12345...10...


Darwinism Refuted.com

Here we will analyze this scientific crisis faced by the theory of evolution. This work rests solely upon scientific findings. Those advocating the theory of evolution on behalf of scientific truth should confront these findings and question the presumptions they have so far held. Refusal to do this would mean openly accepting that their adherence to the theory of evolution is dogmatic rather than scientific…

Read the rest here:

Darwinism Refuted.com

What is Social Darwinism – AllAboutScience.org

QUESTION: What is Social Darwinism?

ANSWER:

Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of “the strong survive,” including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.

At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the “White European” was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.

At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler’s march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.

Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection and Spencer’s beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.

It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer’s philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin’s work.

However, according to evolutionary theory, nature is a “kill-or-be-killed” system. Those that cannot keep up are either left behind or cut off. If evolution, through chance, is solely responsible for life as we now know it, why should that process be countered? If “survival of the fittest” or “kill or be killed” cannot apply in what we define as “decent society,” then, which is wrong, society or evolution? If neither, then how do we explain morality, charity, and compassion? Why drain resources from the strong to support the weak? Certainly, we should be charitable and help those in need.

Though Darwin did not promote Social Darwinism, basic evolutionary theory raises some nagging questions.

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

Read the original:

What is Social Darwinism – AllAboutScience.org

Social Darwinism: The Theory of Evolution Applied to Human Society

Social Darwinism was the application of Charles Darwin`s scientific theories of evolution and natural selection to contemporary social development. In nature, only the fittest survivedso too in the marketplace. This form of justification was enthusiastically adopted by many American businessmen as scientific proof of their superiority.

Leading proponents of Social Darwinism included the following:

Spencer was widely popular among American capitalist leaders, but held a much smaller following in his homeland.

In 1907, Sumner published his most influential book, Folkways, in which he argued that customs and mores were the most powerful influences on human behavior, even when irrational. He concluded that all forms of social reform were futile and misguided.

Sumner`s views contrasted sharply with those of the advocates of the Social Gospel.

– – – Books You May Like Include: —-

Social Darwinism in American Thought by Richard Hofstadter.Social Darwinism in American Thought portrays the overall influence of Darwin on American social theory and the notable battle waged among thinkers ov…

Read more:

Social Darwinism: The Theory of Evolution Applied to Human Society

Challenge B Origins | Six More Summers

As we begin Challenge B with the study of Origins, and Defeating Darwinism, I am positive that one of the areas my students will struggle will be in summarizingthe chapters of the book. The text can be wordy and a bit complicated and thought-provoking even for adults, so Im sure there will be places our kids will get a bit tangled up and summarizing a jumbled up thought will be difficult on a good day.

In an attempt to aid parents and tutors in surviving the summarizing of Defeating Darwinism, I am creating outlines for the chapters, which guide students in summarizing in their own words, but through questions that help them understand what it means to summarize.

Please feel free to download and use these summaries however you see fit.

I actually summarized the entire first chapter for my students and handed it out to them on the first day. We read through the chapter together and discussed how the points in the book were summarized on the page. My plan is to gently wean my students off of needing a template to summarize and to lead them towards formal outlining but Im working a week at a time, so we will see where it leads!

Best of luck as you tackle this big piece of literature. If you have suggestions or comments, please enter them below.

~ Amy

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 1(completed)

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 1 blank(empty for students to fill in)

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 2

Summarization Options and Tips

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 3

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 4

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 5

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 6

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 7

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 8

Visit link:

Challenge B Origins | Six More Summers

Darwinism – Wikipedia

This article is about concepts called Darwinism. For biological evolution, see evolution. For modern evolutionary theories, see Modern synthesis. For Wallace’s defence of the theory of natural selection, see Darwinism (book).

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (18091882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin’s theories. It subsequently referred to the specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier, or the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though the term usually refers strictly to biological evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin’s and of his predecessors’ workin place of other theories, including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.[2][3]

English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860.[4] It was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts published by English philosopher Herbert Spencer. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of German evolutionary biologist August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During the approximate period of the 1880s to about 1920, sometimes called “the eclipse of Darwinism”, scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.[5]

While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of the Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel,[8] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of later theoretical developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift, for example.[9][10] In the United States, creationists often use the term “Darwinism” as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as scientific materialism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, with evolution by natural selection.[6]

While the term Darwinism had been used previously to refer to the work of Erasmus Darwin in the late 18th century, the term as understood today was introduced when Charles Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species was reviewed by Thomas Henry Huxley in the April 1860 issue of the Westminster Review.[12] Having hailed the book as “a veritable Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism” promoting scientific naturalism over theology, and praising the usefulness of Darwin’s ideas while expressing professional reservations about Darwin’s gradualism and doubting if it could be proved that natural selection could form new species,[13] Huxley compared Darwin’s achievement to that of Nicolaus Copernicus in explaining planetary motion:

What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular? What if species should offer residual phenomena, here and there, not explicable by natural selection? Twenty years hence naturalists may be in a position to say whether this is, or is not, the case; but in either event they will owe the author of “The Origin of Species” an immense debt of gratitude…. And viewed as a whole, we do not believe that, since the publication of Von Baer’s “Researches on Development,” thirty years ago, any work has appeared calculated to exert so large an influence, not only on the future of Biology, but in extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated.[4]

These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin.

Another important evolutionary theorist of the same period was the Russian geographer and prominent anarchist Peter Kropotkin who, in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), advocated a conception of Darwinism counter to that of Huxley. His conception was centred around what he saw as the widespread use of co-operation as a survival mechanism in human societies and animals. He used biological and sociological arguments in an attempt to show that the main factor in facilitating evolution is cooperation between individuals in free-associated societies and groups. This was in order to counteract the conception of fierce competition as the core of evolution, which provided a rationalization for the dominant political, economic and social theories of the time; and the prevalent interpretations of Darwinism, such as those by Huxley, who is targeted as an opponent by Kropotkin. Kropotkin’s conception of Darwinism could be summed up by the following quote:

In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sensenot as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.[14]

Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), Conclusion

“Darwinism” soon came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches, summed in the 1864 phrase “survival of the fittest” by Herbert Spencer, later became emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer’s own understanding of evolution (as expressed in 1857) was more similar to that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck than to that of Darwin, and predated the publication of Darwin’s theory in 1859. What is now called “Social Darwinism” was, in its day, synonymous with “Darwinism”the application of Darwinian principles of “struggle” to society, usually in support of anti-philanthropic political agenda. Another interpretation, one notably favoured by Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton, was that “Darwinism” implied that because natural selection was apparently no longer working on “civilized” people, it was possible for “inferior” strains of people (who would normally be filtered out of the gene pool) to overwhelm the “superior” strains, and voluntary corrective measures would be desirablethe foundation of eugenics.

In Darwin’s day there was no rigid definition of the term “Darwinism”, and it was used by opponents and proponents of Darwin’s biological theory alike to mean whatever they wanted it to in a larger context. The ideas had international influence, and Ernst Haeckel developed what was known as Darwinismus in Germany, although, like Spencer’s “evolution”, Haeckel’s “Darwinism” had only a rough resemblance to the theory of Charles Darwin, and was not centered on natural selection.[15] In 1886, Alfred Russel Wallace went on a lecture tour across the United States, starting in New York and going via Boston, Washington, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska to California, lecturing on what he called “Darwinism” without any problems.[16]

In his book Darwinism (1889), Wallace had used the term pure-Darwinism which proposed a “greater efficacy” for natural selection.[17][18] George Romanes dubbed this view as “Wallaceism”, noting that in contrast to Darwin, this position was advocating a “pure theory of natural selection to the exclusion of any supplementary theory.”[19][20] Taking influence from Darwin, Romanes was a proponent of both natural selection and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The latter was denied by Wallace who was a strict selectionist.[21] Romanes’ definition of Darwinism conformed directly with Darwin’s views and was contrasted with Wallace’s definition of the term.[22]

The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an “ism”) of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.[23] For example, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge’s book What Is Darwinism? (1874).[24] However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin’s natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book’s title by concluding: “It is Atheism.”[25][26] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[27] In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which promotes intelligent design (ID), American writer and actor Ben Stein refers to scientists as Darwinists. Reviewing the film for Scientific American, John Rennie says “The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin’s original ideas… Yet the choice of terminology isn’t random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin to Marxism.” [28]

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish the modern evolutionary synthesis, sometimes called “neo-Darwinism”, from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thoughtparticularly contrasting Darwin’s results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

In political discussions in the United States, the term is mostly used by its enemies. “It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism,'” says Harvard University biologist E. O. Wilson. He adds, “Scientists don’t call it ‘Darwinism’.”[29] In the United Kingdom the term often retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example British ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil’s Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[30]

In his 1995 book Darwinian Fairytales, Australian philosopher David Stove[31] used the term “Darwinism” in a different sense than the above examples. Describing himself as non-religious and as accepting the concept of natural selection as a well-established fact, Stove nonetheless attacked what he described as flawed concepts proposed by some “Ultra-Darwinists.” Stove alleged that by using weak or false ad hoc reasoning, these Ultra-Darwinists used evolutionary concepts to offer explanations that were not valid (e.g., Stove suggested that sociobiological explanation of altruism as an evolutionary feature was presented in such a way that the argument was effectively immune to any criticism). Philosopher Simon Blackburn wrote a rejoinder to Stove,[32] though a subsequent essay by Stove’s protegee James Franklin’s[33] suggested that Blackburn’s response actually “confirms Stove’s central thesis that Darwinism can ‘explain’ anything.”

Read the rest here:

Darwinism – Wikipedia

Scientific Dissent from Darwinism – There is a scientific …

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

There Is ScientificDissent From Darwinism.

It deserves to be heard.

“I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma. Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all. Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as George Bernard Shaw used to say.”Dr. Raul Leguizamon, Pathologist, and a Professor of Medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico

Excerpt from:

Scientific Dissent from Darwinism – There is a scientific …

What is Social Darwinism – AllAboutScience.org

QUESTION: What is Social Darwinism?

ANSWER:

Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of “the strong survive,” including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.

