‘Kampf’ was a direct translation of ’struggle’ from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application.

Catch 22: Haeckel’s 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled for the ‘public understanding of science’ (PUS) in most biology text books until this millennium. Despite factum est that Haeckel’s crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS - and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it.

Some edited quotes from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a ‘bit’):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojal.....ethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojal.....y_ABC5.pdf

The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between “white” and “colored races” was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould’s scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87). Typically, the operations hit blacks the most in the US, poor women in the Europe, and often the victims were never even told they had been sterilized.

Mendelism outweighed recapitulation (embryos climbing up their evolutionary tree through fish-, amphibian- and reptilian stages), but that merely smoothened the way for the brutal 1930’s biolegislation - that quickly penetrated practically all Western countries. The laws were copied from country to country. The A-B-O blood groups, haemophilia, eye colours etc. were found to be inherited in a Mendelian fashion by 1910. So also the complex traits and social (mis)behaviour such as alcoholism, schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality, rebelliousness, artistic sense, pauperism, racial differences, inherited scholarship (and its converse, feeble-mindedness) were all thought to be determined by one or two genes. Mendelism was “experimental” and quantitative, and its exaggeration outweighed the more cautious biometry operating on smaller variations, not discontinuous leaps. Its advocates boldly claimed that these problems could be done away within a few generations through selection, persisted (although most biologists must have known that defective genes could not be eliminated, even with the most intense forced sterilizations and marriage restrictions due to recessive genes and synergism. Nevertheless, these laws were held until 1970’s and were typically changed only when the abortion legislation were released (1973).

So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938 ) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the ‘Up’ of the ancient city from Plinius’ Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17). Today, Swedish state church is definitely the most liberal in the face of the world.

Hitler’s formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the “Nordics”, a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel’s position on the ‘Judenfrage’ was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

In 1917 the immigration of “defective” groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census. Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the “nordic” balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Regarding us Finns, Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the “yellow” group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.

Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, ‘legally’. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee (contra epithumia, eros, filia & storge) (ahava in Hebrew), that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

“The Earth is 10,000 years old ? Good grief.“

I guess you do not believe in the supernatural.

“Pick up an astronomy textbook and read it.“

Pick up your daily newspaper and turn to the back. Not that I advocate any of it but a brief skim through the astrology section and the adverts for tarot readings should alert you to the fact that a lot more people are quite comfortable rejecting science than you may want to admit.

—

CanCyn,
I believe the Earth is 10,000 years old because it says so in The Bible. I believe in The Bible for a few reasons:
1) I was taught to believe it
2) it makes me comfortable
3) I have an affinity for the supernatural
Why are you asking to engage me in a scientific discourse? Creationism is not science. Most intelligent people know that.

—-

HareBell,
I mean no irony in my statement. I have no problem accepting evolution has occurred in the last few thousand years. Since I choose to believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, that rules out large scale evolution.

—-

Mike,
Concerning the defense of free markets, what are you saying I refuse to read???
I will link to your Economics and Evolution post for everybody to judge for themselves the silliness of how you tried to use evolution to justify free markets, something referrenced by Dalton up above.
Using evolution to support the moral superiority of free markets is pretty dumb.
For those who want the Coles’ Notes version of that dumb thesis to which Mike is alluding, here it is:
1) evolution is complicated and it works
2) free markets are complicated and they work too
2) evolution is true!
3) ergo, free markets are the cat’s ass!
The foundation of that theory really is that simple-minded. Read it yourself.
It is made unnecessarily complicated because the author goes into extensive detail describing how evolution and free markets are complicated for the novice reader. If you are familiar with them already, it is a bore.
Nevertheless, if you attempt to sift through all of the chaff in that thesis, please ask yourself the following: “Wait a minute here…. what would happen to this thesis if we substituted command economies in place of free markets?” and see what you get. I tell you right now: the whole basis of that ridiculous thesis can be used to defend ANY market system, not just free markets. Next, ask yourself “What would happen to this thesis if we substituted laboratory controlled biological systems in place of naturally occurring ecosystems?” Answer: again, the foundation of that thesis can be used to defend non-evolution too.
By the way, Mike, I am not asking YOU nor anybody else to believe the veracity of anything I say. I have no interest in convincing you of the science of evolution nor of the supernatural belief of creationism. I just object to unfounded and dishonest attacks against Richard Dawkins’ writing which, I hope we can agree, is an apt description of Ben Stein’s movie.

