Science Fueled a White Supremacist?

[djkriese]

To refocus on West’s article after reading your responses, I wanted to go through it and highlight some things:

If not religion, what about politics? Perhaps the shooter was persuaded by the rhetoric of Republican Party politicians or conservative pundits like Tucker Carlson, as some have recklessly suggested online? Sorry, but those who want to score partisan points in this awful tragedy should look elsewhere.

The perpetrator’s manifesto is very political, his lean towards extremism and the cesspool of 4chan is political, replacement theory, major parts of the Republican party and associated Conservative groups do in fact lean into QAnon, replacement theory, and many other political movements. The constant poisoning the well around immigrant (both legal and otherwise) by Republican party and adjacents is political and interacts with these groups. Tucker Carlson spews replacement theory segments and dog whistles for alt-right causes and beliefs much of the time.

So if not religion or politics, what fueled his hatreds? Try evolutionary science.

He never established this negation and then jumps to his target

His list of killers inspired by or “smitten” by Darwinian evolution are overly simplified and reduced to support his argument.

Now thankfully West goes into evolution not as the cause of these things but does not address his title or other points that say something different and attack this section.

Think about it: If humans truly evolved through a blind and accidental process that did not have them in mind, it’s not much of a jump to believe that some human populations must have evolved in ways superior to other human populations. Thus, a tendency toward racism was sort of built-in to evolutionary theory from the get-go.

This though experiment does not address the fact that science would indeed test these outcomes and that better science along with sociological changes helped address racist practices. I still remember the myth that men are superior at math than women being taught by my school teachers/church/family in the 1980s/1990s. Better science addressed this. Sexist Christians held to this.

So when white supremacists come along today and resurrect arguments for Darwinian racism from years gone by, modern evolutionary theory may not have the moral resources to persuade them otherwise.

No evidence given for this. Instead of evolution as the causative agent of racial terrorism, it is now the powerless tacit supporter or originator.

“discovering” 4chan is one thing. Continually browsing, digesting, and not rejecting the dark of that community requires a lot more than innocent curiosity. This article chose to attack evolution, when the more honest story is that extremist leaning young adult is radicalized during a difficult social time of COVID. Support for vulnerable people is a noble cause and should be supported.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Dan_Eastwood

Perhaps so, but the link directly below is clearly marked “NOT SATIRE”.

Yes. And it’s unlikely that such a notification would appear there, unless the material the reader has just read, just above it, was intended as satire. Especially on a site noted for its satire.

@T_aquaticus

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

I agree.

@T_aquaticus

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

If there is evidence that they did so, then there should be no veto on discussing that evidence. If they used the Bible, it would be a proper scholarly task to show where and how they did so. And if their use of the Bible were demonstrated beyond a doubt, it would then be a proper scholarly question to ask whether the Bible necessarily leads to Nazi-type doctrines, or whether those doctrines are only one out of number of possible directions in which Bible premises might lead. For a scholar, all intellectual possibilities should be on the table, even if some of the possibilities make some people (be they atheists and materialists or Bible-based Christians) uncomfortable. The purpose of scholarship, science, universities, etc. is not to make people comfortable. It is to get at the truth.

@Faizal_Ali

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

It was, but then you changed it to a general complaint against the evils (real or alleged) of ENV posts and writers. Since you changed the topic, you can’t complain when I address your changed topic.

So if you agree that you never should have changed the topic, we can drop this discussion entirely. But if you insist that you were right to change the topic to ENV, then how about answering my question? Why do you read the least important, most popular in form, least academic material that Discovery puts out (ENV posts), and refuse to read the more important, more learned in form, more academic material (books from the DI Press)?

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@djkriese

The perpetrator’s manifesto is very political, his lean towards extremism and the cesspool of 4chan is political, replacement theory, major parts of the Republican party and associated Conservative groups do in fact lean into QAnon, replacement theory, and many other political movements. The constant poisoning the well around immigrant (both legal and otherwise) by Republican party and adjacents is political and interacts with these groups. Tucker Carlson spews replacement theory segments and dog whistles for alt-right causes and beliefs much of the time.