At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the “White European” was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.

At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler’s march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.

Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection and Spencer’s beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.

It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer’s philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin’s work.

However, according to evolutionary theory, nature is a “kill-or-be-killed” system. Those that cannot keep up are either left behind or cut off. If evolution, through chance, is solely responsible for life as we now know it, why should that process be countered? If “survival of the fittest” or “kill or be killed” cannot apply in what we define as “decent society,” then, which is wrong, society or evolution? If neither, then how do we explain morality, charity, and compassion? Why drain resources from the strong to support the weak? Certainly, we should be charitable and help those in need.

Though Darwin did not promote Social Darwinism, basic evolutionary theory raises some nagging questions.

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

More here:

What is Social Darwinism – AllAboutScience.org

Darwin’s Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism

Introduction

The Darwinian worldview was critical, not only in influencing the development of Nazism and communism, but also in the rise of the ruthless capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Morris and Morris, 1996). A key aspect of this brand of capitalism was its extreme individualism which indicated that other persons count for little, and that it is both natural and proper to exploit “weaker” companies. The socalled robber barons often concluded that their behavior was justified by natural law and was the inevitable outcome of history (Josephson, 1934). Many were raised as Christians, but rejected their Christianity or modified it to include their socialist/Darwinian ideas. Gertrude Himmelfarb noted that Darwinism may have been accepted in England in part because it justified the greed of certain people.

Rachels noted that “the survival of the fittest” theory in biology was quickly interpreted by capitalists as “an ethical precept that sanctioned cutthroat economic competition” (1990, p. 63, see also Hs, 1986, p. 10). Julian Huxley and H. B. D. Kittlewell even concluded that social Darwinism “led to the glorification of free enterprise, laissez-faire economics and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism, and eventually to Hitler and Nazi ideology” (in Huxley and Kittlewell, 1965, p. 81).

Darwinism helped to justify not only the ruthless exploits of the communists, but also the ruthless practices of capitalist monopolists such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Kenneth Hs (1986, p. 534) noted:

Like Stalin, Marx, Lenin, and Hitler, Carnegie also once accepted Christianity, but abandoned it for Darwinism and became a close friend of the famous social Darwinist, Herbert Spencer. Carnegie stated in his autobiography that when he and several of his friends came to doubt the teachings of Christianity,

Carnegie’s conclusions were best summarized when he said:

John D. Rockefeller reportedly once said that the “growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest . . . the working out of a law of nature . . .” (Ghent, 1902, p. 29). The Rockefellers, while maintaining a Christian front, fully embraced evolution and dismissed the Bible’s early books as mythology (Taylor, 1991, p. 386). When a philanthropist pledged ,000 to help found a university named after William Jennings Bryan, John D. Rockefeller Jr. retaliated the very same day with a ,000,000 donation to the openly anticreationist University of Chicago Divinity School (Larson, 1997, p. 183). Morris and Morris noted that the philosophy expressed by Rockefeller also was embraced not only by railroad magnate James Hill, but probably most other capitalists of his day (1996, p. 87). Morris and Morris have suggested that many modern evolutionists:

Morris and Morris also noted that both the left wing MarxistLeninism and the right wing ruthless capitalists were anticreationists and “even when they fight with each other, they remain united in opposition to creationism . . .” (p. 82). Many capitalists did not discard their Christianity, but instead tried to blend it with Darwinism. The result was a compromise somewhat like theistic evolution. Although most American businessmen were probably not consciously social Darwinists,

Several studies have documented the important contribution of Darwin to laissezfaire capitalism: An analysis of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission (1902-1903) hearings found:

Rosenthal (1997) showed that, historically, biogenetic doctrines had the effect of promoting an attitude of acceptance of the problems of racism, sexism, war, and capitalism. The field of biogenetics has offered no new scientific evidence that human social behavior has a biogenetic basis, or that business/social competition, male dominance, aggression, territoriality, xenophobia, and even patriotism, warfare, and genocide are genetically based human universals. Yet biogenetic doctrines have occupied a prominent place throughout most of American sociological history. Rosenthal noted that Cooley, Sorokin, Sumner, Ross, and even Park adhered to biological racist doctrines that in the past have signaled and encouraged reactionary social policy.

The Darwinian concept, applied to business, still is very much with us today. Robert Blake and his coauthors in their 1996 book, Corporate Darwinism, attempted to apply modern Darwinism to business. They concluded that business evolves in very predictable ways, specifically in defined stages very much like the stages of human evolution. This “business evolution” is natural; business in keeping with Darwinian principles either swallows the competition, or finds that it will be swallowed by that competition.

Darwin’s ideas played a critically important role in the development and growth, not only of Nazism and communism, but also of the ruthless form of capitalism as best illustrated by the robber barons. While it is difficult to conclude confidently that ruthless capitalism would not have blossomed as it did if Darwin had not developed his evolution theory, it is clear that if Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others had continued to embrace the unadulterated JudeoChristian worldview of their youth and had not become Darwinists, capitalism would not have become as ruthless as it did in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Morris and Morris (p. 84) have suggested that other motivations (including greed, ambition, even a type of a missionary zeal) stimulated the fierce, unprincipled robber baron business practices long before Darwin. Darwinism, however, gave capitalism an apparent scientific rationale that allowed it to be taken to the extremes that were so evident in the early parts of last century.

Blake, Robert, Warren Avis and Jane Mouton. 1966. Corporate Darwinism. Houston, TX: Gulf Pub. Carnegie, Andrew. 1920. Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie, ed. John C. Van Dyke. 1986; reprint, Boston: Northeastern University Press. Doukas, Dimitra. 1997. “Corporate Capitalism on Trial: The Hearings of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, 1902-1903.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 3(3):367-398. Ghent, William. 1902. Our Benevolent Feudalism. New York: Macmillan. Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 1962. Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. New York: W.W. Norton. Hs, Kenneth. June 1986. “Darwin’s Three Mistakes,” Geology, (vol. 14), p. 532-534. Hs, Kenneth. 1986. The Great Dying: Cosmic Catastrophe, Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution. NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Huxley, Julian and H.B.D. Kittlewell. 1965. Charles Darwin and His World. New York: Viking Press. Josephson, Matthew. 1934. The Robber Barons. New York: Harcourt and Brace. Larson, Edward J. 1997. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. New York: Basic Books. Morris, Henry and John D. Morris. 1996. The Modern Creation Trilogy. vol. 3. Society and Creation. Green Forrest, AR: Master Books. Oldroyd, D.R. 1980. Darwinian Impacts. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Rachels, James. 1990. Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosenthal, Steven J. 1977. Sociobiology: New Synthesis or Old Ideology? American Sociological Association. Taylor, Ian T. 1991. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. Minneapolis: TFE Publishing.

* Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio.

Continue reading here:

Darwin’s Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism

Darwinism – Wikipedia

This article is about concepts called Darwinism. For biological evolution, see evolution. For modern evolutionary theories, see Modern synthesis. For Wallace’s defence of the theory of natural selection, see Darwinism (book).

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (18091882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin’s theories. It subsequently referred to the specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier, or the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though the term usually refers strictly to biological evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin’s and of his predecessors’ workin place of other theories, including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.[2][3]

English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860.[4] It was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts published by English philosopher Herbert Spencer. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of German evolutionary biologist August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During the approximate period of the 1880s to about 1920, sometimes called “the eclipse of Darwinism”, scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.[5]

While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of the Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel,[8] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of later theoretical developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift, for example.[9][10] In the United States, creationists often use the term “Darwinism” as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as scientific materialism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, with evolution by natural selection.[6]

While the term Darwinism had been used previously to refer to the work of Erasmus Darwin in the late 18th century, the term as understood today was introduced when Charles Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species was reviewed by Thomas Henry Huxley in the April 1860 issue of the Westminster Review.[12] Having hailed the book as “a veritable Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism” promoting scientific naturalism over theology, and praising the usefulness of Darwin’s ideas while expressing professional reservations about Darwin’s gradualism and doubting if it could be proved that natural selection could form new species,[13] Huxley compared Darwin’s achievement to that of Nicolaus Copernicus in explaining planetary motion:

What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular? What if species should offer residual phenomena, here and there, not explicable by natural selection? Twenty years hence naturalists may be in a position to say whether this is, or is not, the case; but in either event they will owe the author of “The Origin of Species” an immense debt of gratitude…. And viewed as a whole, we do not believe that, since the publication of Von Baer’s “Researches on Development,” thirty years ago, any work has appeared calculated to exert so large an influence, not only on the future of Biology, but in extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated.[4]

These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin.

Another important evolutionary theorist of the same period was the Russian geographer and prominent anarchist Peter Kropotkin who, in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), advocated a conception of Darwinism counter to that of Huxley. His conception was centred around what he saw as the widespread use of co-operation as a survival mechanism in human societies and animals. He used biological and sociological arguments in an attempt to show that the main factor in facilitating evolution is cooperation between individuals in free-associated societies and groups. This was in order to counteract the conception of fierce competition as the core of evolution, which provided a rationalization for the dominant political, economic and social theories of the time; and the prevalent interpretations of Darwinism, such as those by Huxley, who is targeted as an opponent by Kropotkin. Kropotkin’s conception of Darwinism could be summed up by the following quote:

In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sensenot as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.[14]

Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), Conclusion

“Darwinism” soon came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches, summed in the 1864 phrase “survival of the fittest” by Herbert Spencer, later became emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer’s own understanding of evolution (as expressed in 1857) was more similar to that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck than to that of Darwin, and predated the publication of Darwin’s theory in 1859. What is now called “Social Darwinism” was, in its day, synonymous with “Darwinism”the application of Darwinian principles of “struggle” to society, usually in support of anti-philanthropic political agenda. Another interpretation, one notably favoured by Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton, was that “Darwinism” implied that because natural selection was apparently no longer working on “civilized” people, it was possible for “inferior” strains of people (who would normally be filtered out of the gene pool) to overwhelm the “superior” strains, and voluntary corrective measures would be desirablethe foundation of eugenics.

