We’ve talked about this before. Either add to the discussion of the thread, or your comments are going to be deleted.
Thomas ends his article like this: “And if Darwinian evolution does not explain as small a step as evolving a new version of a single protein, then why would anyone expect it to explain the evolution of all the new proteins required to transform a protozoan into a person?”
I see nothing invalid about this reasoning, do you? Are you protesting here that he goes from the improbability of evolving a new version of a single protein to saying that we should not expect evolution to be able to evolve all the new proteins required for organisms we see living today? It is not conclusive evidence because you cannot prove a negative, but the results of Thornton’s experiments sure fit better in the creationist/id paradigm than the biologos paradigm.
And this experiment didn’t even have to do with the development of a new version of a currently existing protein – a change that should be relatively easy for evolution if it is an accurate portrayal of how life came to be what it is! It couldn’t even do that – so why would we think it can evolve proteins from scratch?
Perhaps he could have been a bit more clear on the point that the experiment only involved one particular protein – (Nice to finally see this kind of experiment taking place though! Kudos to Thornton for his efforts!) But he does quote Behe in the article and put a link to his article where this point is made very
clear.
Here is what Behe said in his article:
“So, since the very first protein studied in sufficient detail is found to encounter severe problems in changing its function by even a modest amount by unguided processes, that strongly suggests proteins in general will, too – not just the particular one he studied. Which is exactly what you’d expect from a “Time-Symmetric Dollo’s Law.””
So, it seems that Thomas was simply reiterating Behe’s conclusion - that this strongly suggests that it applies to proteins in general as well. It is not baseless speculation so his extrapolation doesn’t seem so far off. Besides he is writing for lay readers and the articles on that part of the site are always short. I think you are reading way too much into this. He brings up a very good point – one that actually has hard experimental evidence to back it up - which is often hard to find in evolutionary “science”.
All the ID sites highlighted this work as well. Were they too dishonest in their interpretation of the article like Thomas was? Behe too?
See, a lot of this disagreement comes down to how we interpret the data.
Take the problem of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.
Now all Biologians already KNOW that the tissue is not young so you look for an explanation as to how the tissue could still be soft after all these years. Creationists, on the other hand, assume the bones are young, and interpret the data through their paradigm. In this case, the data fits better with the creationist paradigm.
As you know, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who people like to point out is a Christian - but that is an irrelevant fact - did an experiment which showed that iron has some preservation ability. She is insinuating that if all the dinosaur bones with soft tissue had been soaked in blood when they were buried, perhaps that is what explains the amazing preservation for these millions of years. That possible scenario seems to be good enough for most evolutionists and for the most part, they quote this experiment and claim it is a non-issue now. But her experiment only ran for 2 years. Are evolutionists really justified in extrapolating those results out to 65-140 million years to account for the problem? Since evolutionists know the tissue is old and this seems like an explanation that has potential, they are more than happy to do so. Their worldview/paradigm explains this leap of faith. I don’t think it is a justifiable leap, but you might. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion.
The point is that our worldview influences how we interpret the data.
OK, well the current state of affairs is that there is no evidence yet that this could happen by Darwinan means. Is it possible they will someday find an answer? Sure. You can’t prove a negative so you can always appeal to future discoveries that may or may not take place, but both sides do this so that is one option.
Behe says basically he just appealed to dumb luck to explain it - here:
“Thornton himself – apparently a conventional Darwinist, and certainly no sympathizer with intelligent design – does not attribute the protein receptor’s new function to Darwinian processes. Rather, he ascribes it mostly to “historical contingency.” That’s another way of saying “dumb luck.””
So why did Thornton appeal to historical contingency/dumb luck to explain this anomaly? His worldview, of course! Design is not an option, but an appeal to luck is not very scientific either I’m afraid.
Behe highlighted the problem in the beginning of his article with this statement: “Although Thornton himself always interprets his results in a standard Darwinian framework, in my view the work strongly confirms that severe problems face even relatively minor Darwinian evolution of proteins.”
Neo-darwinians always interpret the data through their Darwinian framework. Creationists through their framework and IDers through their framework. So Thomas’s conclusion is simply the result of interpreting the data through the creationist framework in the same way that Thornton’s ascribing it to “historical contingency” is a result of him interpreting the data through his. Yet you seem fine with that, right?