I also love “I *believe* in microevolution but not macroevolution”. Thanks for the insight…I mean it, without comments like this, we wouldn’t know who to ignore when discussing the actual SCIENCE and trying to advance it. I also like the use of the word ‘believe’. Pure gold.

Just say that you don’t understand evolution, it saves everyone the trouble.

Mr. Anthony writes:

“I genuinely believe the world is 10,000 years old”

Very well, Mr. Anthony, why do you believe that? On what grounds, and based on what scientific evidence? And why 10,000 as opposed to, say, 8,000? Or 12,000? How exactly did you arrive at that particular age and no other? I’m genuinely curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

P.S. You know what this comments section could use? A preview button.

Mostly because for apparently religious reasons, you refuse to read them.

“By the way, I genuinely believe the world is 10,000 years old AND I believe in natural selection. I just do not believe we come from apes.”

Wait, I thought you said you understood natural selection? I guess this explains why you were so unwilling to accept the primate studies in my “Economics and Evolution” post.

Sorry Charles, but if you think that the earth is only 10 000 years old, then you are simply wrong. If you have that basic fact wrong, how can I accept the veracity of anything else you say?

A Darwinist is someone who accepts the nearly inarguable premises that:

a) organisms evolve over multiple generations, and
b) a mutation that gives an organism a competitive reproductive advantage in a specific environment is likely to result in greater reproductive success for that oragnism, and consequently increasing frequency of that genotype.

Capitalists, Nazis, eugenicists and others have used awkward metaphors to distort that fairly simple observation into grand moral statements, none of which are derived from, or even implied by, Darwin.

In other words, it is as unfair to compare a Darwinist with a 1940’s Nazi as it is to compare a modern Christian with a 1300’s Crusader (or a 1700’s Inquisitor). Whack jobs do not prove anything.

The reason I said “I do not believe we come from apes.” is because the vast majority of creationists are completely oblivious of the nuances of Darwinism.

Creationists commonly say “The theory of evolution is crazy!! You believe we come from apes!!!” and they dismiss it altogether.

That’s good that you don’t believe we come from apes, since that isn’t what natural selection says. We have a mutual ancestor to the current apes that is a lot closer to our ancestors to most other species. Apes are equally evolved as us, they are not some half step that are just left behind.

As a proud defender of free markets and as a person who understands natural selection, I find such defenses to be highly ignorant.

—–

I have read a lot of Ben Stein’s promotional commentary over this movie and I read Dawkins’ account of the interviews. I am less than impressed. As far as I am concerned, Stein is being an idiot.

By the way, I genuinely believe the world is 10,000 years old AND I believe in natural selection. I just do not believe we come from apes.

Again, it must be emphasized that the social uses to which a scientific theory are put say NOTHING about the accuracy or validity of that theory: if this movie suggests otherwise, I’m afraid it’s advancing a seriously flawed and manipulative argument.

“The movie also did deal with the Hitler-Darwin connection, admitting that not every Darwinist will become a Nazi, but suggesting that Darwinism does lend itself nicely to eugenics and the bloodbath that has been many atheistic regimes throughout the 20th century (see current news on China for more details…). Could the Darwinists counter this claim? I don’t know, but that’s only because they haven’t seriously tried yet except to collectively say “nuh-uh”!”

Well for this I think the distinction that Dalton mentioned above needs to be placed in here. If you are talking about the “Darwinists” that are the biologists then I don’t think they even attempt to answer this question as it isn’t relevant. Religion can be a positive for people to believe it, but this does not make it true. If evolution disproves religion and causes people to be atheist, thae result of this says absolutely nothing on whether evolution is true.

For the “Darwinists” that are defending atheism, that’s a different story. Many argue that Hitler wasn’t an atheistic ruler. At the very least he wasn’t doing bad things in the name of atheism. Even if you can find an example of someone doing that, there are examples of people doing bad things in the name of religion. This does not imply anything about the religious population as a whole.

I don’t think ID is “ridiculous”. It’s laughably bad science, but an interesting and intelligent political maneuver.

As for the movie, I am assuming based on Matthew’s post that, like Michael Moore’s films, it’s a polemic masquerading as a documentary. There is an interesting issue to be explore here, for sure - the politics of publication in the scientific community - but given Matthew’s description of what, if accurate, is an utterly, UTTERLY stupid attempt to dispute the scientific merits of evolution by natural selection by suggesting that Nazis used its principles to justify eugenics, I suspect that I’m not going to find much actual substance. Too bad. But I’ll wait to see.

