This is about another example of the Great Creationist Coalescence (the GCC) of various creationist outfits. The last example was Ken Ham Adopts Another Discoveroid Doctrine. Before that we wrote Ken Ham Featured at WorldNetDaily, and before that Ken Ham Adopts the Privileged Planet Doctrine. Today you’ll see that the Discoveroids are returning the favor by adopting one of Hambo’s doctrines.
This just appeared at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Why My Critics Care So Much About the Darwin-Hitler Connection. It was written by Richard Weikart, who is not only a Discoveroid “fellow” (i.e., full-blown creationist), he’s also the author of a book titled From Darwin to Hitler, which influenced James Kennedy, the now-deceased televangelist who made the influential “documentary” Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. We consider Weikart to be the intellectual godfather of the Discoveroids’ frequently-repeated malicious mantra: “No Darwin, no Hitler.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:
Howls of indignation erupted from the Darwinian community after I published my earlier historical works [links to his titles].
Maybe that’s because his “scholarship” is a wee bit, ah, dubious — see Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Part VI. and also Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Part V, which links to several earlier posts on the same subject. Okay, back to the new Discoveroid article:
As I demonstrate in my newly released book [link omitted], there is a fundamental tension between many Darwinists’ claim that morality is an evolved trait — thus having no objective reality — and their moral indignation toward Hitler (and toward me for explaining how Darwinism informed Hitler’s ideology).
That’s a strange and totally artificial conflict. Morality is an intellectual concept, and concepts have no objective reality. But we’re intelligent enough to determine how we ought to live, and our moral principles are very much a part of our social existence. Let’s read on:
To be sure, I have encountered some true believers in Darwinism who have told me that their Darwinian-inspired moral relativism leads them to the conclusion that Hitler was neither right nor wrong. I once held a conversation with a philosophy graduate student who defended moral relativism on Darwinian grounds. After I pressed him to see if he was willing to be relativistic about Hitler’s atrocities, he uttered the stunning words, “Hitler was OK.”
Even if Weikart actually met such an idiot, the encounter proves nothing. He continues:
Maybe you think this student was just off his rocker. However, the leading evolutionary biologist and world famous atheist Richard Dawkins took a similar position in an interview, where he was being questioned about his moral relativism. Dawkins asked, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” If this is a tough moral question for Dawkins, he should stop pontificating about how religions are “the root of all evil,” especially since he doesn’t believe that evil actually exists!
Did Dawkins really say that? We hunted around to find the source. The best we could do was this blog post from December 2007: Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist by Larry Taunton, founder and Executive Director of something called Fixed Point Foundation. He says he had an interview with Dawkins, and his article begins like this:
As I made my way through the streets of Oxford [going to the interview], I speculated about the sort of man I would encounter. Was he a mad scientist bent on the destruction of the existing social order; an egomaniacal chap cleverly building the cult of his personality while laughing all the way to the bank; or a true believer, an evangelist for atheism, who believes in his message and in his mission?
Obviously, Taunton is a fair-minded, objective interviewer. Here’s one of his preliminary questions, followed by Dawkins’ answer:
“What defines your morality?” I asked with genuine curiosity.
There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued. “We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused — all of which is different from previous centuries.”
Fair enough. Then we get to the part that Weikart quote-mined:
I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”
“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”
That’s all there is on the subject. Did Dawkins say that he, personally, had difficulty deciding that Hitler was wrong? No, he obviously didn’t, but that’s what Weikart wants us to believe. Let’s return to his essay:
Most Darwinists, however, including those who believe in the evolution of morality, do not have consciences as dead as Dawkins, so they are genuinely outraged by the historical connections between Darwin and Hitler. They consider Hitler truly evil, and they don’t want their positive image of Darwin tarnished by any association with this evil man.
Especially when the “association” is totally fictitious — see Hitler and Darwin. Moving along, we finally come to why this is an example of the Great Creationist Coalescence. Weikart asks:
However, why do they care about this at all? If they believe, as many do, that morality is simply “an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes,” as evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson and philosopher Michael Ruse famously put it, then what makes the illusions of some people superior to Hitler’s illusions?
[*Groan*] It never occurred to us that morality is a genetic illusion. It’s probably true, however, that a tendency to cooperation has been bred into us. But the philosophical subject of ethics is a different matter. Anyway, Weikart wonders why evolutionists (immoral beasts that we are) care about morality. That’s the sort of question we see all the time from ol’ Hambo. A good example is this article he wrote a year ago: Why Do Atheists Care? Hambo says we shouldn’t care, because morality comes to us only from the bible. Weikart feels the same way — morality only comes from religion — his religion — so everyone else is inherently depraved.
Okay, that’s enough from Weikart. His essay clearly demonstrates that the Great Creationist Coalescence is continuing.
Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.