I do not share your concern here at all concerning dishonesty in this article.
However, I do agree that scientists on both sides of the aisle need to be honest and accurate in their reporting of the data. The interpretation of course will vary based on a person’s worldview/paradigm.
Hi Martin. Although I am fairly new on this forum, I’d like to welcome you as a brother in Christ. I appreciate your worries regarding appropriate attitudes towards the Bible and God’s authority.
Please remember that all of us Christians fully affirm that “God spoke and it happened”, independent of our position concerning evolution. The discussion is usually more about in what way exactly God chose to exert His authority. Beliefs in a young earth and instantaneous creation hold to a view of “God spoke and it must have happened only in way X and not in ways Y or Z.” Actually, Evolutionary Creationists like me fully affirm and applaud God’s authority in His choice of Creation.
I understand that the word “dishonesty” in the title of this thread could have implied an attack on the young earth position or on people who believe in a young earth in general. However, this is not the intention of my original post. My post was specifically aimed at instances of misrepresentation, forgery, et cetera in YEC scholarship. The problem is that such cases have been observed to occur repeatedly. If you have worries about similar cases with a similar prevalence in the scholarly body that affirms evolutionary theory, I would be very interested to read about them! I have attempted to adjust the title somewhat to reflect better the tentative nature of my original post.
So my question to you is as follows. Suppose you observe instances that give the appearance of dishonesty among people whom you consider fellow brothers in Christ. How would you handle such a situation?
Hi tokyoguy! Thanks for your reply, I was actually curious to hear reactions on my OP from people who affirm the YEC position. You have mainly responded on the specific article with which I introduced this topic (for a short reply, see below). However, I am especially interested to hear what you think about the prevalence of apparent dishonesty among YEC scholars in general. I am also talking about things like “quote-purification” (for example, AiG cleansed the quote where the famous evangelist Charles Spurgeon affirmed an old earth).
There are countless examples that can impossibly be attributed to a mere “difference in interpretation”. I hold that the article of Mr. Thomas is one such an example, but we could agree to disagree on that. Beyond that, do you concur that such “inaccuracies” are a problem within YEC scholarship? If not, how would you explain the large number of cases? If you do concur, how does it affect your trust in YEC scholars? What could be done to improve the situation?
Specifically regarding the article:
[quote=“tokyoguy111, post:26, topic:4543”]
Perhaps he could have been a bit more clear on the point that the experiment only involved one particular protein
(…) Besides he is writing for lay readers and the articles on that part of the site are always short.[/quote]
Writing for lay audiences only increases someone’s responsibility to report with appropriate nuance (because the readers don’t have any knowledge to check your claims). Really, it is perfectly possible to write an article with exactly the same number of words without making gross generalizations as Mr. Thomas did. I understand it provides interesting soundbites for YEC readers but it is just an outright falsehood to claim that these findings “disprove evolution”.
The article that Mr. Thomas is talking about is actually a good example of how the abundantly iterated claim “everybody has the same evidence, we just interpret it differently” is incorrect. Because in focusing on this specific transition in protein organization, Mr. Thomas and Behe are completely ignoring the countless steps in the chain of protein evolution that have already been found to occur. The research in question is simply not as unique as they are claiming… The authors were focusing on certain specific hypotheses about what evolutionary pathways were used. Any serious scholar is expected to understand that it is inappropriate to use research into these specific possible pathways to argue that the whole of evolutionary theory is “disproven”. Especially since the authors actually described possible alternatives.
You cannot grant Mr. Thomas permission to report such things falsely simply because he is communicating to a non-expert audience. On the contrary, given his expertise, he has the duty to carefully maintain an appropriate tone of nuance in his concise formulations.
i would be kind and sweet and direct them to the video{The Amazing evidence for God} on You tube and show them that evolution is completely incorrect! And let them know in a Christ like way that if they swallow any evolution ideas that this video will make them think twice! One thing i firmly believe that have people who accept evolution as part of God’s Creation stumped, Is that they Really believe the skulls they find are indeed evidence that we have evolved. In this video it says the skulls they find are #1 fully human or #2 fully Ape or #3 just made up! i after not seeing evolution in any animals I see around me must confirm that finding! it is amazing that people never question what the skulls are and really just swallow what the evolutionist say they are hook line and sinker with out question because they #1 they really believe that scientist do not have an agenda to push the lie of evolution, which they surly do! they do it on line and in schools and fool our Kids!#2 They think evolutionist know all and will always be truthfull about what they find and very accurate about revealing what it is! As I said before check out the video on you tube Called {The amazing evidence for God} then if that does not convince you look at {Expelled:No intelligence allowed} video on you tube and it will show you what the "scientist/evolutionist do to make how the lies in the school be pushed on us! If those 2 videos do not convince you how evil evolutionist are then there is no hope!