In Darwin’s day there was no rigid definition of the term “Darwinism”, and it was used by opponents and proponents of Darwin’s biological theory alike to mean whatever they wanted it to in a larger context. The ideas had international influence, and Ernst Haeckel developed what was known as Darwinismus in Germany, although, like Spencer’s “evolution”, Haeckel’s “Darwinism” had only a rough resemblance to the theory of Charles Darwin, and was not centered on natural selection.[15] In 1886, Alfred Russel Wallace went on a lecture tour across the United States, starting in New York and going via Boston, Washington, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska to California, lecturing on what he called “Darwinism” without any problems.[16]

In his book Darwinism (1889), Wallace had used the term pure-Darwinism which proposed a “greater efficacy” for natural selection.[17][18] George Romanes dubbed this view as “Wallaceism”, noting that in contrast to Darwin, this position was advocating a “pure theory of natural selection to the exclusion of any supplementary theory.”[19][20] Taking influence from Darwin, Romanes was a proponent of both natural selection and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The latter was denied by Wallace who was a strict selectionist.[21] Romanes’ definition of Darwinism conformed directly with Darwin’s views and was contrasted with Wallace’s definition of the term.[22]

The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an “ism”) of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.[23] For example, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge’s book What Is Darwinism? (1874).[24] However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin’s natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book’s title by concluding: “It is Atheism.”[25][26] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[27] In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which promotes intelligent design (ID), American writer and actor Ben Stein refers to scientists as Darwinists. Reviewing the film for Scientific American, John Rennie says “The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin’s original ideas… Yet the choice of terminology isn’t random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin to Marxism.” [28]

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish the modern evolutionary synthesis, sometimes called “neo-Darwinism”, from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thoughtparticularly contrasting Darwin’s results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

In political discussions in the United States, the term is mostly used by its enemies. “It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism,'” says Harvard University biologist E. O. Wilson. He adds, “Scientists don’t call it ‘Darwinism’.”[29] In the United Kingdom the term often retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example British ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil’s Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[30]

In his 1995 book Darwinian Fairytales, Australian philosopher David Stove[31] used the term “Darwinism” in a different sense than the above examples. Describing himself as non-religious and as accepting the concept of natural selection as a well-established fact, Stove nonetheless attacked what he described as flawed concepts proposed by some “Ultra-Darwinists.” Stove alleged that by using weak or false ad hoc reasoning, these Ultra-Darwinists used evolutionary concepts to offer explanations that were not valid (e.g., Stove suggested that sociobiological explanation of altruism as an evolutionary feature was presented in such a way that the argument was effectively immune to any criticism). Philosopher Simon Blackburn wrote a rejoinder to Stove,[32] though a subsequent essay by Stove’s protegee James Franklin’s[33] suggested that Blackburn’s response actually “confirms Stove’s central thesis that Darwinism can ‘explain’ anything.”

Go here to see the original:

Darwinism – Wikipedia

What is Social Darwinism

QUESTION: What is Social Darwinism?

ANSWER:

Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of “the strong survive,” including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.

At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the “White European” was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.

At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler’s march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.

Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection and Spencer’s beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.

It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer’s philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin’s work.

However, according to evolutionary theory, nature is a “kill-or-be-killed” system. Those that cannot keep up are either left behind or cut off. If evolution, through chance, is solely responsible for life as we now know it, why should that process be countered? If “survival of the fittest” or “kill or be killed” cannot apply in what we define as “decent society,” then, which is wrong, society or evolution? If neither, then how do we explain morality, charity, and compassion? Why drain resources from the strong to support the weak? Certainly, we should be charitable and help those in need.

Though Darwin did not promote Social Darwinism, basic evolutionary theory raises some nagging questions.

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

Original post:

What is Social Darwinism

Challenge B Origins | Six More Summers

As we begin Challenge B with the study of Origins, and Defeating Darwinism, I am positive that one of the areas my students will struggle will be in summarizingthe chapters of the book. The text can be wordy and a bit complicated and thought-provoking even for adults, so Im sure there will be places our kids will get a bit tangled up and summarizing a jumbled up thought will be difficult on a good day.

In an attempt to aid parents and tutors in surviving the summarizing of Defeating Darwinism, I am creating outlines for the chapters, which guide students in summarizing in their own words, but through questions that help them understand what it means to summarize.

Please feel free to download and use these summaries however you see fit.

I actually summarized the entire first chapter for my students and handed it out to them on the first day. We read through the chapter together and discussed how the points in the book were summarized on the page. My plan is to gently wean my students off of needing a template to summarize and to lead them towards formal outlining but Im working a week at a time, so we will see where it leads!

Best of luck as you tackle this big piece of literature. If you have suggestions or comments, please enter them below.

~ Amy

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 1(completed)

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 1 blank(empty for students to fill in)

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 2

Summarization Options and Tips

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 3

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 4

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 5

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 6

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 7

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 8

See the article here:

Challenge B Origins | Six More Summers

The Institute for Creation Research

Introduction

The Darwinian worldview was critical, not only in influencing the development of Nazism and communism, but also in the rise of the ruthless capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Morris and Morris, 1996). A key aspect of this brand of capitalism was its extreme individualism which indicated that other persons count for little, and that it is both natural and proper to exploit “weaker” companies. The socalled robber barons often concluded that their behavior was justified by natural law and was the inevitable outcome of history (Josephson, 1934). Many were raised as Christians, but rejected their Christianity or modified it to include their socialist/Darwinian ideas. Gertrude Himmelfarb noted that Darwinism may have been accepted in England in part because it justified the greed of certain people.

Rachels noted that “the survival of the fittest” theory in biology was quickly interpreted by capitalists as “an ethical precept that sanctioned cutthroat economic competition” (1990, p. 63, see also Hs, 1986, p. 10). Julian Huxley and H. B. D. Kittlewell even concluded that social Darwinism “led to the glorification of free enterprise, laissez-faire economics and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism, and eventually to Hitler and Nazi ideology” (in Huxley and Kittlewell, 1965, p. 81).

Darwinism helped to justify not only the ruthless exploits of the communists, but also the ruthless practices of capitalist monopolists such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Kenneth Hs (1986, p. 534) noted:

Like Stalin, Marx, Lenin, and Hitler, Carnegie also once accepted Christianity, but abandoned it for Darwinism and became a close friend of the famous social Darwinist, Herbert Spencer. Carnegie stated in his autobiography that when he and several of his friends came to doubt the teachings of Christianity,

Carnegie’s conclusions were best summarized when he said:

John D. Rockefeller reportedly once said that the “growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest . . . the working out of a law of nature . . .” (Ghent, 1902, p. 29). The Rockefellers, while maintaining a Christian front, fully embraced evolution and dismissed the Bible’s early books as mythology (Taylor, 1991, p. 386). When a philanthropist pledged ,000 to help found a university named after William Jennings Bryan, John D. Rockefeller Jr. retaliated the very same day with a ,000,000 donation to the openly anticreationist University of Chicago Divinity School (Larson, 1997, p. 183). Morris and Morris noted that the philosophy expressed by Rockefeller also was embraced not only by railroad magnate James Hill, but probably most other capitalists of his day (1996, p. 87). Morris and Morris have suggested that many modern evolutionists:

Morris and Morris also noted that both the left wing MarxistLeninism and the right wing ruthless capitalists were anticreationists and “even when they fight with each other, they remain united in opposition to creationism . . .” (p. 82). Many capitalists did not discard their Christianity, but instead tried to blend it with Darwinism. The result was a compromise somewhat like theistic evolution. Although most American businessmen were probably not consciously social Darwinists,

Several studies have documented the important contribution of Darwin to laissezfaire capitalism: An analysis of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission (1902-1903) hearings found:

Rosenthal (1997) showed that, historically, biogenetic doctrines had the effect of promoting an attitude of acceptance of the problems of racism, sexism, war, and capitalism. The field of biogenetics has offered no new scientific evidence that human social behavior has a biogenetic basis, or that business/social competition, male dominance, aggression, territoriality, xenophobia, and even patriotism, warfare, and genocide are genetically based human universals. Yet biogenetic doctrines have occupied a prominent place throughout most of American sociological history. Rosenthal noted that Cooley, Sorokin, Sumner, Ross, and even Park adhered to biological racist doctrines that in the past have signaled and encouraged reactionary social policy.

The Darwinian concept, applied to business, still is very much with us today. Robert Blake and his coauthors in their 1996 book, Corporate Darwinism, attempted to apply modern Darwinism to business. They concluded that business evolves in very predictable ways, specifically in defined stages very much like the stages of human evolution. This “business evolution” is natural; business in keeping with Darwinian principles either swallows the competition, or finds that it will be swallowed by that competition.

Darwin’s ideas played a critically important role in the development and growth, not only of Nazism and communism, but also of the ruthless form of capitalism as best illustrated by the robber barons. While it is difficult to conclude confidently that ruthless capitalism would not have blossomed as it did if Darwin had not developed his evolution theory, it is clear that if Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others had continued to embrace the unadulterated JudeoChristian worldview of their youth and had not become Darwinists, capitalism would not have become as ruthless as it did in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Morris and Morris (p. 84) have suggested that other motivations (including greed, ambition, even a type of a missionary zeal) stimulated the fierce, unprincipled robber baron business practices long before Darwin. Darwinism, however, gave capitalism an apparent scientific rationale that allowed it to be taken to the extremes that were so evident in the early parts of last century.

Blake, Robert, Warren Avis and Jane Mouton. 1966. Corporate Darwinism. Houston, TX: Gulf Pub. Carnegie, Andrew. 1920. Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie, ed. John C. Van Dyke. 1986; reprint, Boston: Northeastern University Press. Doukas, Dimitra. 1997. “Corporate Capitalism on Trial: The Hearings of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, 1902-1903.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 3(3):367-398. Ghent, William. 1902. Our Benevolent Feudalism. New York: Macmillan. Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 1962. Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. New York: W.W. Norton. Hs, Kenneth. June 1986. “Darwin’s Three Mistakes,” Geology, (vol. 14), p. 532-534. Hs, Kenneth. 1986. The Great Dying: Cosmic Catastrophe, Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution. NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Huxley, Julian and H.B.D. Kittlewell. 1965. Charles Darwin and His World. New York: Viking Press. Josephson, Matthew. 1934. The Robber Barons. New York: Harcourt and Brace. Larson, Edward J. 1997. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. New York: Basic Books. Morris, Henry and John D. Morris. 1996. The Modern Creation Trilogy. vol. 3. Society and Creation. Green Forrest, AR: Master Books. Oldroyd, D.R. 1980. Darwinian Impacts. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Rachels, James. 1990. Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosenthal, Steven J. 1977. Sociobiology: New Synthesis or Old Ideology? American Sociological Association. Taylor, Ian T. 1991. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. Minneapolis: TFE Publishing.

* Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio.

See the original post:

The Institute for Creation Research

The Royal Society’s Evolution Meeting: James MacAllister …

James MacAllister, curator of the Lynn Margulis archive at the University of Massachussetts Amherst. He wrote a thorough review of the London 2016 evolution conference at the Royal Society.

James MacAllister is the volunteer archivist for the Lynn Margulis archive at the University of Massachussetts-Amherst.

Jim runs envevo.org, the Environmental Evolution website. Lynn Margulis was the champion of Symbiogenesis theory.

She fought tremendous opposition from Neo-Darwinists to get the theory accepted. Today she is widely regarded as one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of all time.

I met Jim at the Royal Society evolution meeting in London, and in a very brief conversation discovered much in common. Jim runs envevo.org, the Environmental Evolution blog.

He wrote a fantastic synopsis of the Royal Society meeting. I encourage you to read his entire report. Meanwhile, some highlights:

The Modern Synthesis, while undoubtedly productive for a time, is a misconception of reality that has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The problems are fundamental. No amount of cosmetic surgery is going correct them.

Most of these new trends are not new nor are they trends. They have been known and studied quite apart from neo-Darwinism for a long time. Symbiosis and symbiogenesis, for example, have been investigated for over a century while being dismissed and discouraged by proponents of the Modern Synthesis.

Awareness or mentions of these processes by neo-Darwinists fall far short of serious investigation. It is true that these processes have been bolstered or confirmed by evidence from molecular biology, but that evidence generally contradicted the view of the Modern Synthesis. The Modern Synthesis is no longer synonymous with evolutionary biology, molecular biology, or any of the multiple disciplines currently contributing to our understanding of evolution.

Martin Brasier, the late Oxford paleontologist, defined science not as the revelation of underlying simplicity, laws or ideals, but as a unique system for the measurement of doubt. This is a helpful conception because it explains why science must be skeptical, but also measured in its skepticism. It avoids the temptation of certainty and leaves the mind open to surprise. Science measures. It compares tests to controls. Experiments and analyses are designed to minimize bias and expose logical fallacies. Results must be reproducible. Science questions unquestioned assumptions. Its theories must be predictive. It does not ignore anomalies, but acknowledges and investigates them.

There is also the current HBO series West World where the character of Dr. Robert Ford (played by Anthony Hopkins) explains to his assistant Bernard (played by Jeffrey Wright) that evolution forged all of sentient life on this planet using only one tool, the mistake.

The Modern Synthesis toolbox holds only one tool: the mistake, the blind random mutation. The organism is acted upon by the environmental elimination process: natural selection. No mention of new trends.

Lets not forget that Darwin himself had a better selection of tools in his On the Origin of Species toolbox. Now we are presented with a toolbox that holds many tools. Some vintage ones, such as symbiogenesis. And long recognized ones, such as horizontal gene transfer, that couldnt be swept under the rug. But wait theres more: interspecific hybridization, whole genome duplications, the movement of mobile genetic elements (natural genetic engineering), plasticity, and niche construction. Magically, we are told that all these fit in the The Selfish Gene toolbox. What ever happened to that little toolbox that only held one tool, the mistake?

John Hands has reported on the meeting in the BBC online Science Focus. During the first Round Table audience discussion, Hands introduced himself as the author of Cosmosapiens: Human Evolution from the Origin of the Universe (outstanding book by the way) and made the following comments.

Its appropriate that this meeting is being held at the Royal Society, whose motto, we were reminded yesterday, is Nullius in verba: Accept nothing on authority. The current paradigm in evolutionary biology, NeoDarwinism, also called the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, has been the authority for some 65 years. It is, of course, a mathematical model based on several unquestioned assumptions, whose proof was given by 1940s game theory borrowed from economics.

What we have heard over the last 2 days is empirical evidence that new species arise rapidly, from such mechanisms as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, hybridisation, whole genome duplication, interactive systems producing novel emergent properties, and other mechanisms described in Part 2 of my book. These mechanisms contradict the fundamental tenets of neo-Darwinism, namely:

To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species. It is collaboration in its various forms that causes biological evolution. Hence Im surprised by calls for extending the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis. You cant extend something that is broken. Surely what is needed now, after 65 years, is using the empirical evidence to develop a new paradigm for biological evolution.

Read Jim MacAllisters entire report on the London evolution conference here.

To subscribe to Jims Environmental Evolution newsletter, send an email to jmacallister {at} environmentalevolution.org with the word subscribe in the subject field and please include your name and email address in the body.

Environmental Evolution, the first Big Earth History and Earth systems science course, was taught by Lynn Margulis at UMass from 1986-2010. Margulis was also the principle collaborator with James Lovelock on the Gaia hypothesis, the proposal that the entire earth can be understood as a single macro-organism.

Follow this link:

The Royal Society’s Evolution Meeting: James MacAllister …

Darwinism – Wikipedia

This article is about concepts called Darwinism. For biological evolution, see evolution. For modern evolutionary theories, see Modern synthesis. For Wallace’s defence of the theory of natural selection, see Darwinism (book).

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (18091882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin’s theories. It subsequently referred to the specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier, or the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though the term usually refers strictly to biological evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin’s and of his predecessors’ workin place of other theories, including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.[2][3]

English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860.[4] It was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts published by English philosopher Herbert Spencer. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of German evolutionary biologist August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During the approximate period of the 1880s to about 1920, sometimes called “the eclipse of Darwinism”, scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.[5]

While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of the Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel,[8] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of later theoretical developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift, for example.[9][10] In the United States, creationists often use the term “Darwinism” as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as scientific materialism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, with evolution by natural selection.[6]

While the term Darwinism had been used previously to refer to the work of Erasmus Darwin in the late 18th century, the term as understood today was introduced when Charles Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species was reviewed by Thomas Henry Huxley in the April 1860 issue of the Westminster Review.[12] Having hailed the book as “a veritable Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism” promoting scientific naturalism over theology, and praising the usefulness of Darwin’s ideas while expressing professional reservations about Darwin’s gradualism and doubting if it could be proved that natural selection could form new species,[13] Huxley compared Darwin’s achievement to that of Nicolaus Copernicus in explaining planetary motion:

What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular? What if species should offer residual phenomena, here and there, not explicable by natural selection? Twenty years hence naturalists may be in a position to say whether this is, or is not, the case; but in either event they will owe the author of “The Origin of Species” an immense debt of gratitude…. And viewed as a whole, we do not believe that, since the publication of Von Baer’s “Researches on Development,” thirty years ago, any work has appeared calculated to exert so large an influence, not only on the future of Biology, but in extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated.[4]

These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin.

Another important evolutionary theorist of the same period was the Russian geographer and prominent anarchist Peter Kropotkin who, in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), advocated a conception of Darwinism counter to that of Huxley. His conception was centred around what he saw as the widespread use of co-operation as a survival mechanism in human societies and animals. He used biological and sociological arguments in an attempt to show that the main factor in facilitating evolution is cooperation between individuals in free-associated societies and groups. This was in order to counteract the conception of fierce competition as the core of evolution, which provided a rationalization for the dominant political, economic and social theories of the time; and the prevalent interpretations of Darwinism, such as those by Huxley, who is targeted as an opponent by Kropotkin. Kropotkin’s conception of Darwinism could be summed up by the following quote:

In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sensenot as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.[14]

Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), Conclusion

“Darwinism” soon came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches, summed in the 1864 phrase “survival of the fittest” by Herbert Spencer, later became emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer’s own understanding of evolution (as expressed in 1857) was more similar to that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck than to that of Darwin, and predated the publication of Darwin’s theory in 1859. What is now called “Social Darwinism” was, in its day, synonymous with “Darwinism”the application of Darwinian principles of “struggle” to society, usually in support of anti-philanthropic political agenda. Another interpretation, one notably favoured by Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton, was that “Darwinism” implied that because natural selection was apparently no longer working on “civilized” people, it was possible for “inferior” strains of people (who would normally be filtered out of the gene pool) to overwhelm the “superior” strains, and voluntary corrective measures would be desirablethe foundation of eugenics.

