Expelled! and the Atheism-Evolution Connection
There is something I want to clarify from my previous post on the topic. Nobody has mentioned this to me, but it is a common enough error that I think I need to say something explicit.
I object both to the comparison of scientists supporting the theory of evolution to Nazis and the equation of acceptance of evolution with atheism, but I do so for rather different reasons.
I regard Nazism as ethically repugnant and pretty much without redeeming value. It’s manifestation in Germany was particularly evil. The passage of years, however, has resulted in a variety of people comparing just about anyone they disagree with to the Nazis. If you get by with it, it guarantees a win. I regard the comparison of scientists denying tenure to a professor with Nazis as a slander. It also demonstrates a lack of ethical judgment, and specifically devalues the true evil of Nazism.
I think it’s quite possible that for the producers of Expelled, the connection to atheists is more important. Atheism is more present and real to modern Americans, and it is the one thing they expect Christians of all denominations and believers from other faiths to be able to agree on–atheism is bad. So if you can hammer the concept into people that belief in evolution is the equivalent of atheism, they will viscerally reject evolution as they already do atheism.
It’s a fairly standard propaganda ploy. Find something that is already in disrepute amongst your audience (and polls on the perception of atheists will show the basis for this), then all you have to do is completely (subconsciously if possible) relate the idea you dislike to the one people already dislike. Unfortunately, all that is necessary to accomplish this goal is to repeat it often enough and loudly enough.
So my problem with “evolution is atheism” is quite different from my concern about Nazism. Nazism is nasty, and it is slander to connect it with evolutionary science. Atheists are generally good, moral, productive people, and there is nothing about their belief system that says they will be anything else. There’s a big difference between a group of people who believe as a tenet of their ideology that you ought to be killed, and a group that disagrees with you on certain philosophical points, even very basic ones.
So I want to make myself clear. I do not object to the connection of atheism and evolution because atheism is nasty, and you shouldn’t smear evolution in that way. I object to this connection because it is incorrect. The theory of evolution describes the natural world, and is not incompatible with theism. It is also not incompatible with atheism. It is simply organized information about the natural world. Connecting it with a philosophy is completely unrelated to determining its truth value.
Nazism is an ideology with an ethically repugnant set of actions inherent in it. It is slanderous to connect evolution with that ideology.
It remains true, of course, that both connections are inappropriate propaganda ploys and the producers of Expelled! should be ashamed of themselves for both.
“I object both to the comparison of scientists supporting the theory of evolution to Nazis and the equation of acceptance of evolution with atheism, but I do so for rather different reasons.”
I suppose it has to be accepted that the Nazis were exponents of eugenics, and eugenics is based on mimicking Darwinian natural selection with forethought and positive action (a position which Richard Dawkins abhors, and thinks we should strive to avoid at all costs). One might say that that is usurping God’s prerogative, but then again humanity does that all the time, and arguably has been placed by God in a position to do that.
My own morality rebels against eugenics, and against radical libertarianism (which I consider it’s close relation).
But I have to remark that the socio-economic systems we have in place (perhaps particularly in Social-Democratic Europe) are very arguably currently encouraging the survival and propagation of the unfittest.
It’s not a simple issue.
I think the key problem here is fundamental: That which is does not necessarily equate to that which ought to be. We change things from their natural state all the time. There would have to be a basic case made that “survival of the fittest” is the moral way to run a society.
I believe God used it to diversify life in the universe. But that doesn’t make it workable when the goal is different. I do think there is a constant tension between freedom and safety, however, and that full freedom is not consistent with safety, nor full safety with freedom. I would imagine it is, of course, possible to be totally unsafe and totally unfree.
Does not Christianity in many cases offer survival to the unfittest, or at a minimum, equal survival to all, irrespective of fitness?
Let me go beyond what you’ve said (with which I agree), and say that Christianity requires that we take our responsibility within God’s creation to change what we can as instruments of His will. We are not outside the creation, we have been given the ability to change it, and that too is God’s will.
And I know that God’s will is that I protect, not that I destroy. Despite the fact that his will has also been that I become an efficient predator…
“Atheists are generally good, moral, productive people, and there is nothing about their belief system that says they will be anything else.”
I can’t begin to tell you how nice and rare it is to hear that from a Christian. Thanks.
Yes, but without evolution, there wouldn’t have been Nazi’s.
We’d all be bacteria or something. See, it’s all evolution’s fault!
Amen! I am in complete agreement.
I meant, of course, that I am in complete agreement with the POST. Not the joking comment above. 😉
In this film, there was no “comparison of scientists supporting the theory of evolution to Nazis”.
In this film, Stein argued that “Dawinism”, or the acceptance of evolution theory as FACT, had reached a religious equivalent within the scientific community.
His argument was that the modern scientific community is acting towards evolution’s “non-believers” or “doubters” by ostracizing them in just the same way that those they normally criticize (religious believers) tend to “exclude” those who don’t believe the same things they do.
The reference to Naziism was to show that, just as many atrocities have come about due to religion, an equally atrocious situation was brought about by a radical extension of Darwin’s theories. It was an over-the-top attempt to expose hypocrisy within the modern scientific community.
The point is, there are MANY holes in evolution theory, and, as Stein points out, nobody has yet to demonstrate a provable theory of how life started on earth.
You have to admit, it was comical how the Darwinists are OK with a theory that an alien life form “seeded” life on earth, but replace alien with God, nand they dismiss it out of hand.
It’s interesting to me that you write a comment trying to convince me that Stein is just making a reasonable argument, yet do so by making some unreasonable arguments yourself. To wit:
1. Nowhere is the controversy about accepting evolutionary theory as fact. There are facts which are explained by a theory. Scientists accept the theory of evolution as a valid theory.
2. Darwinism is just a codeword used by antievolutionists. If there is any “Darwinism” it is simply the theory of evolution itself. It is not some sort of philosophy.
3. Spending time on the Nazis was definitely “over the top” and also evidence of moral cowardice on the part of the producers and all involved with the movie.
4. Research continues on the origin of life. That is as it should be. There will always be things we don’t know yet and which we must research.
You say:
Actually, I don’t have to admit anything of the kind. I would expect any scientist to reject “God did it” out of hand as a scientific explanation. As a Christian, I say God did it whether scientists have explained it or not. Once it’s explained, I can say, “that’s how God did it.”
But the “God” part is not part of science, and should not be.