

Myers PZ. Eisen JS. Westerfield M. Development and axonal outgrowth of identified motoneurons in the zebrafish. [Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] Journal of Neuroscience. 6(8):2278-89, 1986 Aug.
UI: 3746410

Eisen JS. Myers PZ. Westerfield M. Pathway selection by growth cones of identified motoneurones in live zebra fish embryos. [Journal Article. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] Nature. 320(6059):269-71, 1986 Mar 20-26.
UI: 3960108

Myers PZ. Spinal motoneurons of the larval zebrafish. [Journal Article. Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.] Journal of Comparative Neurology. 236(4):555-61, 1985 Jun 22.
UI: 4056102

Green DM. Myers PZ. Reyna DL. CHROMPAC III: an improved package for microcomputer-assisted analysis of karyotypes. [Journal Article] Journal of Heredity. 75(2):143, 1984 Mar-Apr.
UI: 6546940

Funny, my lead author on The Spiritual Brain, Mario Beauregard, has 70 publications and I suppose he is in the same age range as PZ.


Plus: Here are a zillion links to the controversy from Greg Laden. Note also Brazilian news coverage.

March 24, 2008: Update note from line producer Mark Mathis, who writes me to say:

"You should know that I invited Michael shermer to a screening at NRB in Nashville. He came and is writing a review for scientific American. I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more. "

Note: See also the earlier post on PZ Myers getting expelled from Expelled.

For convenience, where there are further developments (and there clearly are), I will update from here, and it's not my fault if the story is confusing.

March 25 2008:

8: 11 am: Chris Hewitt of the Minneapolis-based Pioneer Press writes

"Expelled," subtitled "No Intelligence Allowed," is the controversial film that argues schools should be teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution. Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota-Morris -- and, more to the point, a
prominent atheist -- was interviewed for "Expelled" last April, although he says he was told the film was an evenhanded look at the intersection of science and religion and was to be called
"Crossroads."

I will be very surprised if the film "argues schools should be teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution." I assume that Ben's school in the film is a metaphor. (While we are here, the Discovery Institute does NOT think that intelligent design should be taught in schools, only that arguments against Darwin's theory should be permitted.)

Hewitt - like many people - would be very surprised, I think, at just how bad the evidence is for Darwinian and other materialist evolution. But don't believe me, read Michael Behe's Edge of Evolution. For example, there is very little evidence that Darwin's natural selection functions as a source of new information - which it must do if it is to have the status Darwinists insist on. That is WHY expressing public doubt is so risky. A huge amount of prestige and grant money is at stake.

Hewitt goes on to note:

"Myers was in the Twin Cities this week for the American Atheists Conference 2008 in Minneapolis and, coincidentally, he learned there was to be a free screening of "Expelled" at the Mall of America Thursday night. So he registered to attend with his wife, Mary, along with what Myers called "a whole parade of atheists," including internationally famous science writer, Richard Dawkins, whose books include "The God Delusion."

"They all got in, but Myers did not.

So could there be anything unusual about Myers that annoyed the organizers?

Well, a friend draws my attention to some Myers comments at Raving Atheist:

(WARNING: You are about to read the sort of language that pretty much guarantees that a comment will not see the light of day at THIS blog. But I have no means of explaining what I think is going on otherwise.)

On politics:

Howard Dean was my favorite in the last big campaign. If someone stands up and says what they think and tells the wingnuts and religiots to go sit on their thumbs and spin, they'll get my vote.

At one point, the interviewer asks, "In a related matter, how come when I enter the search term "demented fuckwit" into Pharyngula I get about a zillion hits?" (09-20-2007, 08:34 PM)

Myers's reply:

Somebody's got to be in charge with slapping around the demented fuckwits. The position has devolved on me. (09-20-2007, 08:39 PM)

The whole interview may be enlightening if you've the stomach.

Reading it, I now get a much clearer sense of what probably happened at the theatre at Mall of America last Thursday night.

Here's my take: Mark Mathis does not mind atheists in general but he did not want THIS guy in the theatre at his private (= non-commercial) screening. The point about making PZ "to pay to see it" comes down to this: If PZ came to the theatre for a regular commercial screening - not a private screening organized by the producer - and didn't mind his mouth, well that would be somebody else's problem, not Mark's.

Actually, I don't doubt there is more to the story. But this kind of thing has got to be a factor. I would love to see a security video.