In Darwin’s day there was no rigid definition of the term “Darwinism”, and it was used by opponents and proponents of Darwin’s biological theory alike to mean whatever they wanted it to in a larger context. The ideas had international influence, and Ernst Haeckel developed what was known as Darwinismus in Germany, although, like Spencer’s “evolution”, Haeckel’s “Darwinism” had only a rough resemblance to the theory of Charles Darwin, and was not centered on natural selection.[15] In 1886, Alfred Russel Wallace went on a lecture tour across the United States, starting in New York and going via Boston, Washington, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska to California, lecturing on what he called “Darwinism” without any problems.[16]

In his book Darwinism (1889), Wallace had used the term pure-Darwinism which proposed a “greater efficacy” for natural selection.[17][18] George Romanes dubbed this view as “Wallaceism”, noting that in contrast to Darwin, this position was advocating a “pure theory of natural selection to the exclusion of any supplementary theory.”[19][20] Taking influence from Darwin, Romanes was a proponent of both natural selection and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The latter was denied by Wallace who was a strict selectionist.[21] Romanes’ definition of Darwinism conformed directly with Darwin’s views and was contrasted with Wallace’s definition of the term.[22]

The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an “ism”) of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.[23] For example, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge’s book What Is Darwinism? (1874).[24] However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin’s natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book’s title by concluding: “It is Atheism.”[25][26] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[27] In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which promotes intelligent design (ID), American writer and actor Ben Stein refers to scientists as Darwinists. Reviewing the film for Scientific American, John Rennie says “The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin’s original ideas… Yet the choice of terminology isn’t random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin to Marxism.” [28]

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish the modern evolutionary synthesis, sometimes called “neo-Darwinism”, from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thoughtparticularly contrasting Darwin’s results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

In political discussions in the United States, the term is mostly used by its enemies. “It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism,'” says Harvard University biologist E. O. Wilson. He adds, “Scientists don’t call it ‘Darwinism’.”[29] In the United Kingdom the term often retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example British ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil’s Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[30]

In his 1995 book Darwinian Fairytales, Australian philosopher David Stove[31] used the term “Darwinism” in a different sense than the above examples. Describing himself as non-religious and as accepting the concept of natural selection as a well-established fact, Stove nonetheless attacked what he described as flawed concepts proposed by some “Ultra-Darwinists.” Stove alleged that by using weak or false ad hoc reasoning, these Ultra-Darwinists used evolutionary concepts to offer explanations that were not valid (e.g., Stove suggested that sociobiological explanation of altruism as an evolutionary feature was presented in such a way that the argument was effectively immune to any criticism). Philosopher Simon Blackburn wrote a rejoinder to Stove,[32] though a subsequent essay by Stove’s protegee James Franklin’s[33] suggested that Blackburn’s response actually “confirms Stove’s central thesis that Darwinism can ‘explain’ anything.”

Here is the original post:

Darwinism – Wikipedia

Darwinism: Survival without Purpose – The Institute for …

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life…life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA…life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1 –Richard Dawkins

Evolution is “deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its implications,”2 the first of which is that living creatures “differ from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose.”3 Evolution must be without plan or purpose because its core tenet is the natural selection of the fittest, produced by random copying errors called mutations. Darwin “was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope.”4 Pulitzer Prize author Edward Humes wrote that the fact of evolution was obvious but “few could see it, so trapped were they by the humandesire to find design and purpose in the world.” He concluded:

Darwin’s brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watchlike “perfection” of honeybees’ combs or ant trailsreveals that they are a product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.5

The fact that evolution teaches that life has no purpose beyond perpetuating its own survival is not lost on teachers. One testified that teaching evolution “impacted their consciences” because it moved teachers away from the “idea that they were born for a purpose something completely counter to their mindset and beliefs.”6

In a study on why children resist accepting evolution, Yale psychologists Bloom and Weisberg concluded that the evolutionary way of viewing the world, which the authors call “promiscuous teleology,” makes it difficult for them to accept evolution. Children “naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose.”7 The ultimate purposelessness of evolution, and thus of the life that it produces, was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows: “We’re just a bit of pollution. If you got rid of usthe universe would be largely the same. We’re completely irrelevant.”8

The Textbooks

To determine what schools are teaching about religious questions such as the purpose of life, I surveyed current science textbooks and found that they tend to teach the view that evolution is both nihilistic and atheistic. One of today’s most widely-used textbooks stated that “evolution works without either plan or purpose. Evolution is random and undirected.”9 Another text by the same authors added that Darwin knew his theory “required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts.” The authors continued:

Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which…nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.10

Another text taught that humans are just “a tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life” and the belief that a “progressive, guiding force, consistently pushing evolution to move in a single direction” is now known to be “misguided.”11 Many texts teach that evolution is purposeless and has no goal except to achieve brute survival: the “idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal or state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”12 One major text openly teaches that humans were created by a blind, deaf, and dumb watchmaker–namely natural selection, which is “totally blind to the future.”

Humans…came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and our brains. Natural selectionexplainsthe whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, |and| the apparent design in life.”13

The Implications

Many texts are very open about the implications of Darwinism for theism. One teaches that Darwin’s immeasurably important contribution to science was to show that, despite life’s apparent evidence of design and purpose, mechanistic causes explain all biological phenomena. The text adds that by coupling “undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”14 The author concludes by noting that “it was Darwin’s theory of Evolution that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanisms and materialismthat has been the stage of most western thought.”15 Another text even stated directly that humans were created by a random process, not a loving, purposeful God, and:

The real difficulty in accepting Darwin’s theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. |Evolution| asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.16

These texts are all clearly teaching religious ideas, not science. An excellent example is a text that openly ruled out not only theistic evolution, but any role for God in nature, and demonstrated that Darwinism threatened theism by showing that humans and all life “could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god.” Evolutionary “randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics.”

The Darwinian view that present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary. Religion has been bolstered by the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of ethical and moral values. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries. The positions of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable.”17

Darwin himself taught a totally atheistic, naturalistic view of origins. He even once said, “I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.”18 John Alcock, an evolutionary biologist, therefore concluded that “we exist solely to propagate the genes within us.”19

Leading Darwin scholar Janet Browne makes it very clear that Darwin’s goal was the “arduous task of reorienting the way Victorians looked at nature.” To do this Darwin had to convince the world that “ideas about a benevolent, nearly perfect natural world” and those that believe “beauty was given to things for a purpose, were wrong–that the idea of a loving God who created all living things and brought men and women into existence wasa fable.”

The worldsteeped in moral meaning which helped mankind seek out higher goals in life, was not Darwin’s. Darwin’s view of nature was dark–black. Where most men and women generally believed in some kind of design in nature–some kind of plan and order–and felt a deep-seated, mostly inexpressible belief that their existence had meaning, Darwin wanted them to see all life as empty of any divine purpose.20

Darwin knew how difficult it was to abandon such a view, but realized that for evolution to work, nature must ultimately be “governed entirely by chance.” Browne concludes:

The pleasant outward face of nature was precisely that–only an outward face. Underneath was perpetual struggle, species against species, individual against individual. Life was ruled by death…destruction was the key to reproductive success. All the theological meaning was thus stripped out by Darwin and replaced by the concept of competition. All the telos, the purpose, on which natural theologians based their ideas of perfect adaptation was redirected into Malthusian–Darwinian–struggle. What most people saw as God-given design he saw as mere adaptations to circumstance, adaptations that were meaningless except for the way in which they helped an animal or plant to survive.21

Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins recognized the purposelessness of such a system:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.22

How widely is this view held by scientists? One study of 149 leading biologists found that 89.9 percent believed that evolution has no ultimate purpose or goal except survival, and we are just a cosmic accident existing at the whim of time and chance. A mere six percent believed that evolution has a purpose.23 Almost all of those who believed that evolution had no purpose were atheists. This is only one example that Sommers and Rosenberg call the “destructive power of Darwinian theory.”24

Purpose and Christianity

Christianity teaches that God made the universe as a home for humans. If the universe evolved purely by natural means, then it just exists and any “purpose” for its existence can only be that which humans themselves attribute to it. But our own experience and intellectual attainments argue against this. The similarity of human-constructed machines and the orderly functioning of the universe is the basis of the design argument. Just as a machine requires a designer and a builder, so too the universe that we see requires a designer and a builder.

Determining the purpose of something depends on the observer’s worldview. To a nontheist the question “What is the purpose of a living organism’s structure?” means only “How does this structure aid survival?” Eyesight and legs would therefore have nothing to do with enjoyment of life; they are merely an unintended byproduct of evolution. Biologists consistently explain everything from coloration to sexual habits solely on the basis of survival. Orthodox neo-Darwinism views everything as either an unfortunate or a fortuitous event resulting from the outworking of natural law and random, naturally-selected mutations. Conversely, creationists interpret all reality according to beliefs about God’s purpose for humans. Evolutionists can usually explain even contradictory behavior, but creationists look beyond this and try to determine what role it plays in God’s plan.

Conclusions

Orthodox evolution teaches that the living world has no plan or purpose except survival, is random, undirected, and heartless. Humans live in a world that cares nothing for us, our minds are simply masses of meat, and no divine plan exists to guide us. These teachings are hardly neutral, but rather openly teach religion–the religion of atheism and nihilism. The courts have consistently approved teaching this anti-Christian religion in public schools and have blocked all attempts to neutralize these clearly religious ideas.

As the Word of God states, “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

References

* Dr. Bergman is Professor of Biology at Northwest State College in Ohio.

Cite this article: Bergman, J. 2007. Darwinism: Survival without Purpose. Acts & Facts. 36 (11): 10.

Read the original post:

Darwinism: Survival without Purpose – The Institute for …

Challenge B Origins | Six More Summers

As we begin Challenge B with the study of Origins, and Defeating Darwinism, I am positive that one of the areas my students will struggle will be in summarizingthe chapters of the book. The text can be wordy and a bit complicated and thought-provoking even for adults, so Im sure there will be places our kids will get a bit tangled up and summarizing a jumbled up thought will be difficult on a good day.

In an attempt to aid parents and tutors in surviving the summarizing of Defeating Darwinism, I am creating outlines for the chapters, which guide students in summarizing in their own words, but through questions that help them understand what it means to summarize.

Please feel free to download and use these summaries however you see fit.

I actually summarized the entire first chapter for my students and handed it out to them on the first day. We read through the chapter together and discussed how the points in the book were summarized on the page. My plan is to gently wean my students off of needing a template to summarize and to lead them towards formal outlining but Im working a week at a time, so we will see where it leads!

Best of luck as you tackle this big piece of literature. If you have suggestions or comments, please enter them below.

~ Amy

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 1(completed)

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 1 blank(empty for students to fill in)

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 2

Summarization Options and Tips

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 3

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 4

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 5

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 6

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 7

Defeating Darwinism Chapter 8

Read the original post:

Challenge B Origins | Six More Summers

Marketing Darwinism | by Paul Dunay

Heres a great video of me and Aseem Badshah the CEO of Socedo, a social media lead generation tool, talking about 7 ways Blockchain can transform marketing! We hope you enjoy it

Two of my very good friends, Romi Mahajan of the KKM Group and Aseem Badshah of Socedo shot a video discussing our most recent blog post on the Return of the Marketing Mix. Ultimately, marketing is a mix of channels, tactics, and bets, of which some are measurable and some are not. Its time for marketers to reclaim their role as engagers, risk-takers, and experimenters!!

Fashions change.