It is always rather humourous when political bloggers pick up on this as if it’s an issue that can be argued like gun control, or even AGW. The evolution ‘controversy’ is entirely manufactured. It does have a beneficial purpose, however - it clearly illuminates the ignorant among us who assume ideological opinion equates, and competes, with scientific research and methodological reasoning. I’m sorry to say that it also shows us those who have no capacity for independent research.

The case against ID is clear, and clearly documented.

- a grim conviction that the “truth” is being “suppressed” by the scientific “establishment;
- reliance on untestable claims;
- absence of falsifiable hyptheses;
- argument from a conclusion rather than from evidence;
- argument from authority.

“The Darwinists, who are so scared about what this movie could do in the court of public opinion that they even attack a small-fry blogger in Ontario for merely showing interest in this movie…”

Just a note - when you’re talking about “the Darwinists”, who do you mean? If you’re referring to biologists who accept the premise of evolution through natural selection, you’re talking about the overwhelming majority of biologists in the world. I don’t think those biologists have much interest in collectively attacking small fry bloggers in Souther Ontario.

If, on the other hand, you’re talking about blog commenters like me, I certainly have no interest in “attacking” you for “showing an interest in the movie”. I am fascinated by polemicists, ideological propaganda, pseudoscience and critical thought, and I share your interest in this film.

“…have failed to address the question this movie raise on why scientists (those with PhDs and impressive resumes) who discuss Intelligent Design are ostracized.”

Well, by and large, it’s because their science is poor.

There’s a famous cartoon, well known to most scientists, which shows a huge blackboard covered with an incredibly complex equation, with one little box in the middle. A scientist is pointing to the box and saying “And then the miracle happens”. It’s pretty funny: it’s also the perfect description of why ID is dismissed by folks who grasp the difference between faith and science.

“Science is man’s study of nature and being a human construct is prone to faulty theories and conclusions; just as the ancients observed the universe revolving around the Earth, or the enlightenment folks developed sophisticated alchemy charts to explain compounds, so too have many scientists throughout many centuries observed, but come to the wrong conclusions because of their perspectives.”

Yup. And when those conclusions are tested by subsequent generations of scientists and found wanting, they are replaced by more accurate models that have greater predictive value. And those models will be replaced if subsequent models have even greater predictive value.

This is what distinguishes science from other forms of knowledge. Religion requires that the practictioner define reality in terms of an unchanging body of belief: science adjusts the model as more is learned.

“Darwinian scientists are not interested in the continuous defence of their conclusions that has been and should be inherent to the work of science.”

Heh. Most police departments are not interested in investigation Elvis sightings either. With all due respect, ID “scientists” have not mounted a single credible “challenge” to the fundamental premises of evolution by natural selection. If you choose to articulate what you feel is the most credible evidence rebutting that mechanism, I’ll be happy to address your argument. I’ve made that offer several times before, as you know.

“The movie also did deal with the Hitler-Darwin connection, admitting that not every Darwinist will become a Nazi…”

Oh, good. My wife, who holds a post-doctoals degree from McGill in biology, will be delighted to hear that.

“Darwinism does lend itself nicely to eugenics and the bloodbath that has been many atheistic regimes throughout the 20th century (see current news on China for more details…). Could the Darwinists counter this claim?”

That may be one of the stupidest ideological linkages I’ve ever read. (I’m blaming the movie here, not you - assuming you’re accurately describing their statement.

Darwin’s description of natural selection as the mechanism by which evolution occurs appears to be correct. Christianity has been used as a justification for the murder of million. Galileo’s calculation on pendulum motion and parabolas, used for aiming missiles and cannons, appear to be accurate. The application by evil men of an idea tells us absolutely nothing to do with the truth, or the merits of that idea.

“I don’t know, but that’s only because they haven’t seriously tried yet except to collectively say “nuh-uh”!”

If you’d like to rephrase that as an assertion I can respond to, I’ll certainly try.

“This will include a healthy debate with the scientists who openly challenge the doctrine of Darwinian evolution.”

Heh. That debate has been taking place for well over a century, Matthew, and continues to this day. The Darwinians won. The current argument is not scientific; it’s political.