March 25 2008 7:09 am EST:

Volunteer Leonard Gee, whose account of PZ's ejection is provided below, writes to clarify,

I was a volunteer and eyewitness at the Minneapolis Expelled movie where Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers showed up uninvited to this private event. PZ MYERS was asked to leave by security. Dawkins was admitted. Thank you also for posting my comments about the Expelled Minneapolis showing which Expelled Associate Producer Mark sent you. "Anonymous" on this blog questioned my comment pondering why Dawkins used a passport and not a driver's license. Blogger Al offered this explanation as a possibility:until 10 years or so ago, UK driving licenses simply did not have a photograph on them Thanks Al. To me that seems like a very reasonable explanation. My main point was simply to witness what I saw..in this case the fact that Dawkins signed in under "Clinton" and used a passport.
- Leonard Gee

My own view is that some are hoping that the uproar around PZ Myers can be used to discredit the film itself. My sense is that that won't happen. Not getting admitted to a private screening under controversial circumstances is hardly the same thing as suffering a concerted effort to ruin one's career, which is what happened to a number of ID-friendly scientists - with the hearty endorsement of PZ Myers, as you can see from the quote above. That is precisely what Expelled is about.

For the first time - in this film - many members of the public will get to see what Darwinism looks like up close - how the Darwinists enforce against anyone who questions their dogma. I wouldn't have believed it myself ten years ago. But it is what the evidence actually shows. There is no question that the history of life did NOT unfold the way they say, but the public trough is a hard habit to break, and they show no sign of wanting to break it.


March 24, 2008 9:55 pm EST A friend offers some angst posts at the science blogs:

Cognitive Daily

PZ's posts:

"Expelled"

"Late night quick one"

"Busy busy busy"


My friend notes that this blogger is collecting the links to all the blog posts about the incident:
"PZ Myers Expelled, gains sainthood"

I am told to expect more information soon. If I don't hear from anyone, I think I will just buy the DVD and send it to Myers.

12:52 pm: At Uncommon Descent, Dave Springer argues that the explanation for the discrepancy between the Expelled producers' account and Dawkins's and Myers's account about whether Myers received an invite to the Expelled screening is that Myers was gaming the system by responding to an invitation he had not actually received.

He fooled the host by gaming the invitation/response system employed. The host wasn’t checking RSVPs against a list of invitations sent out but rather just assumed that any RSVP received was in response to an invitation sent out.

Perhaps PZ will issue a statement on this. Meanwhile, I will still pay for his ticket if he agrees to sit through the film.

In other news, the Inside Higher Ed weighs in on the whole affair, opining

The movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is already generating press in advance of its April 18 release. With a widely recognizable host, an explosive topic and a self-consciously conspiratorial tone, the slickly produced documentary at least has the ingredients for success on a Michael Moore scale. While popular conceptions of academe as a haven for aloof, godless eggheads isn’t uncommon, some scholars are especially worried that the movie could make an end run around science and take a misleading message to the public. The producers retort that intelligent design, prohibited in the classroom, has rightly reappeared in the cineplex.

Well, if you WANT an idea to spread, make it sound dangerous. If they taught ID in the classroom, most students would just snore through it. Now they won't.

Note: The above link originally read "Chronicle of Higher Ed". A helpful reader corrected the error for me. The reader insists that there is a big difference between the two politically, but I don't know.

Oh, and here's Richard Dawkins's account of Expelled:

The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.

Now, to the film itself. What a shoddy, second-rate piece of work. A favourite joke among the film-making community is the 'Lord Privy Seal'. Amateurs and novices in the making of documentaries can't resist illustrating every significant word in the commentary by cutting to a picture of it. The Lord Privy Seal is an antiquated title in Britain's heraldic tradition. The joke imagines a low-grade film director who illustrates it by cutting to a picture of a Lord, then a privy, and then a seal. Mathis' film is positively barking with Lord Privy Seals.

I take it that he didn't have a good time, so I am glad if he didn't have to pay. If line producer Mark Mathis takes up my idea, neither will PZ have to pay. (I have offered to pay for PZ's ticket if he watches the film all the way to the end.)


9:05 am Meanwhile, science journalist Chris Mooney argues that Myers' getting the bum's rush out of the theatre will probably help Expelled.

