# Science Fueled a White Supremacist?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Tags:** Society\
**Created:** [May 16, 2022, 6:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080 "2022-05-16T18:47:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 10:07am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/42 "2022-05-19T10:07:02Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> If any piece on ENV states or implies the proposition you have above, I would say the piece was written poorly at that point.

I was not referring to the quality of the writing, but to its content. I would be about the last person to praise or defend the quality of writing at ENV.

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> In the current article by West that people are discussing, he clearly indicates that believing in evolution does not mean that one will become a racist or murderer.

I was not referring to that specific article, but to a theme and idea has often been expressed by the DI over the years on ENV. Feel free to peruse at your leisure the articles my search turned up.

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> He also indicates clearly that the views of the shooter about the inferiority of certain races are repellent.

Again, you misunderstand what I wrote. I am not saying the the DI advocates racism. Rather, it implies, insinuates and at times explicitly claims that “Darwinism” entails or encourages racism. I can’t help notice that you have not in anyway contradicted what I actually wrote, seemingly because you did not bother to understand what I had written.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Michelle](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/michelle/32/7229_2.png) [@Michelle](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Michelle)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 11:25am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/43 "2022-05-19T11:25:00Z")

</div>

> [@Paul\_King](#):
>
> The fact that it is labelled as “sponsored content” seems to indicate that that part is true. As does the link to the Discovery Institute being promoted, it seems quite clear that this is an advertisement paid for by the Discovery Institute,
> 
> > [@Eddie](#):
> >
> > Do you believe that any current biology professor at Harvard would have said the words attributed to “Samuel Muller”, unless he was being sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek?
> 
> Of course not. But do I believe that the Discovery Institute would like to give that impression - yes I do. Even though it is not literally true and not meant to be.

It does look like that was a sponsored add paid for by the Discovery Institute, especially because when you click on the picture at the bottom offering a free pamphlet, it links to a site where you can order that book on EN:

> **[Did Charles Darwin Destroy Society?](https://www.discovery.org/_/darwinsideas-bb/)**
>
> Ideas have consequences. Learn how three key ideas from Charles Darwin undermined morality, religion, medicine, the criminal justice system, and the value of human life. Sign up and get the FREE 39…

The DI also hosted a webinar on the same topic a few months after posting the add:

> **[Webinar with John West: “Darwin’s Three Big Ideas That Impacted Humanity” |...](https://evolutionnews.org/2021/04/webinar-with-john-west-darwins-three-big-ideas-that-impacted-humanity/)**
>
> Darwinian theory is a more than just an idea about origins. The reasons it arouses the passion it does go beyond science.

@Eddie I think you would agree that it is problematic to conflate the scientific theory of evolution with social Darwinism. While it is legitimate to discuss the history of social Darwinism, people who do so should be clear that using science to promote bad ideas is an illegitimate use of science: that is bad philosophy. The Discovery Institute does not make that distinction. Instead they seem to make the reverse bad and illogical argument, to try to say “see social Darwinism is bad, therefore the science of evolution is wrong and we should distrust and reject science” Of course they don’t say that so directly. Instead they let that conclusion be implied and drawn in the minds of the readers by juxtaposing those ideas without discussing them directly and explaining the nuance. This is bad logic and leads to unclear thinking. It seems to even encourage conspiratorial thinking and is thus irresponsible and harmful.

These types of statements are very upsetting to me because I think this type of logic builds distrust, promotes the false science/faith warfare narrative that can ultimately lead to people not believing in the pandemic and fearing vaccines and refusing cancer treatments that are backed by evidence based medicine. Perhaps that is a stretch, because how people form their beliefs is complicated, but promoting such unclear thinking does harm

By promoting distrust and the science/faith warfare narrative these types of arguments are damaging both the the science and to the faith

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 2:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/44 "2022-05-19T14:18:43Z")

</div>

> [@Michelle](#):
>
> It does look like that was a sponsored add paid for by the Discovery Institute, especially because when you click on the picture at the bottom offering a free pamphlet, it links to a site where you can order that book on EN:

That is indeed what it is. There is a small banner at the top that says “Sponsored.”

Not everyone understands what sponsored content is:

> Sponsored content is premium content that a sponsor pays a publisher to create and distribute. It’s a type of native advertising that is consistent with the surrounding content on a webpage.
> 
> In other words, sponsored content is an ad that looks like it’s supposed to be there – it feels like a natural fit for a platform, instead of an invasive advertisement.