I have no comment on that part of West’s article. West may be inaccurate here. I don’t follow the statements of Tucker Carlson (whom I never liked), and I don’t keep track of his latest pronouncements. If West is not correct on this point, I have no problem with people pointing that out. And it has never been my contention that everything West says in the article is correct. I merely tried to point out some things that he didn’t say, that some people seemed to be accusing him of saying.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@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.

No, that’s what attorneys do.

When an honest, competent scholar in ANY field draws conclusions, she presents ALL of the relevant evidence, not just the evidence that supports that supports her conclusions.

@Eddie

He will quote from primary sources, or at the very least cite specific page references from the primary sources, to document his claims.

Yet when Behe makes the objectively false claim that HIV has not evolved any new protein-protein binding sites, he cites a paper from the primary literature (that you haven’t read) that has nothing to do with his conclusion. When Ian Musgrave points this out, Behe does not respond. Then you falsely claim that Behe has responded to Musgrave’s substantive points and pretend that this is about views, not about evidence.

@Eddie

@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, you agree. You could have saved yourself a lot of typing.

@Eddie

So I have some idea of what claims are being made.

But you have no familiarity with the evidence, and you actively promote those who actively misrepresent the evidence, pretending that this is all about opinion.

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

@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.

If this is the case, why do you think the DI publishes so much on ENV instead of just letting their books stand on their own merits? Do you think the ENV posts are working against the main objectives of the DI?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Eddie

@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.

You have not read Weikart’s books. You do not know whether they contain such evidence. You do not know whether the primary source texts support Weikart’s conclusions.

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.

You are assuming that specialist knowledge is required to identify the flaws in Weikart’s writings. But that’s not true - it is sufficient to be able to recognise fallacies and misrepresentations.

@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.

He could get it published by the Discovery Institute. They publish lots of things that either don’t cite or misrepresent sources.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

It was, but then you changed it to a general complaint against the evils (real or alleged) of ENV posts and writers.

You again betray your misunderstanding of my comment.

One of West’s points, as you correctly identified, is that it is a misunderstanding of “Darwinism” to claim that it supports racism.

It is then a relevant point to consider the degree to which the organization of which West is a main organizer and on whose website his article appears has taken measures to correct this misunderstanding.

And it is even more relevant and interesting when we find that, far from correcting this misunderstanding, West’s organization has gone to great lengths to promote, perpetuate and inflame this misunderstanding.

West’s article is, therefore, revealed to be disgusting display of hypocrisy.

As always, I am happy to help you improve your critical thinking and reading skills!

@Eddie

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.

…says the guy who admitted that he chiefly buys those books because he enjoys “owning the libs.”

@Michelle

If this is the case, why do you think the DI publishes so much on ENV instead of just letting their books stand on their own merits? Do you think the ENV posts are working against the main objectives of the DI?

What I find even more perplexing is why “Eddie” thinks that, after I have read articles by Michael Denton intended to be treated as peer-reviewed publications and found them to be riddled with scientific misconceptions, logical fallacies and outright falsehood, that I should feel compelled to read an entire book by this author.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Michelle

Do you think the ENV posts are working against the main objectives of the DI?

I can’t say, because I don’t know whether those posts are attracting more support than they are repelling. I would guess that they help to win over some undecideds to ID, but also cause some undecideds to turn away from ID. I would distinguish, however, between those ENV posts which are primarily “culture war” posts and those which deal with specific questions of biology etc. The tone of the “culture war” posts is often scrappier, and I think that the scrappier tone may turn some otherwise open-minded people off.

But of course, this is a problem with all advocacy organizations. BioLogos columns of the Falk-Giberson era had their own kind of scrappiness, sugar-coated in evangelical “niceness,” but still very much intended to stick the knife into ID and creationism, and frequently filled with misrepresentations of ID, and not a few errors regarding historical Christian theology. Advocacy organizations have a tendency to exhibit less than dialogical fairness and less than scholarly accuracy.

Years ago, when I first was learning about ID, I found ENV more helpful. Popular posts, even if a bit rhetorical, can be useful for introducing a subject or giving the reader a range of views on it. But once you’re into a subject in depth, and are reading books and technical articles on it, you don’t really need loosely-reasoned popular posts any longer. That’s why I’m surprised so many people here bother reading ENV. They mostly don’t need introductions to notions such as design, Darwinism, methodological naturalism, etc. Further, they know they are going to disagree with every single column before they even start reading. Do they enjoy getting their blood pressure up? It doesn’t make sense to me.