This clich doesnt apply just to hemlines and jeans, but to business as well.Anyone who claims that business is all about logic and data needs to get a reality-check; Marketers are perhaps the worst offenders here, much to their detriment.Of late, Marketers have suffered from a deep alienation from the real essences of their profession and we hope that 2018 will usher in a return to sanity.

This alienation or departure from sanity in Marketing- stems from the over-indexing on Data and Measurement.While this sounds strange, even counterintuitive and heretical, it stands the test of logic and does not require a deep knowledge of Marketing to understand.Data and Measurement are no doubt valuable but they can also be the refuge of scoundrels.

The key in the above paragraph is the term over-indexing.In other areas of life, the tendency to over-index is called zealotry.In Marketing, the zealotry of measurement has created an untenable situation in which Marketing is asked to be as resilient as Physics or Mathematics; So too are Marketers, who feel forced to conform to the fashions of the day.For the past decade or so, the fashion has been Performance Marketing or, in a wild conflation of strategy and channel, Digital Marketing.

The genesis story here is a good one.Marketing for a long time appeared to be a cocktail of guesses mixed with a dose of manipulation.Organizations started to get frustrated with the lack of predictability and rising costs associated with Marketing and the ecosystem of agencies and media companies that had to be invoked when even considering bringing a product, service, or brand to market.Theories of consumer reception abounded, but the overall logic of Marketing appeared to be something akin to do it and it will work.Since no company could afford to shut off all Marketing, they continued in an inertial frame for decades.

Then came the Internet.Almost overnight- or so it seemed- behavior patterns changed.In addition, the almost infinite real estate and low cost of replication on the Internet, allowed for a completely different cost structure for Marketing. Completing the hat-trick was the fact that digitized Marketing can be revved quickly and tests of efficacy can be run in record time.A heady mix indeed!

And for a while it seemed great.Marketers could go to market quickly and bypass the usual middle-men.

Soon, however, the false quants took over and started writing how Marketing was both a Science and Predictive.Tomes could be written about the false attribution that plagued the marketing scene with the eminent measurability of Digital Marketing.We neglectedPater Semper Incertus Est.

Marketers new to the profession became one-channel ponies. They only knew Digital Marketing. They also grew up under the totalitarianism of measurement.They believed in the falsity of attribution and hewed only to the channels that provided an easy story for attribution.

Lo and behold, pundits declared the demise of traditional marketing.Some said TV was dead. Others eulogized radio.Still others print and outdoor.Digital Marketing was ROI Marketing and ROI Marketing was King (forgive the pun!)

The zealotry created real problems for real Marketers.First, they were subjected to Wall Street-type time-frames. What would in a sane world take a year, had to be measured in weeks or months.Second, the need to show ROI created a channel bias in which they were forced to market in only those channels which were eminently measurable.Third, they lost the Art which defined Marketing and chose, instead, to genuflect at the altar of a false science.CMOs lost their jobsin 18 monthsbecause they could not prove the ROI they agreed to.Marketing lost its way.

Fast forward to now.

Are Marketers ready to reclaim their profession?Are they ready to bring back that Evergreen-yet-needs-to-be-green-again concept that defined their art?Yes, you know what we mean- The Marketing Mix.

We predict that 2018 will be the year in which Marketers re-embrace the notion of managing a portfolio of bets, of which some are measurable and others are not.The rush to measurement restricts the channels Marketers pick to engage with, not unlike a Chef with an infinitude of ingredients but only one ladle and one pan with which to create a gourmet meal.

The portfolio will no doubt contain elements of Digital Marketing but will also likely concentrate on what the current and future audience really needs and could, thus, index on physical marketing, TV, Radio, Outdoor, even Print.Who knows.Why discount ideas and channelsa priori?

Ironically, the zealotry around measurability and ROI lands Marketers in an ironic soup- they restrict themselves from generating real ROI by thinking of it as an input and not as an outcome.

All fashions have their arc.Its high time we reclaim Marketing from the ROI zealots and re-engage with the world as it is and as it could be.

Guest post by:Romi Mahajan, Blueprint ConsultingSteven Salta, Agilysys

No matter how much technology has changed our day to day lives, both at home and at work, what remains essential to running a successful business is customershow you treat them, how they feel about your product or service, and whether they share those good (or bad) feelings.

In decades past, interacting with customers and helping to manage their problems and expectations was something that was left mostly to humans, which meant any good or bad things could also be subject to staffing or competing deadlines. But technology has helped with that in a unique way: by automating much of the customer journey through artificial intelligence, or AI.

Customers may not realize it, but a part of the process with many companies is already managed by AI. Its helping with predictive needs, to name just one area. And its use will only continue to grow. This graphic explains what its doing and how business will continue to use AI.

Click To Enlarge

Via Salesforce

On April 6, 2016, the Department of Labor released a 1000-page document known as the Fiduciary Duty rule (DOL fiduciary) requiring financial advisors to always act in the best interest of the client, expanding the meaning of investment advice fiduciary originally defined under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to also include retirement investment advice. Asset managers have since faced a new set of intricate regulations to comply with, tight timelines to meet, and structural/operational changes to enact within their own firms.

From the very beginning, the fiduciary rule had the weight of inevitability and the social pressure of protecting investors morality behind it. Assets under management in America alone nears $40 trillion, most of which is managed by the USs largest 50 banks.

While the industry foresaw change with the DOL fiduciary rule, my marketing team saw opportunity. What if we could prepare our subject matter experts to react quickly, time our content with the news cycle, and launch an advertising campaign that could help demystify the rule for our clients and potential prospects? Better yet, what if we could be the leading consulting firm on the rule and how to implement it? We immediately got to work.

Program execution

Over the course of 14 months, we helped PwC grow a dedicated DOL team of nearly 200 employees serving 25 clients, 120 projects, and of course we booked business. Best of all we got the call every marketer dreams of from the project team to please turn your marketing off we have too much demand!

In much of industry, the idea of Digital Transformation has taken root. At the core of this process is the need to replace antiquated and slow processes, products, and service offerings with agile, automated, and smart processes, products, and service offerings. In addition, digital transformation is about the inclusion of all potentially interested parties (employees, partners, customers, influencers) in the creation and execution of new lines of business and innovation.

While the concept of Digital Transformation has been around in the entire Internet Age, necessary elements have indeed been missing. First, not always were the underlying technologies ready for prime-time. What works in manicured and controlled environments doesnt always work at scale or in fast-moving, instant-decision environments. Second, the culture of transformation has not always been present with many forces internally and externally being focused on the power of the status quo. Third, Digital Transformation requires the foregrounding of certain parts of the organization at the perceived expense of others parts. With these constraints, the prevailing scenario for transformation has been characterized by the gap between intention and execution.

Of the organizational barriers that impede the progress for Digital Transformation, the schism between IT and Business is perhaps the most profound. Business users in organizations are governed by entirely different imperatives than IT teams are. While business changes, roles and cultures do not always keep up with the dynamism of business models and the directives that come out of the C-suite.

Business users are defined by the Power of NOW! while IT is chartered with issues of security, governance, compliance (and at times control) that if applied in the canonical methodology, are antagonistic to the time-based agility that has come to define modern business.

This happens even when IT teams and Business teams are friendly and believe in the same overall set of goals. This is the result of technology configurations that were not flexible or adaptive, two defining characteristics of true Digital Transformation.

When IT and Business are in Harmony, agility is possible in a way that does not run afoul of the core mandates of IT. When IT and Business are in structural harmony, all of the manic energies of the organization can be trained on the same end goal.

Running IT like a Business and running Business in an IT-native world are keys to Digital Transformation. At stake here is the ability of organizations to navigate the shoals of modernity and complexity, in which every expanding pools of data and ever-growing avenues of expansion characterize business.

As such, Digital Transformation is the ultimate expression of IT-Business Harmony and IT-Business Harmony is the starting point of real Digital Transformation.

Guest post by:Romi Mahajan, KKM GroupSrini Venugopal, Epicor Software

Data is the watchword in organizations large and small. In fact, how an organization frames data is the single most important determination of future success or failure. As some put it, Data is the new oil, the commodity of most value in the modern age.

Many business leaders understand this intuitively. As business-users in the organization are forced to make larger number of critical decisions with larger payloads on a more frequent basis, the idea that these decisions must be data-driven is at the fore. Gut instinct is fine but gut instinct inflected with timely, contextual, and comprehensive knowledge of relevant data is a winning strategy.

While the idea of being data-driven is fundamental and powerful, most organizations fall short. Intentions are necessary but not sufficient. For most organizations, the technology and operational infrastructure that defines their data is predicated on notions that made sense in an earlier era in which there were simply less sources of data and less change to existing sources. The size of the data question makes for a complexity that is not pre-defined and therefore the solution to the data problem has to be flexible and adaptive. Data infrastructure maturity is necessary in todays business environment and has 4 basic qualities: Governance, Security, Agility, and Automation.

Without these 4 qualifiers, 2 core facets of the solution are absent- democratizing access to data and liberating IT from the backlog and fatigue associated with constantly-changing business needs. Business-users work in the NOW timeframe while IT has its own rhythms. In order to truly be data-driven in a way that scales, organizations must empower business-users while simultaneously freeing IT to innovate. While there are cultural hurdles to this state, the biggest blockers are infrastructural.

Until very recently, good enough was, alas, good enough. The internecine conflict between Business and IT was considered just a fact of life, a cost of doing business. With automation technology, business users data needs can be managed on the fly and without the need for reactive hand-coding, conferring agility to the business teams and handing time back to the IT teams to innovate and more resources from lower value tasks to higher value tasks. This structural win-win is available today and harmonizes the needs of Business and IT.

If data is the new oil then an infrastructure to capitalize on it is necessary- an infrastructure that is mature and Hub-like. While all organizations are different, they are similar in their data needs and the data platforms that win will accommodate diversity and change inherently.

Guest post by:Romi MahajanChief Commercial Officer, TimeXtender

Its no secret that the rise of computer apps is transforming both the marketing and customer experience. One of the most intriguing developments in app development is in the area of chatbots that not only can send communications to customers but also respond intelligently to conversations.