> **[Sponsored Content: What You Need to Know (and 9 Examples!)](https://www.activecampaign.com/blog/sponsored-content)**
>
> Sponsored content is a powerful marketing tool, but what is it? Why does it work? Is it the same as native advertising? Learn about sponsored content here!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 3:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/45 "2022-05-19T15:00:11Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> I understand this perfectly, regarding Darwinian biological theory. So does Weikart. But that way of speaking did in fact find its way into various racialist and eugenics theories. A misuse, in the sense that Darwin would not have advocated exterminating races or eugenics, but still, the connection of ideas is there.

But as you just said, there is no connection. When people casually claim there is a connection they are implying that the theory of evolution actually does support racism and eugenics.

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> Until you’ve actually read Weikart’s books, and not merely negative reviews of them or hearsay about them, you will not know whether he actually employs the “naturalistic fallacy.”

I never said that Weikart employed the naturalistic fallacy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/46 "2022-05-19T15:56:01Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> I’ve read enough of Weikart’s work to know

> [@Roy](#):
>
> He is not a reliable source.

It sounds from your oblique statement as if you may not have read even one of his works all the way through. If that’s so, you would be forming judgments based on an incomplete picture. And in any case, unless you have particular expertise in his area of European and German history, your statements about which works in the field are reliable and unreliable carry no weight. So by all means, let us know some of your publications in the area of European history, or tell us which historians in this area will vouch for your academic judgment.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> That would not be the evidence, but what Weikart says about the evidence.

It’s evident that history is not your field. When a historian draws conclusions, he presents the evidence for those conclusions, along with his reasoning. He will quote from primary sources, or at the very least cite specific page references from the primary sources, to document his claims.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> You’ve passed judgement on evolutionary biology

No, only on certain overclaims by some evolutionary biologists (actually, more often by other biologists who are not specialists in evolution, and by non-biologists). “Evolutionary biology” as such, I have not passed judgment on, or rejected.

> [@Mercer](#):
>
> without reading any of the primary literature

I’ve read scores of articles in peer-reviewed journals that discuss various aspects of evolution, and consulted numerous others. The articles are written by people who claim expertise in this or that subject related to evolution, and have been reviewed, before being accepted in those journals, by others who are regarded as having expertise related to evolution. I don’t much care whether you would classify these articles as “primary” or not; if they’re produced by professors of evolutionary biology at places like Harvard or Chicago, they purport to represent the most advanced thought on evolution. So I have some idea of what claims are being made.

> [@Paul\_King](#):
>
> Of course not. But do I believe that the Discovery Institute would like to give that impression - yes I do. Even though it is not literally true and not meant to be.
> 
> And I have to say that it seems to be lacking any humour at all.

Humour is largely a matter of taste. There are people (probably some here) who thought that _Saturday Night Live_ and _Second City_ were funny, whereas I thought that (with a few rare exceptions), those shows consisted of dull, unfunny (and in some cases vulgar and tasteless) skits, which in terms of both writing and acting were on the level of my high school’s Variety Night performances. But I would say to you and Michelle that it’s not inconceivable that someone would gently spoof views with which he or she is sympathetic. In fact, it happens all the time. Marvel Comics regarded their productions as valid works of comic art, yet they also published a title called _Not Brand Ecch_, in which they spoofed their own characters, writers, editors, etc. I’ve seen a theistic evolutionist making fun of some of the typical presentations of theistic evolution. A comedian who votes Democratic might well do a comic routine making fun of certain Democratic politicians or their arguments, and I’ve seen innumerable Jewish comedians making fun of aspects of Jewish life and culture. So sure, the Babylon Bee is sympathetic with ID, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t produce a comical article, giving ID argumentation an affectionate jab.

And finally, yes, I did see the ad below that Michelle refers to, for an actual work by the DI, and yes, that ad was a serious endorsement of that work. That doesn’t prove that the article above the ad wasn’t light-hearted and playful. And indeed, I suspect that Discovery would not be offended by light satire of itself, if the satire was coming from a publication that was overall sympathetic, and I imagine they knew that their serious ad would be accompanied by a light spoofing piece. And certainly, in an actual Discovery article, e.g., on ENV, you would never see a real Harvard professor being quoted saying words he never actually said, as we see in the Babylon Bee piece.

@Michelle

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/47 "2022-05-19T15:56:26Z")

</div>

The DI is really hammering on the theme. Surprise, surprise, now it’s David Klinghoffer.

Unlike West’s article, however, I seen no qualification that it is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory to say that it supports racism. IOW, this is another example of the trend I described in my earlier comment.