Okay. Sweet and kind… and Christ-like… I don’t know which Bible you’re reading but, to be honest, the attitude shown in your posts does not really represent these qualities.
That’s interesting, because actually YEC ministries don’t even agree among themselves on, for example, the classifications for the Homo Naledi findings. So that classification is not so clear-cut as those videos make you think ;).
Hmmm… So watching just two videos will convince a person and otherwise there is no hope. That’s an awfully depressing position to hold. I think it’s better to trust that the truth lasts the longest and to be patient with your fellow brethren.
Don’t you think that people have carefully thought this issue through? I myself study in university and I don’t typically see any experts arising from watching YouTube videos. Especially if a significant part of your trusted experts has already been shown to conveniently “adjust” the truth on certain matters.
Suppose that many YouTube-educated people are placing their trust in a very small group of scholars among which distortions have been observed in significant fractions. What should we do then, Martin?
P.S. As an aside, if you want to discuss scientific evidence for evolution in detail, I advice you first to read through the common questions section of Biologos. After being better informed, you could start a topic of your own here on the forum about your questions / objections.
I believe I have kept a polite and conversational tone during our short interaction. If I haven’t, please point out what I have said to insult you. I have no issues with you at all, you are completely free to speak what you believe. However, it is also important that you speak with proper respect and as you yourself said with a Christ-like demeanor. If your position is true, then it should make you confident. That confidence should help you to share about it with the same patience as Paul had when he conversed people who had different positions than him.
I repeat, this topic is not aimed at discussing the BioLogos position. It is aimed at instances of inaccurate scholarship among YECs.
I am afraid that martin’s replies will be deleted as soon as one of the moderators reads them, although I hope they will be lenient to him. While that deletion would be in accordance with forum rules, it will probably just serve to strengthen his idea of “censorship”.
At the very least, it would be good if the moderators could move his posts – and discussion around them – to a separate topic. They are threatening to derail the entire conversation.
1 Like
You are exactly right.
Martin, having come from the anti-evolution “creation science” movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s, I think I have a good grasp of where you are coming from. It was the pathological lying and deceptive quote-mines of my brethren which eventually took me into deep discouragement. (I once asked Henry Morris, “If we have the truth, why should we ever have to distort and misrepresent the evidence?” His reply depressed me even more than the fibs that I brought to his attention.)
Not until I read prolific YEC-author and “flood geologist” Glenn Morton and his story of why and how he left the “creation science” movement did I begin to appreciate the many many individuals who went through much the same soul-searching that I experienced. My journey to a better understanding of God’s creation was not at all atypical.
Years later I felt a similar plunge of discouragement when I saw the hypocrisy and dishonesty of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. You see, I spent a lifetime in both secular and evangelical university academia and the REALITY of “academic freedom” is quite different from what Ben Stein portrayed. By the way, is Ben Stein a scientist? A theologian? A university biology professor? He’s trained as a lawyer. He’s best known as a movie character actor, sitcom guest star, TV commercial pitchman. Does it bother you at all that the Expelled movie gave the impression that Darwin was to blame for the Holocaust even though Hitler totally rejected evolutionary biology as a totally contradictory to Nazi ideology—which is why Darwin’s books (and all books about biological evolution) were banned from Germany’s library and many were burned publicly? Of course, Expelled was specifically crafted propaganda aimed at those who are unfamiliar with the science and the history associated with the topic.