Recently, I had the pleasure of speaking with Christian Brucculeri, the CEO at mobile messaging company Snaps, a developer of chatbots and other marketing technology products for companies. Brucculeri explained some of the background of how chatbots came to be, as well as their usefulness as a marketing tool.

Typically chatbots represent a conversational interface between a consumer and a machine, Brucculeri said. Theyre applications that have linguistic structure. It might allow you to ask a question and try to find an answer. They enable one-to-one communication between brands and consumers at scale, and they leverage technology in order to do that.

Certainly chatbots have close technological relatives were already used to, like Apples Siri, Google Home and Amazon Alexa. You might call automated phone systemsthe kind people love to hateas a chatbots second cousin. But so far these are far from able to use artificial intelligence to understand language, and respond appropriately.

And while the technology can be used for entertainment purposesthink Snapchat or Facebook Messenger, for exampleits greatest impact is potentially coming in marketing, Brucculeri told me.

Creating conversations, not messaging

We work with brands across several industry verticals, including tourism, hospitality, entertainment, media, CPG, retail, quick-serve restaurants and more, he said. For example one apparel brand delivers a 30-day workout experience using basic Facebook Messenger. For some hospitality brands, theyre trying to manage their ongoing relationship with consumers and help them manage their rewards accounts.

In many ways, this sounds similar to most apps were used to. So, what makes chatbots a different kind of app?

Where chatbots get really interesting is in personalizing media and responses, Brucculeri suggested. Here, you can really do one-to-one marketing at scale. Brucculeri said Snaps has developed such chatbots for sports teams, where a fan might receive notices of games, results and highlight videos. In the stadium, a chatbot might help a fan find restrooms and snack counters, based on physical location.

Brucculeri said Snaps is developing chatbots that function on a variety of existing platforms. Facebook Messenger, which launched a chatbot in 2016, may be most appropriate in accessing consumers, he said, but theres also Kik, WeChat, Slack and many others, each of which may be experience-specific.

Chatbots also can be connected to customer relationship management platforms, such as Salesforce, to deliver notifications at the right time to the right person, Brucculeri said.

We do CRM integration and user matching to log in and do account management, he said. The result might enable companies to find new customers, engage with existing customers in a fun way, getting customers to take some form of action, or managing the relationship in other ways.

Improving the customer experience

Customer service, driven by artificial intelligence, also can be aided powerfully by such matching, Brucculeri said. Instead of hitting a bunch of digits to get routed to the right person, the artificial intelligence capabilities of chatbotsthe two-way ability to listen and respond appropriatelycan improve this experience immensely.

A chatbot can do this in ways that are more convenient, simple, fast, and better for the customer and probably less expensive for the customer-service function, he said.

The future of chatbots is an intriguing one, as technology evolves and as the bots themselves get smarter and more humanlike in their analyses and responses.

Were long on the idea that conversational interfaces will continue to evolve. Whether consumers are texting with or talking to them, automated systems like bots are almost certainly going to have a role in our future lives Brucculeri said. We see conversational media becoming the next wave and being potentially bigger than application media itself. I think in three years, people might be talking to bots more than theyre typing in bots.

But the main idea remains the same, he said. Might I one day launch a chatbot on Alexa, Amazons voice control system? How about getting some type of visual element to go along with that, such as HoloLens, Microsofts holographic headset? Can these things become really rich experiences, far better than just staring at our phones and typing?

I think some of the form factors are going to change, but I think the fundamental elements are going to be the same, which is conversational commerce. People increasingly will be talking to their computers, and theyre going to get a lot done by doing it.

Agile marketing increasingly is being recognized as a powerful key to content effectiveness. Buyer interest and trends can change in the blink of an eye, in particular as social and other media drive the news. Breaking news creates windows of opportunities, but only if marketers are quick and smart enough to take advantage of them.

On topic of agile marketing is what some have called newsjacking, which means responding quickly to news items of the day. More than just quickness for its own sake, the increased focus on what customers are interested in greatly improves content relevance.

And did I forget to say it can produce stupendous ROI results? It can produce stupendous ROI results!

Im proud to say my latest efforts in this area on behalf of PwC have been recognized by ITSMA with its highest honor, the diamond award in its 2016 Marketing Excellence Awards global competition. Below, Ill explain some of the elements of the winning program.

The quick or the dead

Keeping up to the minute with whos buying what, matched with what youre selling, and how youre connecting and delivering for your customers is a dynamic and fluid challenge. As Financial Services and U.S. Brexit Marketing Leader at PwC here in New York I have a particular interest in rapid-response content creation, in particular how it can benefit our customers in their day-to-day decision making.

But professional service firms often impose inherent drags on marketing response. Internal reviews and multiple approvals have to be adhered to, and design and layout of messages, and distribution via Web, e-mail and social media, consume big chunks time.

Thats a shame, because firms like PwC are well-positioned to offer keen, insightful analysis of breaking financial newsanalysis thats effective only if its quick out the door. Think of it as a client calling a very knowledgeable friend to get their take on the news. Marketing best practices demand it, but more importantly so do current and prospective clients who have to make rapid decisions based on sometimes complex new regulations often rendered in government speak.

Knowing how the content game is played

We already distribute thoughtful briefs on new regulations, as well as deeper analysis. What we needed was a quick-response campaign platform tied to newsworthy events that we already knew were on the horizon, and that our customers also anticipated.

Consider the U.K.s June 2016 referendum to eventually leave the European Union. It seemed that Brexit follow-up was always catching people flat-footed, with how-come and what-if analysis that was too uncertain and too late.

But the calendar revealed key dates that would produce news and content opportunities. We knew, for example, the Bank of England would hold a policy meeting on a certain day. We knew the particular date that the UKs GDP numbers would be released, that the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was meeting in Brussels, and more. From these and other events, we were able to prepare preliminary analysis based on expected news, and get it out the door in two days or lessunheard of in most professional services firms.

The key is not responding to events, but rather anticipating them with compelling marketing content your customers want and need. Ill give you a single example that turned out great for us, and impressed the ITSMA judges.

A combination of hard work and opportunity

And the payoff? Our keyword buy results were among the strongest ever recorded for any PwC paid-search campaign, with the highest ever click-through rates and the lowest bounce rates. And we booked business in the first week of the campaign.

If all this seems daunting, dont worry. Pick your spots, develop content in advance and think like the folks who are going to consume it. Agile marketing works; moreover, in many industries it can be the rule breaker that makes for outsized competitive success. So roll up your sleeves and make it happen!

This has been a great series of conversations with cryptocurrency expert Alex Tapscott, and were just about done. Alex is founder and CEO of Northwest Passage Ventures and coauthorwith his dad, business theorist Don Tapscott of the book The Trust Protocol: How Blockchain Technology Will Change Money, Business and the World.

In previous conversations, we delved into the issue of security, trust and the structure and solidity of blockchains, bitcoins major technical innovation. Here, we discussed a topic near and dear to my heart regulation. In short, whos minding the store, and what does government think about cryptocurrency?

Theres a misconception thats held by a lot of people that governments are ambivalent and in some cases hostile to cryptocurrency, but thats simply not true, Alex said. Yes, countries like Russia, Iran or Bangladesh are not onboard with digital monies, but in most mature, developed countries, governments are looking at this as a tool and an opportunity, not as a liability.

The reason is quite straightforward. Consider central banks, which have three important roles in business and the economyto manage monetary policy like interest rates and money supply; to act as a lender of last resort in the case of crisis or liquidity crunches, putting credit and capital back in the system; and to act as regulator.

And when it comes to being a regulator, what do you care about the most? Alex continued. You care that consumers are being protected, that companies are not violating the law or committing crimes, and perhaps most importantly you care about risk in the system. You want to ensure that risk is not being concentrated in the wrong places where it could eventually lead to a crisis.

Alex said that a great advantage to a blockchain, from a regulators standpoint, is that they can see transactions happening in real time, and can identify pretty easily whether or not money is flowing in ways that might be suspicious, or to places (Iran, China) where money laundering or other nefarious dealings have been known to take place rather often.

One of the reasons why the global financial crisis happened was that regulators were unaware of how risk was getting concentrated in the hands of different intermediaries, Alex explained. A lot of those transactions were done bilaterally, at different parties, where Goldman and Lehman Brothers (for example) might not know how much each of them owed to each other. And often they were using really antiquated technology where the records would be held in Excel spreadsheets or filing cabinets.

Alex noted that if these transactions had been cleared and were settled on a public ledger like a blockchain, regulators would have had much better visibility and would have been able to react more quickly when things looked like they were getting out of hand. Its certainly an interesting position.

Another point Alex madeand that regulators should appreciateis rapidity of response.

Here is the original post:

Marketing Darwinism | by Paul Dunay

Darwin’s Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism

Introduction

The Darwinian worldview was critical, not only in influencing the development of Nazism and communism, but also in the rise of the ruthless capitalists that flourished in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Morris and Morris, 1996). A key aspect of this brand of capitalism was its extreme individualism which indicated that other persons count for little, and that it is both natural and proper to exploit “weaker” companies. The socalled robber barons often concluded that their behavior was justified by natural law and was the inevitable outcome of history (Josephson, 1934). Many were raised as Christians, but rejected their Christianity or modified it to include their socialist/Darwinian ideas. Gertrude Himmelfarb noted that Darwinism may have been accepted in England in part because it justified the greed of certain people.

Rachels noted that “the survival of the fittest” theory in biology was quickly interpreted by capitalists as “an ethical precept that sanctioned cutthroat economic competition” (1990, p. 63, see also Hs, 1986, p. 10). Julian Huxley and H. B. D. Kittlewell even concluded that social Darwinism “led to the glorification of free enterprise, laissez-faire economics and war, to an unscientific eugenics and racism, and eventually to Hitler and Nazi ideology” (in Huxley and Kittlewell, 1965, p. 81).