> **[Darwin, Galton, and “Replacement Theory” | Evolution News](https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/darwin-galton-and-replacement-theory/)**
>
> Darwinism and eugenics, going back to the 19th century, were haunted by ideas of “replacement.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/48 "2022-05-19T15:56:58Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> I was not referring to that specific article,

Fine, but note that in that specific article West denies that evolution has necessary racist implications. I do not know what _other_ columnists at ENV might have said (as I told you, I rarely read ENV), but do you see any columns _by West_ where he claims that evolution has necessary racist implications?

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Rather, it implies, insinuates and at times explicitly claims that “Darwinism” entails or encourages racism.

Well, if it does, then you or others here can point out the instances when they occur. But I thought that _this_ discussion (as indicated by its title – see the top of this page) was about one particular article by John West, and my point point was that _in the article we are discussing_ West states explicitly that one can accept evolution without being a racist or murderer, and that the killer “misused” evolutionary theory. So I think that West, at least in this article, is clear of the charge you are making – though I would argue that he should not have said “Science” in the title but rather “Alleged Science” or “Misused Science” or the like, in order to match what he actually says in the body of the article. I think it would be fair to object to the wording in his title.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 3:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/49 "2022-05-19T15:57:39Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> I never said that Weikart employed the naturalistic fallacy.

Good. I’m glad to hear that. There is some overlap of themes and ideas coming from different people in this discussion, which caused me to think you had Weikart in mind. My apologies for the misattribution.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> When people casually claim there is a connection they are implying that the theory of evolution actually does support racism and eugenics.

I think we are talking past each other. I think you have in mind, e.g., writers of advocacy columns, whereas I am talking about academic historians of ideas. Advocacy columnists sometimes use “connections” in less than careful ways to imply logically necessary connections. Scholarly historians of ideas, in pointing out connections between ideas, don’t always claim that the connections are necessary ones. Thus, such and such a statement in Plato may have greatly influenced the rise of dualistic thinking (regarding soul and body); but it might not follow that the _only_ way of reading Plato’s statement is as an endorsement of dualism. A historian of ideas can note certain similarities, and even certain historical connections (e.g., where an author cites certain texts), between Nazi thought and evolutionary ideas, without concluding that evolutionary theory requires or necessitates adopting Nazi-like doctrines. I think you are worried about crude leaps from “there are thematic similarities and historical connections” to “evolutionary theory entails racism.” I would agree with you that the latter leap is unwarranted. In fact, I’m not sure we are disagreeing about anything here. I’ve always maintained that the question “whether evolution actually happens” and the question “what are the moral and political implications, if any, of evolution” are two separate questions, and should not be conflated.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 4:44pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/50 "2022-05-19T16:44:55Z")

</div>

“Now, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do… except perhaps my wife and some of her friends… oh yes and Captain Johnston. Come to think of it most people likes a good laugh more than I do. But that’s beside the point.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 4:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/51 "2022-05-19T16:45:15Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> Fine, but note that in that specific article West denies that evolution has necessary racist implications. I do not know what _other_ columnists at ENV might have said (as I told you, I rarely read ENV), but do you see any columns _by West_ where he claims that evolution has necessary racist implications?

Don’t know, don’t care. Why are you asking? Did I make a comment specifically about West’s writing on ENV?

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> Well, if it does, then you or others here can point out the instances when they occur

Anyone who regularly reads ENV will be very aware of such instances. You are not among them, so you are not aware. I would, however, presume that West _is_ aware, since he is an active author on that website. So I find it a bit odd that, while he claims to be concerned about the widespread fallacy that “Darwinism” supports or entails racism, he had nothing to say about the major role the DI, and ENV in particular, has played in promoting this fallacy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Paul\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Paul\_King](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Paul_King)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 4:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/52 "2022-05-19T16:45:18Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> And finally, yes, I did see the ad below that Michelle refers to, for an actual work by the DI, and yes, that ad was a serious endorsement of that work. That doesn’t prove that the article above the ad wasn’t light-hearted and playful.

I’m not saying that the “article” wasn’t playful, but that it wasn’t satirising the DI. Indeed I see no reason to think so. Not to mention the fact that the entire thing is an advert. That’s what ‘sponsored content” is.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 6:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/53 "2022-05-19T18:03:18Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> I think we are talking past each other. I think you have in mind, e.g., writers of advocacy columns, whereas I am talking about academic historians of ideas. Advocacy columnists sometimes use “connections” in less than careful ways to imply logically necessary connections.

If I wrote an article “How the Bible is Connected to Racism” I think you would see it as a misleading title. If I repeatedly stated that Bible is connected to racism in Nazi Germany, would you think that is valid description?