Not surprisingly, every single one of the alleged “academic freedom violations” depicted in the movie turned out to be bogus. As Christ-followers, shouldn’t we care about TRUTH? Should we be resorting to turning up the sound track of storm-troopers marching to create an impression of a Nazi+Darwin link which never existed—even while ignoring that Hitler did rely heavily on quotations and appeals to Martin Luther’s rabid anti-Semitism? Did the Expelled movie say a word about Hitler’s love of Luther’s hatred of the Jews? Why not, Martin? And why did evangelical theologian Bruce Waltke get fired within hours of daring to exercise his “academic freedom”? After a lifetime at both secular and evangelical universities, I would be happy to compare and contrast the state of academic freedom at both types of academic institutions.
Martin, I would be happy to discuss with you the dishonesty of the Expelled: No Intelligence Involved movie and the appalling unChrist-like conduct in general demonstrated often by Answers in Genesis, of which the following article discusses just one example:
http://www.beyondcreationscience.com/index.php?pr=Why_Doesnt_Answers_in_Genesis_Tell_You_the_Truth
Surely all of us as Christ-followers can agree that honesty matter. Right?
i apologize I thought we were discussing a different topic! Was NOT trying to be rude to any one again my apologies!
Thank you for the clarification. If you pursue some of those other topics, I hope they do not escape my attention. (I don’t always check out all of the new threads. Nevertheless, I do want to be available if there are questions about my past experiences within the “creation science” movement.)
When you write about the Old Testament, I am impressed by your grasp of the material; when you write about other matters, not so much. For example, in your comments on the film Expelled (which I am the first to admit had many flaws), you said that “every single one of the alleged ‘academic freedom violations’ depicted in the movie turned out to be bogus.” I do not think you have read the detailed accounts available elsewhere of the Carolyn Crocker and Richard Sternberg cases, or you would not have said this. Also, regarding the connection between Darwin and Hitler, you miss the point. The claim is not that Hitler personally endorsed Darwin or Darwin’s book. The claim is that Darwinian ideas permeated the intellectual atmosphere at the time, and that these ideas can be found in Nazi racialist theory. Research on this has been done by a good secular historian, Richard Weikart (who teaches at the University of California, not some fundamentalist college), and he has presented his studies in academic publications. You would be wise to familiarize yourself with those publications, and other publications on the intellectual ancestry of Nazi racialist ideas, and on the influence of Darwinian thought on eugenics in America, etc., before coming to final conclusions in a field – 19th-20th century intellectual history – which is not your area of academic expertise.
You have made very clear in a large number of posts how much your past experience as a fundamentalist has shaped your attitude to the current discussions. But you must not allow that negative experience to allow you to become unfair to anything that happens to remind you of the beliefs you have repudiated. It is clear that ID reminds you of creation science, literalism, fundamentalism, etc. But your assessment of ID notions should be based on ID’s claims for itself, not your spontaneous mental associations. I have yet to see in your posts a coherent refutation of anything written by Meyer, Behe, Denton, etc. I have yet to see anything that shows you have carefully read and understood the works of these authors. I have seen only reactivity, and an association of ID with science denial and creationism. Like you, I was trained as an Old Testament scholar. As an Old Testament scholar I learned to base my reactions on texts rather than on real or alleged associations of the authors of texts. I wish I saw more discussions of ID texts in your criticism.
The paper by Thornton referred to in the ICR article does indeed suggest that evolution of the modern form of the GR protein required a very lucky accident to occur. I can understand how creationist or ID proponents would take this result as evidence for their point of view. So I don’t see any sign of actual dishonesty here. The paper does state:
If evolutionary history could be replayed from the ancestral starting point, the same kind of permissive substitutions would be unlikely to occur. The transition to GR’s present form and function would likely be inaccessible, and different outcomes would almost certainly ensue. Cortisol-specific signaling might evolve by a different mechanism in the GR, or by an entirely different protein, or not at all; in each case, GR – or the vertebrate endocrine system more generally – would be substantially different.
So I don’t think this is a very good example of distortion of the scientific literature by anti-evolutionists. I am not denying that such distortion has happened, but I think that in most cases, this is due to a misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory says about some mechanisms. That seems to be partly true here as well. The authors are not claiming that the correct permissive mutations to allow for the evolution of modern GR function by responding to cortisol signaling are impossible, but that they are very rare. This is not as surprising as some might think, since we already know that there were very likely many such extremely rare and fortuitous mutations along the evolutionary pathway of the past 2 billion years. This was what was behind the famous Gould idea that playing the evolutionary tape again would likely lead to different results (as reflected in the above quote from the paper). Contingency, even very unlikely and very lucky contingency, has always played a role in evolutionary theory, even among strict neo-Darwinians.