A friend writes to say,

- after getting several comments from his readers suggesting that this is NOT good for 'Expelled' Mooney wrote the following...........
"could you folks please try, just this one time, to check your highly developed critical faculties at the door, and accept that most Americans don't see it your way, and won't? All they'll know is that Ben Stein has a new movie out and it's really controversial and getting a lot of attention."

Well, thanks to Darwin's fans, they probably know a bit more now ....

Another friend writes to remind me that the worst thing that could happen to Expelled would be indifference. You know, polite applause and all that. He asks me to remember Gibson's The Passion of the Christ. Screams from The New York Times about the film supposedly being anti-Semitic got it free publicity Gibson just couldn't buy.

I think that the ID guys should give the Times's Cornelia Dean the Phillip Johnson Wedge award for really putting the Expelled advance screenings on the map with her story about PZ's ouster. Unless they would prefer to give it to PZ himself.

Apparently Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers posted a YouTube video on March 22 on Myers's expulsion from Expelled. It's been viewed 1866 times since then (9:18 am EST) and is worth watching for their side of the story.

I think that Mark Mathis should let me pay for a ticket for Myers. Because I can link to his blog when he trashes the film, it would be a business expense for me.
But Myers would have to agree to sit through the film before running off to trash it. None of this, "I really tried, I sincerely honestly tried" stuff. If I pay, he ruddy watches the film.


So many people are coming to the blog today, that I should really take the opportunity to advertise my books. Here they are. The earlier story follows:




Earlier story:

Well, we have heard from Cornelia Dean of The New York Times that

Two evolutionary biologists — P. Z. Myers of the University of Minnesota, Morris, and Richard Dawkins of Oxford — tried to go to the movies at the Mall of America in Minneapolis Thursday evening. Dr. Dawkins got in. Dr. Myers did not.

On those facts, everybody agrees. After that, things break down.

Well, I asked line producer Mark Mathis what he recalls from the evening, he sent me the account of a volunteer, Leonard Gee, which he said I had permission to post. I have changed the post only by adding some hard returns, for paragraphing, and cleaning up inevitable bad code:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Minneapolis, Minnesota preview screening

March 20th 2008

As a local volunteer from Minneapolis, Minnesota I assisted with setting up the special Minneapolis preview screening of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The movie was set up specifically for specially invited guests of the film.

Unfortunately, more than just invited guests showed up. In fact several other rather notable uninvited guests also showed up as well - one by the name of P.Z. Myers and the other well known atheist Richard Dawkins (who were also in the film). After notifying the security at the Mall of America the P.Z. Myers was attempting to actually enter the theatre uninvited- the Mall of America security politely insisted he leave the theatre.

As the remaining movie guests filed past the volunteer I.D. checker several remaining Myers family members and friends, notably among them the atheist Richard Dawkins, checked in as a Myers invited guest.

Richard Dawkins signed in using the name ³Clinton² Dawkins and used his passport-rather then a drivers license to enter the theater as a guest of the Myers. (This is usually the kind of drama I am used to seeing on the screen once inside the movie theatre on the screen-and not in the hallway of a movie theatre. I knew it was going to be an very ³interesting² night ahead- indeed!).

Before the movie started, producer Mark Mathis first briefly introduced the film. Because this was a special early preview of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, producer Mark Mathis mentioned that the film version we would be watching would be projected a bit dimly- as this was not the final directors-cut version of the film.

In spite of some minor technical issues with this early version of the movie I must say - the film really did a remarkable job presenting the controversy and really delivered on content. The imagery of the film was both powerful and beautiful- while at the same time nostalgic films clips injected some needed levity into a rather serious film subject.

The basic premise of the movie is simply that there should be a fair and open forum to present both Darwinian theory and Intelligent Design theory. The film suggests there should be academic freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, however, as the movie points out with numerous examples: openness within the academic community is slowly eroding and being replaced by a kind of academic political correctness.

Academia is slowly being closed off to new ideas - even scientific ones. The movie presents to the audience numerous dramatic examples of where there has been radical suppression of alternative scientific theories (hence the title of the film).

Why is this happening exactly? The movie suggests it is because scientists and academics simply dare to ask questions and about Darwinian evolutionary theory- which must be not be questioned. The movie provides numerous dramatic examples of this academic intolerance from Darwinists towards Intelligent Design theory.

Question and Answer session

Other than the movie itself, another highlight of the evening for me was the wonderful discussion that took place with producer Mark Mathis during his post-film Q&A session.