I prefer books to opinion columns, because books (unless they are anthologies) offer a sustained argument by just one author (usually), speaking for himself or herself, and not representing an institutional position. They can therefore be theoretically clearer (institutional positions often represent a compromise between theoretical truth and some non-theoretical goals of the institution). They allow for more nuance, lengthier consideration of objections to the author’s thesis, more examples, more references to sources, etc. I think the ENV posts have a certain value in introducing newcomers to ID, but I think that the books Discovery has published – at least some of them – will have more staying power than ENV editorials, because they are less tied to momentary social and political events, less defensive in tone, and more expository in style.

@Mercer

When an honest, competent scholar in ANY field draws conclusions, she presents ALL of the relevant evidence, not just the evidence that supports that supports her conclusions.

Tell that to Michael Mann, who advised some scientists not to speak publicly about certain problems with some of the models he was employing, so that policymakers, getting only one side of the story, would be more likely to enact policies that he happened to agree with. In any case, if you have proof that Weikart is misrepresenting the documentary evidence, you are welcome to demonstrate where he does so, with reference to specific works and page numbers.

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

@Eddie

Years ago, when I first was learning about ID, I found ENV more helpful. Popular posts, even if a bit rhetorical, can be useful for introducing a subject or giving the reader a range of views on it. But once you’re into a subject in depth, and are reading books and technical articles on it, you don’t really need loosely-reasoned popular posts any longer. That’s why I’m surprised so many people here bother reading ENV. They mostly don’t need introductions to notions such as design, Darwinism, methodological naturalism, etc. Further, they know they are going to disagree with every single column before they even start reading. Do they enjoy getting their blood pressure up? It doesn’t make sense to me.

Not to speak for others, I’d be happy to hear why people read ENV. Some reasons I’d imagine: For people who agree with ID, perhaps they are looking for more arguments on that side. For people who disagree, to them it’s important to point out flaws in the reasoning. Many people do not have or make time to read all the books, so look to places where the ideas are summarized and debated. That’s why I think it’s important that such online articles be thoughtful and clear in their reasoning.

I’m glad that you agree that the title of West’s article was wrong. When people read things online they tend to skim them quickly, so it’s important that the points are really clear. His disclaimer about the theory of evolution not directly compelling racism and violence was too buried (halfway down the page), while the title makes the very bold claim right up top that he would explain “How Science Fueled the White Supremacist Mass Murderer in Buffalo, NY.” That is a huge problem.

West also says

And yet… what happens when some now seek a return to the earlier days of Darwinian racism? The scientific community’s rejection of scientific racism after the civil rights movement was more sociological than scientific. So when white supremacists come along today and resurrect arguments for Darwinian racism from years gone by, modern evolutionary theory may not have the moral resources to persuade them otherwise.

We know here at PS that is not true. And it’s actually flipped: racism existed before Darwin proposed his theory and exists even among people who reject evolution. Social Darwinism drew on fallacious social arguments and tendencies that already existed in the culture, not on actual scientific claims.

Then West says

By contrast, if you have a teleological view of the development of life, you have more resources to draw on. If you believe humans and their capabilities resulted from a transcendent plan rather than the happenstance of unguided evolution — if you believe that science shows man is, to invoke biologist Michael Denton, a “miracle” rather than an accident, it’s a lot easier to believe that humans are fundamentally equal. All of us reflect the same underlying plan. Any differences that exist are variations on the same overarching theme.

The issue I take with these kinds of ID arguments is that they set up a false dichotomy. I do not have to either believe that God created humanity or find that evidence pointing towards evolution is strong. I can accept both to be true at the same time, and many of us here do. Why pile onto these unnecessary science/faith warfare arguments, instead of pointing out better ways around them? Such arguments fuel misunderstanding and distrust, harming both science and the faith in the process. Why fight a war to create such carnage, when there are better ways forward?

[John_Harshman]

I also take exception to the term “Darwinian racism”, which conflates evolutionary biology with the views of some evolutionary biologists. Evolutionary biologists are only somewhat less likely than randomly chosen people to reflect the racism inherent in their culture, and certainly not more likely. Evolutionary biology isn’t the source of their racism in any case. Bad West!