What makes this paper interesting and novel, is the high level of experimentation and functional detail that establishes the importance of a low probability event during evolution of new functions.
I find this quite exciting, since I think it does shed more light on the role of what we call chance in evolution. It certainly does not in any way disprove evolutionary mechanisms, but provides more evidence for the complexity of life. There are undoubtedly many more examples of this kind in the world of proteins, but we also know of many more examples of evolutionary convergence, where the opposite result occurs, namely that many different mutational pathways lead to the same overall phenotype.
1 Like
Eddie, it is also worth mentioning that this is not YOUR area of academic expertise. If it were, you would know that:
-
Richard Weikart’s work of propaganda, not scholarship, was funded by The Discovery Institute as part of their infamous Wedge Strategy.
-
Weikert’s effort to try and blame Darwin for Hitler and the Holocaust (while totally ignoring the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther, which Hitler did like to quote from) was a dismal failure with everyone but the anti-evolution Internet community.
-
Weikert’s thinly veiled propaganda posed as if it were professional scholarship totally failed in the peer-review of historian scholars worldwide.
Here’s a partial bibliography of those scathing academic reviews of Weikert’s best known book, From Darwin to Hitler. (This compilation comes from Wikipedia. I had trouble with formatting so I won’t try to frame it with the quotation tags.)
Negative reviews include:
Zimmerman, Andrew (April 2005). “Richard Weikart. From Darwin to Hitler”. The American Historical Review 110 (2): 566–567. doi:10.1086/531468.
Zimmerman, Andrew (2005). “Response to Richard Weikart”. American Historical Review 110: 1323.
Weikart, Richard (2006). “General Response to Critics”. CSUS. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Roll-Hansen, Nils (December 2005). “Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler”. Isis 96 (4). pp. 669–671. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Avalos, Hector (2007). “Creationists for Genocide”. Talk.reason. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Gliboff, Sander (September 2004). “Review: Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler”. H-German. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Judaken, Jonathan (June 2005). “Review: Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler”. H-Ideas. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Arnhart, Larry (February 25, 2006). “A Review of Richard Weikart’s From Darwin to Hitler”. Darwinian Conservatism. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Arnhart, Larry (December 2006). “Darwinian Liberal Education”. Academic Questions 19 (4). Retrieved 2013-02-17. pp. 6-18
Larry Arnhart, Darwinian Conservatism: A Disputed Question (Charlottesville: Imprint Academic, 2005), p. 114. ISBN 0-907845-99-1
Richards, Robert (July 2006). “Narrative Structure of Moral Judgments in History: Evolution and Nazi Biology” (PDF). University of Chicago. Retrieved 2013-02-17. Published as “The Moral Grammar of Narratives in History of Biology: The Case of Haeckel and Nazi Biology” in The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology ed. David L. Hull (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) pp. 429-452.
Taylor Allen, Ann (March 2006). “Book Review of From Darwin to Hitler”. The Journal of Modern History 78: 255–257. doi:10.1086/502761. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Turda, Marius. “Nazi Ideology between Darwin and Hitler”. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions (September 2005) 6 (2): 319. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Walser Smith, Helmut (March 2006). “Book Review From Darwin to Hitler”. Central European History 39 (01). doi:10.1017/s0008938906260060. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Bowler, Peter (20 December 2009). “Do we need a non-Darwinian industry?”. Notes and Records of the Royal Society. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
Schloss, Jeff (2008). “The Expelled Controversy:Overcoming or Raising Walls of Division?,” (PDF). American Scientific Affiliation. Retrieved 2013-02-17.
This is also interesting:
Flam, Faye (October 27, 2011). “Severing the link between Darwin and Nazism”. The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2000-09-03. Retrieved2013-02-14.
Larry Arnhart hones in on Weikart’s lamentable quote-mining:
The book is now commonly cited by proponents of creationism and intelligent design as scholarly proof that there is a direct line of influence “from Darwin to Hitler.” But as I have shown, Weikart doesn’t actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin’s ideas and Hitler’s Nazism.