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> A historian of ideas can note certain similarities, and even certain historical connections (e.g., where an author cites certain texts), between Nazi thought and evolutionary ideas, without concluding that evolutionary theory requires or necessitates adopting Nazi-like doctrines.

At least to me, terminology like “does not require or necessitate” or “there are connections throughout history between evolutionary theory and racism” leaves the door open to people thinking evolutionary theory can be used to justify eugenics.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 6:08pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/54 "2022-05-19T18:08:17Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > I’ve read enough of Weikart’s work to know
> 
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > He is not a reliable source.
> 
> It sounds from your oblique statement as if you may not have read even one of his works all the way through. If that’s so, you would be forming judgments based on an incomplete picture.

Correct. I have not read the entirety of any of Weikart’s books (though I have read the entirety of many of his articles). But it’s not necessary to read an entire book to know the author is an unreliable source. It’s only necessary to read enough by them to hit a threshold number of fallacies and falsehoods.

> [@](#):
>
> And in any case, unless you have particular expertise in his area of European and German history, your statements about which works in the field are reliable and unreliable carry no weight.

You recommended I read Weikart. What are your own publications in this field? If you have none, your own criteria negate your own recommendation.

> [@](#):
>
> > [@Mercer](#):
> >
> > That would not be the evidence, but what Weikart says about the evidence.
> 
> It’s evident that history is not your field. When a historian draws conclusions, he presents the evidence for those conclusions, along with his reasoning. He will quote from primary sources, or at the very least cite specific page references from the primary sources, to document his claims.

You’ve said you haven’t read Weikart’s books - so you can’t know whether he does that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 8:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/55 "2022-05-19T20:00:27Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> If I wrote an article “How the Bible is Connected to Racism” I think you would see it as a misleading title.

Yes, I would, especially in a popular setting, because I know that many readers would interpret “Connected” as an expression of hard causality, and would interpret the title to mean: “How the Bible Causes Racism.” So if I were writing an article about ways in which racist writing sometimes employs themes and language that are found in the Bible, but was not trying to directly blame the Bible for racism, I would not choose the title you have suggested. I would choose a more guarded title, such as, “Do Racists Make Use of Biblical Themes and Language?”, which distances itself from a straightforward assertion of causality.

For this reason, as I stated above to one or two other people here, I think the title on West’s article is misleading. It suggests that “Science” fuels white supremacy, whereas what the article actually says is that the shooter _misused_ evolutionary science to justify himself. Therefore, West’s title should have qualified the word “Science” in some way. The title should have been something more like: “White Supremacist Construes Evolutionary Science as a Justification for Racially Motivated Murder.” That would more clearly distance evolutionary science from the uses to which it is put.

So once again, I don’t see that we are disagreeing on anything.

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> At least to me, terminology like “does not require or necessitate” or “there are connections throughout history between evolutionary theory and racism” leaves the door open to people thinking evolutionary theory can be used to justify eugenics.

Again, are you talking about articles aimed at popular audiences, or scholarly audiences? Scholarly audiences understand the difference between possible connections and necessary connections, and they understand the need for caveats in all assertions of historical causality. I think perhaps you are getting too hung up on the word “connections,” and reading more into it than I intended. If you like, substitute phrases such as “similarities in theme” or “parallels in phrasing” or the like. But there has to be some way of talking about perceptions of affinity. And there has to be a way of acknowledging that these perceptions of affinity were sometimes asserted by historical actors, e.g., if certain Nazi theorists read a lot about evolutionary theory and said that they done so, and consciously related their own ideas to their understanding of evolution. It has to be possible for a historian of ideas to address such similarities and such discoveries about who read what and how far it influenced them. If you fear the word “connections” I can find ways around using it, but there can’t be a veto on the discussion of possible thematic parallels or historical borrowing. For the scholar, it has to be an open question whether or not Nazi theorists made use of evolutionary theory in their arguments.

Of course, if that question is answered in the affirmative, there is still the question of whether their use was _valid_. But the first step is to find out if they in fact made use of notions found in evolutionary theory, e.g., “survival of the fittest.” If they did not, the discussion ends. If they did, then the discussion can proceed to the second question.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 9:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/56 "2022-05-19T21:19:57Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> You recommended I read Weikart.

