Creationist quotemining of Darwin: moral relativism edition April 16, 2008
Posted by Evil Bender in Expelled Exposed, Religion, Science, quote mining, wingnuts.trackback
Over at Uncommon Descent, Richard Weikart is bragging about the “meticulous detail” in his book about how Darwinism is responsible for the Holocaust. But in typical Creationist fashion, he can’t even get through a summary of his points without blatant dishonesty. Writes Weikart
3. Darwin and other Darwinists recognized that if morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights. Darwin stated in his Autobiography that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”
Before I address Weikart’s shameless dishonesty, I should reiterate that the moral implications of evolutionary biology, not to mention Darwin’s own views on morality, are absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is true. Even if the Creationists were right–and they’re not–about Darwin’s supposed influence on Hitler, that would not change the fact of evolution one bit. And so their honesty is, at best, nothing more than “some people misuse facts; therefore facts are bad.”
But that point aside, they’re hideously wrong about their connection, engaged in Jonah Goldberg-style cherrypicking to create a false impression. And not content with that, they’re also deliberately distorting Darwin’s words to try to paint him (falsely) as a moral relativist. Sure, Weikart’s quotation of Darwin does make it seem that Darwin doesn’t believe in morality, but a quick look at that passage in context tells us Darwin’s real position:
A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation he will then not receive; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience.
Darwin’s suggestion that human morality rests on a combination of rationality and social sanction. That is a far cry from Weikart’s claim that Darwin is a denier of “objective human rights.” Darwin just saw as the objective basis of morality human rationality and experience, not the edicts of a strangely silent God.
Weikart would no doubt argue that this is still “subjective” in a sense, and might have a point, if he were really concerned with how to best define a moral code. But he isn’t–he’s trying desperately to make it appear that Darwin rejected the idea that we could know right from wrong. He’s implying–though cleverly avoiding stating–that Darwin was the dreaded moral relativist, when the passage in question indicates the opposite: that Darwin thought humans were all guided by a common moral compass; he definitely did not believe that all moral codes were equally valid, which is the claim of moral relativism.
So Weikart is a dishonest, quote-mining scumbag. I just wish it still surprised me when Creationists were revealed as such.
[For more on Expelled and Creationists lies about the Holocaust, check out Expelled Exposed.]
Darwin was in fact a philanthropist…
…which makes him a hypocrite as far as the implications of his theory are concerned.
Dawkins has the same sort of cold feet about embracing the cold, harsh moral implications of evolution [much to his credit].
But if it’s true, why shouldn’t our morality have evolved in such a way that we do not find these moral implications morally repugnant? Why does “survival of the fittest [and by implication the elimination of the weak and undesirable]” seem so unnatural to us? I’ll go out on a limb: Why does it seem so antithetical to the sense of morality and justice common to man?
–Sirius Knott
“I’ll go out on a limb: Why does it seem so antithetical to the sense of morality and justice common to man?”
Because you don’t understand evolutionary theory, and conflate science and morality.
I do understand evolutionary theory. You’re avoiding the question.
Again.
Science has implications for morality. Naturalistic science says that morality is a product of evolution, not that it came about by some other method [you know: God].
So why are the moral implications of evolution so morally repugnant? Shouldn’t our common morality be more in synch with the process that produced it? If not, why do you think it should not?
And remember: Before you get mad at me for asking these questions, before you simply brush me off with a snappy comeback, you chose to believe this theory – the least you can do is explain yourself.
–Sirius Knott
So why are the moral implications of evolution so morally repugnant? Shouldn’t our common morality be more in synch with the process that produced it? If not, why do you think it should not?
They aren’t necessarily morally repugnant or out of sync with the process that produced it. Even a cursory knowledge of current evolutionary research would have been enough for you to know about research into altruism, both in animals AND humans. Altruism is a common component of religion and can be see in such ideas as, “Do unto others ,as you would have them do unto you.” Your over-simplification of evolution to “survival of the fittest” ignores the fact that animals (and humans) routinely sacrifice themselves to protect others and share resources. These others are not always closely related, but the sacrifice is beneficial to the species overall. Since animals have no concept of religion or God, why do they do this? What is the advantage? The advantage is that these actions further the species.
The commandments:
Thou shalt not kill (your own kind, since killing other species for food is ok), thou shalt not steal, and honor thy father and mother could all be explained in terms of altruism in animals. 3 out of 10 isn’t bad. Especially when considering that the first 1-3 specifically invoke reverence for God, which doesn’t really speak to any sort of morality. The 4th is just a command to take a day of rest. That brings the count to 3 out of 6 that deal specifically with morality.
The same “you can’t explain X without God” argument, this time laced with some “moral implications of Darwinism” nonsense. I assume that you’ll be as stubbornly deaf to counterarguments as you were last time.
Hitler had some interesting views on the Darwinian concept that man had evolved from other animals.
From Hitler’s Tischgespraeche for 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.’
Hitler was influenced by the ideas of the Reverend Thomas Malthus, as was Darwin, and indeed as was everybody in the 20th century.
[...] from Evil Bender, Creationist quotemining of Darwin: moral relativism edition, has already called out the gross error in Weikart’s claim here — this is quite contrary [...]
Hmmm.
A. What does evolution say about morality?
Darwin said that the moral implications for humans are these: Humans need to practice a sort of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” for survival, as a social species (I’m not quoting Darwin directly, but nearly so). Sirius, how could you understand evolution theory and ask such a stupid question? For a species that relies on cooperation and knowledge, the moral implications for our species are that we need to protect the lame and the weak (they probably know something we need) and look out for one another. Naked apes don’t get far in a world dominated by big teeth, sharp claws, incredible speed, and great strength, without looking out for one another.
Why is it creationists find altruism and the Golden Rule to be “morally repugnant” as described here? What is it about “don’t murder your own species” that you missed in biology class (murder is extremely rare in most other species, you obviously didn’t know).
Sirius, did it ever occur to you that you’re the weakest link? You should thank Darwin that we DO follow the evolutionary imperative.
B. Steven Carr said:
Hitler was arguing that evolution of humans did not occur; while it’s unclear what Hitler was arguing for, his arguments parallel creationists’ claims. Hitler was a science ignoramus — any claim that he made any decision based on any science is specious as hell. For an almost humorous version of Hitler’s astounding ignorance, check out von Braun’s autobiography, the chapter where von Braun had to explain why a Rolls Royce internal combustion, piston engine wouldn’t substitute for a rocket engine. Or read Ashley Montagu’s account in Human Genetics. Hitler thought heritage was carried in blood, not genes, and so he forbade the use of bloodbanks. Thousands died unnecessarily (to the advantage of the Allies, to be sure). Hitler designated one blood type as “most Aryan.” It was, of course, the most common blood type among Jews. His physicians didn’t have the heart to tell him.
[...] “Embarrassing” is certainly an understated word choice for Schlafly, especially given the criticism above. The tragedy of such policies were well-known, and they relied not on Darwin, but on a radical misuse of his work: social Darwinism, a theory which Darwin’s writings show he would have found represensible. [...]