So if even Weikart admits that the title of his book is misleading, it is not at all difficult to understand why historians throughout the world have lambasted Weikart’s propaganda-under-contract project for The Discovery Institute.
Eddie, have you actually read Weikart’s book? If you did, you would recognize it as to real history what junk science is to real science. Yes, by any measure, it is junk scholarship.
How did I learn about all of this? I read Professor Tertius’ review of the book in the old Bible & Science Forum newsletter over a decade ago and I still have it on my computer through Gmail. Better yet, I reread it just now and chuckled aloud when I noticed that the Foreword to that review was written by Professor OldTimer!
So your effort to school readers, and Professor OldTimer, on “Weikert’s Folly” comes about a dozen years too late.You forgot that a lot of us who visit the Biologos Forums are very familiar with the Discovery Institute’s Wedge Strategy, including the infamous Weikert debacle.
Your mention of Weikert’s book is very pertinent to this Biologos Forum topic because we are talking about “apparent dishonesty” and Weikert’s junk scholarship certainly provokes such a question from readers.
I’m usually a passive lurker here but this topic was too interesting not to join in.
Postscript:
I should have included this also:
Additionally, Larry Arnhart, a professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University wrote “As Weikart indicates, Hitler was a crude genetic determinist who believed that not only physical traits but even morality and culture were inherited genetically along racial lines, so that moral and cultural evolution depended on genetic evolution. But Weikart doesn’t indicate to his readers that Darwin denied this.”[19]
Also within the above article is this: "Regarding the thesis of Weikart’s book, University of Chicago historian Robert Richards concluded that “Hitler was not a Darwinian” and “calls this all a desperate tactic to undermine evolution.”
Yes, Weikert is a garden-variety quote-miner of the pick-and-choose variety. What he doesn’t tell his readers can be as important as what he does.
Actually, the article linked in my OP was not meant as a “prime” example of such distortion. It was just something that gave me the idea to discuss this more general problem.
I still can’t imagine how the unwarranted generalization plus the unfounded dismissal of the authors’ proposed alternative can really be accounted for by a mere “misunderstanding” of the mechanisms. Especially not for someone with a master’s degree in biotechnology. Even looking only at the claim that these findings “disproved evolution”, how severe must one’s misunderstanding be? Or alternatively, how severe one’s desire to persuade others? I was hoping an actual biotechnologist would weigh in on this discussion to give us insights into this.
1 Like
I dont know if I am an actual biotechnologist, but I do know a bit about biology and evolution. I tried to present the real conclusion of the original paper in my comment above. That conclusion is not at all anti evolution. The interpretation by ICR of the study’s result being against evolution is wrong, but understandable, if one’s viewpoint is strongly creationist. However it is based on a false belief that evolution requires a consistent deterministic mechanism for every advance in fitness. There might be some evolutionists who still hold to that view, but I doubt it.
Let me get this straight. You lambaste me for not having read a book by Weikart – whose name you misspelled at least four times – yet from your own remarks, you have not read it yourself, but rely entirely on the reviews of intermediate parties, including “Professor Tertius” who (to say more would be violating BioLogos rules about discussing alter egos used on the site) is hardly neutral.
Actually I have not read Weikart’s books, but I have read some of his shorter pieces, and corresponded with him about the relevant period of intellectual history, and it is quite evident that he is a competent scholar in the history of ideas (and by the way, history of scientific ideas and their cultural influence – though not specifically of the Nazi regime’s ideas – is one of my areas of doctoral-level competence).
A list of Weikart’s publications can be found at:
http://archive.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/
The journals in which he has published (Isis, Journal of the History of Ideas, etc.) are good, high-quality academic journals.
I am not aware of any funding arrangements behind Weikart’s books. I know that they were not published by Discovery; in fact, you can see that two of them were published by the very respectable Palgrave MacMillan.
I am not saying that there are no flaws of any kind in Arnhart’s work. Nor would I defend in detail a book I have not read. My point is that Weikart is a specialist in the history of European thought, and Old Timer is not; yet Old Timer sweepingly dismisses Arnhart. On what grounds? Hearsay?
Now, regarding your list of reviews. Have you included all the reviews of Weikart’s work in your list, including the positive ones? Or have you included only the negative ones?