[John_Harshman]

@Michelle

The issue I take with these kinds of ID arguments is that they set up a false dichotomy.

It’s not just a false dichotomy. The idea that creation suggests equality is incorrect on its face. If god created different races, you could argue (as creationists often have) that they were created with different mental as well as physical characteristics, such that some were inferior in certain ways. You could also argue (as creationists often have) that mixing of the divinely created races is in violation of God’s plan. And need we mention the Curse of Ham? Evolution doesn’t imply racist ideas, nor does creation argue against them.

(And of course all this is based on a claim that evolutionary biology shows to be false: that separate human races actually exist. And how can you have racism without believing in race?)

[T_aquaticus]

@Eddie

For a scholar, all intellectual possibilities should be on the table, even if some of the possibilities make some people (be they atheists and materialists or Bible-based Christians) uncomfortable.

I would hope that an intellectual would discuss what is true.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

@Mercer

When an honest, competent scholar in ANY field draws conclusions, she presents ALL of the relevant evidence, not just the evidence that supports that supports her conclusions.

Tell that to Michael Mann…

Why? I’m telling that to you, because you just explicitly endorsed cherry-picking.

You also claimed that Behe had addressed all substantive points, when he never responded to the fact that his citation (evidence) in no way supported his objectively false claim. Why did you approve of using a fake citation to support a false claim?

Was your attempt at diversion a tacit:

1. endorsement of cherry-picking the evidence, or
2. admission that Behe used a phony citation to support his false claim that HIV had never evolved a protein-protein binding site, or
3. both?

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@John_Harshman

It’s not just a false dichotomy. The idea that creation suggests equality is incorrect on its face. If god created different races, you could argue (as creationists often have) that they were created with different mental as well as physical characteristics, such that some were inferior in certain ways.

Especially since the bible refers to “chosen people”.

[Faizal_Ali]

@swamidass’s book has a good discussion of how both scientific and religious debates regarding polygenism were often tainted by racism.

[Paul_King]

@Michelle

We know here at PS that is not true. And it’s actually flipped: racism existed before Darwin proposed his theory and exists even among people who reject evolution.

Indeed. The racism in Darwin’s writing came from his culture not his theory - a culture where Christianity was a major influence. Darwin himself was an Abolitionist - yet many Christians were not.

Indeed it seems to me that in the US there is - if anything - a link between racism and religion. Segregation was claimed as a Christian teaching. Bob Jones University did not admit Blacks until 1971 and banned interracial dating for far longer. Not to mention the racism of the Latter Day Saints - also now repealed. The idea that a belief in Creation makes it easier to believe in human equality than evolution is dubious in itself, and the evidence hardly supports it.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Eddie

Why do you read the least important, most popular in form, least academic material that Discovery puts out (ENV posts), and refuse to read the more important, more learned in form, more academic material (books from the DI Press)?

Most advances in science are disseminated in peer reviewed journals. Along with the occasional ID paper which makes it into the mainstream literature, I am quite willing to nestle up with papers in BIO-Complexity, but the pickings there are rather slim.

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Roy

Especially since the bible refers to “chosen people”.

This, a thousand times over. The Bible is many things; an affirmation of the equality of all humankind is not, however, one of those many things.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Faizal_Ali

@swamidass’s book has a good discussion of how both scientific and religious debates regarding polygenism were often tainted by racism.

That’s the key point.

If racism is a sin, all of us are sinners. In truth, all of us inherit a legacy of racism.

Evolution is no more closely connected to racism than the Bible. One can reject the Bible or Evolution, but to do so because of this association is absurd. To do so misidentifies the location of racism, in our shared patterns of misusing things for racism, not a particularism that is uniquely (and conveniently!) intrinsically associated with our intellectual opponents.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Eddie

@Dan_Eastwood

Perhaps so, but the link directly below is clearly marked “NOT SATIRE”.

Yes. And it’s unlikely that such a notification would appear there, unless the material the reader has just read, just above it, was intended as satire. Especially on a site noted for its satire.

Unless you have an in with the author or editor, that can only be supposition. Either way, it fits the story the DI tries so hard to promote.