I recommended that you read Weikart _if you are interested in hearing the evidence for a connection between evolutionary notions and Nazi racism and eugenics_. Weikart has spent years accumulating such evidence, and he knows a great deal about the relevant primary source texts. I did not say that Weikart’s conclusions based on those texts are correct or that you should accept them. In your language, I did not say that his conclusions were “reliable.” You, on the other hand, said that his conclusions (or his data, or perhaps both) were unreliable. Since I did not issue a judgment about the reliability of his work, I am not required to have expertise in his scholarly area. Since you did issue such a judgment, you are claiming competence to issue judgments that area, which is a highly specialized area of German/European history. I wanted to know where you acquired the competence in that highly specialized area, and whether any trained historians would vouch for that competence.

If you had said something more modest, such as, “I’m no expert on the period of German history Weikart covers, but from my layman’s perspective his conclusions seem dubious,” my reaction would have been different. It was your declaration, as if from the top of the mountain, that his work was unreliable, that generated my remarks. As you should know by now, I generally issue challenges here when I think people are overclaiming, or are speaking with a confidence that goes beyond their level of expertise. When people keep their claims modest and guarded, my objections are much less frequent.

> [@Roy](#):
>
> You’ve said you haven’t read Weikarts books - so you can’t know whether he does that.

You’re being silly. No historian could get his books and articles published if he didn’t cite his sources. And all you have to do to verify that Weikart does this is to go to [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) and select some of his books and use the “Look Inside” feature. For example, in Chapter 1 of “Hitler’s Religion”, the first two quotations are from Hitler and Goebbels, and both of them are followed by footnote numbers, indicating that the sources are specified later in the book. And that he uses sources is obvious from the Table of Contents, which lists a back-section called, “A Note on Sources.” But I don’t think you really doubted that Weikart does this; your comment was therefore merely captious, an attempt to “catch me out.” Your criticism of my writing rarely rises above this. (And I thought you said you weren’t going to reply to me any further. If you could stiffen your resolve, it would make both of us happier.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Eddie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Eddie](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Eddie)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 9:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/57 "2022-05-19T21:20:03Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Don’t know, don’t care. Why are you asking?

Because this discussion, as the title indicates, is about West’s article and West’s position.

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> Anyone who regularly reads ENV will be very aware of such instances.

The question is why anyone would regularly read ENV. Discovery publishes things much more important, and much more substantial, than the editorials on ENV. You seem to have infinite time to read ENV, but no time at all to read any of the books Discovery has published. You’d get far more benefit out of reading the series of books by Denton than by reading ENV posts.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 9:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/58 "2022-05-19T21:56:09Z")

</div>

I lost track of the comment where the BB article was claimed to be satire. Perhaps so, but the link directly below is clearly marked “NOT SATIRE”.

 ![Screenshot_20220519-165303](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/2X/9/91e040a120c53721698aebd48cb31612bfde0cde.png)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 11:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/59 "2022-05-19T23:05:33Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> Again, are you talking about articles aimed at popular audiences, or scholarly audiences? Scholarly audiences understand the difference between possible connections and necessary connections, and they understand the need for caveats in all assertions of historical causality. I think perhaps you are getting too hung up on the word “connections,” and reading more into it than I intended.

Posts on internet forums and articles at ENV are aimed at the general public. Explicit is always better than implicit in those settings.

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> For the scholar, it has to be an open question whether or not Nazi theorists made use of evolutionary theory in their arguments.

In the same vein, did the Nazi’s also use the Bible in their arguments?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/puck_mendelssohn/32/11849_2.png) [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Puck_Mendelssohn)\
**Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 11:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/60 "2022-05-19T23:05:41Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> I lost track of the comment where the BB article was claimed to be satire. Perhaps so, but the link directly below is clearly marked “NOT SATIRE”.

I think that since it is sponsored content, meant to accompany the ad, we can assume that the DI wrote it, intending it to be “satire.” That it isn’t particularly satirical or, for that matter, funny, is not really surprising. The DI also releases quite a lot of material which it claims is “science,” after all. These people have a track record of gross inaccuracy to maintain.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [May 20, 2022, 2:13am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080/61 "2022-05-20T02:13:34Z")

</div>

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> Because this discussion, as the title indicates, is about West’s article and West’s position.

My comment _is_ related to that. Whatever other things West might have written elsewhere on ENV is not.

> [@Eddie](#):
>
> The question is why anyone would regularly read ENV. Discovery publishes things much more important, and much more substantial, than the editorials on ENV. You seem to have infinite time to read ENV, but no time at all to read any of the books Discovery has published. You’d get far more benefit out of reading the series of books by Denton than by reading ENV posts.

I’m sorry, I thought the topic of this discussion was John West’s article. How are my personal reading habits relevant to that?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/science-fueled-a-white-supremacist/15080.md?page=4)