Let’s look at a few of the negative reviewers. Were you careful to consider possible motivations of the reviewers? Weikart is know to be an evangelical Christian. Note that some of the reviews come from atheist quarters – from Hector Avalos (notorious for his attempt – successful – to sabotage the Christian Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure chances at Iowa state), and from Larry Arnhart. Avalos, to the best of my knowledge, has no particular expertise in either Nazi racialist theory or Darwinian biology, but is just a run-of-the-mill, angry atheist Religious Studies professor so typical of the type that now educates the youth of America at public universities. Arnhart also is a biased witness, as he has engaged in long combat with both Weikart and John West over Darwinism. Arnhart also is not a historian, but a political philosopher; his training is in reading philosophical sources, not historical ones. Weikart’s training is in historical sources.
Now for some of your other sources. Jeff Schloss is a Christian, but he is not a historian and not trained in historical research. As for Faye Flam in the the newspaper review, who is she? Has she historical training? Does she have an axe to grind? Did you check?
Your remark – and Arnhart’s – about the title of one book is petty. If a set of ideas originates in Darwin, and through various channels finds its way into the writings of Nazi apologists, there does not have to be a direct influence of the man Darwin on the man Hitler. The concern is whether certain ideas which can be traced back to Darwin have had deleterious social consequences – even if Darwin himself (which I’m sure Weikart admits) did not advocate racial extermination, etc. And having read The Descent of Man among many other works of Darwin, I am quite certain that those ideas are in fact in Darwin, even if he himself was too humane to apply them the way later people did. So let’s not discuss the title of Weikart’s book but its argument. If you know what is wrong with its argument, say so. Which sources does Weikart misinterpret? Which sources does he omit? Are you saying that there are no Nazi writings existing anywhere which make use of Darwinian themes?
The issue is not whether Darwin would have supported Hitler’s genocide program (he wouldn’t have). The issue is whether the circulation and popularization of Darwin’s thought made such a thing more likely to happen. This point is made very clearly by David Berlinski in the film – in a remark which Old Timer apparently missed.
I want to make clear that I am not saying all of this to defend the film Expelled. The film never should have moved into the Darwin-Nazi connection. That should have been a separate film on its own, with much fuller documentation, and the Expelled film should have concentrated solely on the issue of academic discrimination, and provided much fuller documentation. The filmmakers conflated two films into one, and the result was a film with two different theses, both weakly defended. But they didn’t ask my opinion before they put out the film. And I stress that the film was not made by Discovery, but by an independent filmmaker. It would have been better done if Discovery had put it out.
That’s because you haven’t actually read them and you haven’t familiarized yourself with why the academic community has rejected them . If you did read the book, you would have seen the author’s THANK YOU to the Discovery Institute for the funding.
You need to reread my post. I criticized you for confusing junk scholarship that has been rejected by the academic community for the real kind and for thinking that readers here wouldn’t notice.
Yet, if even you have decided that the book wasn’t worth your time in actually reading it, why are you complaining that others may have reached the same decision?
Strangely enough, you are fine with endorsing and recommended a book you haven’t read. OK. As far as I’m concerned, that is your right and you can even mark it up with yellow highlighter and I will not object. We can agree to disagree about such things.
(1) So you actually think misspelling somebody’s name invalidates what I wrote? Really? OK, that’s your right.
(2) I’m legally blind and depend upon special software which has to be tediously adjusted for proper nouns that can’t be standardized. When it is not for publication, I don’t bother with such spelling issues. Yes, shoot me. I decided that it wasn’t worth my time to do the setup programming. If that helps you to feel superior, good for you. (It smacks of desperation…but…to each his own.)
(1) I never claimed that I never read the book. (I received an unsolicited review copy a few weeks later and started reading it.) Again, it sounds like you need to reread what I wrote in order to improve your comprehension. By the way, I started reading the book but soon realized that it was not worth my time. I gave up on the book as it descended into nonsense.
(2) Your fear of reviews is a recurrent theme. Was it you who complained about reading copies tainted by yellow highlighter? (Or was that someone else here?) I’ve noticed that you often complain about reviewsl. As has already been noted, you only approve of reviews which agree with your position. That’s your choice. Fine.
As to the OP of this forum topic, yes the dishonesty of some authors and ministry leaders concerns me a lot. From Darwin to Hitler was one such example.