Although the general tone of the discussion was very civil things become energized when it became apparent that Richard Dawkins,one of the main interviewees in the film, was in the audience.

Dawkins stood up and abruptly started firing off questions at Producer Mark Mathis - who politely and very professionally informed the audience that this person was well-known atheist Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins stood up and questioned Mathis on several issues. He questioned Mathis on why P.Z. Myers was denied access to the free preview showing of the movie.

Mathis calmly responded by explaining that Myers had simply not been an invited guest to this free preview and pointed out the fact that he could pay to see the movie after its release.

(He also joked that he enjoyed the idea of Myers paying $8.00 to see the movie along with everyone else).

It certainly did not escape notice of myself or many in the theatre that Dawkins apparently also had entered into the free movie preview apparently as an uninvited guest.

After Mathis responded to Dawkins' first objection - Dawkins then claimed to object to the film on the premise that any interview he had done in the film was under the assumption that he was interviewed by Ben Stein and Mark Mathis for a film that was to be about the even-handed look at the Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian evolution controversy. The conversation basically went like this:

Dawkins: I agreed to be in the film under the assumption that I was being interviewed by Ben Stein (and by Mark Mathis) for a film that was to take an even-handed look at the Intelligent Design/Darwinian Evolution controversy.

Mathis- It was a fair treatment.

Dawkins--You got me into the movie under false pretenses.

Mathis- I told you that it was a movie about intelligent design and Darwinistic evolution controversy + (various other things that were in the
movie)

Dawkins: I was bending over backwards to define an example of what could be a potential source of life's origins. Repeats 'I was bending over backwards' several times. You ridiculed the alien concept.

Mathis- I did not ridicule the concept- we just showed in the movie what you said in response to the question.

Mathis- I want to correct- what you said on the radio show wasn't accurate; wasn't true (more discussion took place)

Dawkins- sorry I did misstate but it was a minor point.


Mathis:- I didn't think it was minor - you called me a liar.

At one point during the exchange between Mathis and Dawkins one unidentified audience member in the audience even politely stood up in obvious disagreement with Dawkins and correctly suggested that the main point of the film was that Intelligent Design should be presented along with Darwinian evolution.

Dawkins then attempted to try to continue in debate with Mathis even though Mathis had previously said that wanted the after-movie Q & A session to be about Q & A and not "debate". I really admired Mathis' smooth, controlled handling of the entire eveningŠespecially the Q & A session. He provided the forum with the type of welcoming and respectful open conversation - the kind of conversation and open discussion the film itself suggests should be much more commonplace -. especially within the academic community in America.

- Leonard Gee
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Meanwhile:

One blogger found himself expelled for even writing about the Expelled film.

In the next few hours, this blog post was visited by more than 10,000 new visitors. And many of them wrote to me, either via Comments on this blog, or by email. Almost all of them demonstrated clearly that they’ve already made up their minds about Expelled even before it is ready for theaters. And almost all of them seem to think that Stuart is launching some kind of nuclear attack on them and their evolutionist theories. They have risen up en masse and published character assassinations of Stuart, calling him “a shameful liar” and “a disgrce to his university,” when in fact he was just a college student and a moviegoer who sent me an off-the-cuff email telling me about his memorable moviegoing experience.
Sounds like somebody’s really scared. I’ve been buried in hate mail from evolutionists and athiests in the last 24 hours, much of it laced with obscenities and spectacular recommendations about sex acts that Christians should go and do with themselves. Ah, what fine representatives for their worldview. Very little of the response has borne any substance. (I’ve posted some of the comments that came in, but only those that were offered with civility and restraint. I eventually gave up on sifting through the pile for looking for more.)

Having heard these and other accusations - including a claim of a "fairly libelous"accusation from foxfier (the accuser seems unaware that foxfier is a woman), I contacted line producer Mark Mathis.

Incidentally, last summer, I (Denyse) was at a meeting where four scientists whose careers had been shipwrecked by frantic, persecutory Darwinists spoke about what had happened to them.

An elderly scientist got up and said that it almost provoked him to thoughts of violence, to think that these fine people should be so burdened by troubles and struggles because the evidence from their work did not support Darwin.

Well, maybe Expelled will help. Most of them are in the film, I gather.

Look, I can't help the fact that Darwinism isn't true. Nor can they. They - and I - just want the persecution to end.