Darwinism helped to justify not only the ruthless exploits of the communists, but also the ruthless practices of capitalist monopolists such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. Kenneth Hs (1986, p. 534) noted:

Like Stalin, Marx, Lenin, and Hitler, Carnegie also once accepted Christianity, but abandoned it for Darwinism and became a close friend of the famous social Darwinist, Herbert Spencer. Carnegie stated in his autobiography that when he and several of his friends came to doubt the teachings of Christianity,

Carnegie’s conclusions were best summarized when he said:

John D. Rockefeller reportedly once said that the “growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest . . . the working out of a law of nature . . .” (Ghent, 1902, p. 29). The Rockefellers, while maintaining a Christian front, fully embraced evolution and dismissed the Bible’s early books as mythology (Taylor, 1991, p. 386). When a philanthropist pledged ,000 to help found a university named after William Jennings Bryan, John D. Rockefeller Jr. retaliated the very same day with a ,000,000 donation to the openly anticreationist University of Chicago Divinity School (Larson, 1997, p. 183). Morris and Morris noted that the philosophy expressed by Rockefeller also was embraced not only by railroad magnate James Hill, but probably most other capitalists of his day (1996, p. 87). Morris and Morris have suggested that many modern evolutionists:

Morris and Morris also noted that both the left wing MarxistLeninism and the right wing ruthless capitalists were anticreationists and “even when they fight with each other, they remain united in opposition to creationism . . .” (p. 82). Many capitalists did not discard their Christianity, but instead tried to blend it with Darwinism. The result was a compromise somewhat like theistic evolution. Although most American businessmen were probably not consciously social Darwinists,

Several studies have documented the important contribution of Darwin to laissezfaire capitalism: An analysis of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission (1902-1903) hearings found:

Rosenthal (1997) showed that, historically, biogenetic doctrines had the effect of promoting an attitude of acceptance of the problems of racism, sexism, war, and capitalism. The field of biogenetics has offered no new scientific evidence that human social behavior has a biogenetic basis, or that business/social competition, male dominance, aggression, territoriality, xenophobia, and even patriotism, warfare, and genocide are genetically based human universals. Yet biogenetic doctrines have occupied a prominent place throughout most of American sociological history. Rosenthal noted that Cooley, Sorokin, Sumner, Ross, and even Park adhered to biological racist doctrines that in the past have signaled and encouraged reactionary social policy.

The Darwinian concept, applied to business, still is very much with us today. Robert Blake and his coauthors in their 1996 book, Corporate Darwinism, attempted to apply modern Darwinism to business. They concluded that business evolves in very predictable ways, specifically in defined stages very much like the stages of human evolution. This “business evolution” is natural; business in keeping with Darwinian principles either swallows the competition, or finds that it will be swallowed by that competition.

Darwin’s ideas played a critically important role in the development and growth, not only of Nazism and communism, but also of the ruthless form of capitalism as best illustrated by the robber barons. While it is difficult to conclude confidently that ruthless capitalism would not have blossomed as it did if Darwin had not developed his evolution theory, it is clear that if Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others had continued to embrace the unadulterated JudeoChristian worldview of their youth and had not become Darwinists, capitalism would not have become as ruthless as it did in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Morris and Morris (p. 84) have suggested that other motivations (including greed, ambition, even a type of a missionary zeal) stimulated the fierce, unprincipled robber baron business practices long before Darwin. Darwinism, however, gave capitalism an apparent scientific rationale that allowed it to be taken to the extremes that were so evident in the early parts of last century.

Blake, Robert, Warren Avis and Jane Mouton. 1966. Corporate Darwinism. Houston, TX: Gulf Pub. Carnegie, Andrew. 1920. Autobiography of Andrew Carnegie, ed. John C. Van Dyke. 1986; reprint, Boston: Northeastern University Press. Doukas, Dimitra. 1997. “Corporate Capitalism on Trial: The Hearings of the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission, 1902-1903.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 3(3):367-398. Ghent, William. 1902. Our Benevolent Feudalism. New York: Macmillan. Himmelfarb, Gertrude. 1962. Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. New York: W.W. Norton. Hs, Kenneth. June 1986. “Darwin’s Three Mistakes,” Geology, (vol. 14), p. 532-534. Hs, Kenneth. 1986. The Great Dying: Cosmic Catastrophe, Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution. NY: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Huxley, Julian and H.B.D. Kittlewell. 1965. Charles Darwin and His World. New York: Viking Press. Josephson, Matthew. 1934. The Robber Barons. New York: Harcourt and Brace. Larson, Edward J. 1997. Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America’s Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion. New York: Basic Books. Morris, Henry and John D. Morris. 1996. The Modern Creation Trilogy. vol. 3. Society and Creation. Green Forrest, AR: Master Books. Oldroyd, D.R. 1980. Darwinian Impacts. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Rachels, James. 1990. Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. New York: Oxford University Press. Rosenthal, Steven J. 1977. Sociobiology: New Synthesis or Old Ideology? American Sociological Association. Taylor, Ian T. 1991. In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the New World Order. Minneapolis: TFE Publishing.

* Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio.

Visit link:

Darwin’s Influence on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism

Darwinism – Wikipedia

This article is about concepts called Darwinism. For biological evolution, see evolution. For modern evolutionary theories, see Modern synthesis. For Wallace’s defence of the theory of natural selection, see Darwinism (book).

Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (18091882) and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, including concepts which predated Darwin’s theories. It subsequently referred to the specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier, or the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though the term usually refers strictly to biological evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin’s work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin’s and of his predecessors’ workin place of other theories, including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.[2][3]

English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term Darwinism in April 1860.[4] It was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts published by English philosopher Herbert Spencer. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of German evolutionary biologist August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During the approximate period of the 1880s to about 1920, sometimes called “the eclipse of Darwinism”, scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.[5]

While the term Darwinism has remained in use amongst the public when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued by science writers such as Olivia Judson and Eugenie Scott that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[6][7] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of the Moravian scientist and Augustinian friar Gregor Mendel,[8] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of later theoretical developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift, for example.[9][10] In the United States, creationists often use the term “Darwinism” as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as scientific materialism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, with evolution by natural selection.[6]

While the term Darwinism had been used previously to refer to the work of Erasmus Darwin in the late 18th century, the term as understood today was introduced when Charles Darwin’s 1859 book On the Origin of Species was reviewed by Thomas Henry Huxley in the April 1860 issue of the Westminster Review.[12] Having hailed the book as “a veritable Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism” promoting scientific naturalism over theology, and praising the usefulness of Darwin’s ideas while expressing professional reservations about Darwin’s gradualism and doubting if it could be proved that natural selection could form new species,[13] Huxley compared Darwin’s achievement to that of Nicolaus Copernicus in explaining planetary motion:

What if the orbit of Darwinism should be a little too circular? What if species should offer residual phenomena, here and there, not explicable by natural selection? Twenty years hence naturalists may be in a position to say whether this is, or is not, the case; but in either event they will owe the author of “The Origin of Species” an immense debt of gratitude…. And viewed as a whole, we do not believe that, since the publication of Von Baer’s “Researches on Development,” thirty years ago, any work has appeared calculated to exert so large an influence, not only on the future of Biology, but in extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated.[4]

These are the basic tenets of evolution by natural selection as defined by Darwin.

Another important evolutionary theorist of the same period was the Russian geographer and prominent anarchist Peter Kropotkin who, in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), advocated a conception of Darwinism counter to that of Huxley. His conception was centred around what he saw as the widespread use of co-operation as a survival mechanism in human societies and animals. He used biological and sociological arguments in an attempt to show that the main factor in facilitating evolution is cooperation between individuals in free-associated societies and groups. This was in order to counteract the conception of fierce competition as the core of evolution, which provided a rationalization for the dominant political, economic and social theories of the time; and the prevalent interpretations of Darwinism, such as those by Huxley, who is targeted as an opponent by Kropotkin. Kropotkin’s conception of Darwinism could be summed up by the following quote:

In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sensenot as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.[14]

Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), Conclusion

“Darwinism” soon came to stand for an entire range of evolutionary (and often revolutionary) philosophies about both biology and society. One of the more prominent approaches, summed in the 1864 phrase “survival of the fittest” by Herbert Spencer, later became emblematic of Darwinism even though Spencer’s own understanding of evolution (as expressed in 1857) was more similar to that of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck than to that of Darwin, and predated the publication of Darwin’s theory in 1859. What is now called “Social Darwinism” was, in its day, synonymous with “Darwinism”the application of Darwinian principles of “struggle” to society, usually in support of anti-philanthropic political agenda. Another interpretation, one notably favoured by Darwin’s half-cousin Francis Galton, was that “Darwinism” implied that because natural selection was apparently no longer working on “civilized” people, it was possible for “inferior” strains of people (who would normally be filtered out of the gene pool) to overwhelm the “superior” strains, and voluntary corrective measures would be desirablethe foundation of eugenics.

In Darwin’s day there was no rigid definition of the term “Darwinism”, and it was used by opponents and proponents of Darwin’s biological theory alike to mean whatever they wanted it to in a larger context. The ideas had international influence, and Ernst Haeckel developed what was known as Darwinismus in Germany, although, like Spencer’s “evolution”, Haeckel’s “Darwinism” had only a rough resemblance to the theory of Charles Darwin, and was not centered on natural selection.[15] In 1886, Alfred Russel Wallace went on a lecture tour across the United States, starting in New York and going via Boston, Washington, Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska to California, lecturing on what he called “Darwinism” without any problems.[16]

In his book Darwinism (1889), Wallace had used the term pure-Darwinism which proposed a “greater efficacy” for natural selection.[17][18] George Romanes dubbed this view as “Wallaceism”, noting that in contrast to Darwin, this position was advocating a “pure theory of natural selection to the exclusion of any supplementary theory.”[19][20] Taking influence from Darwin, Romanes was a proponent of both natural selection and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The latter was denied by Wallace who was a strict selectionist.[21] Romanes’ definition of Darwinism conformed directly with Darwin’s views and was contrasted with Wallace’s definition of the term.[22]

The term Darwinism is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement, as an epithet to attack evolution as though it were an ideology (an “ism”) of philosophical naturalism, or atheism.[23] For example, UC Berkeley law professor and author Phillip E. Johnson makes this accusation of atheism with reference to Charles Hodge’s book What Is Darwinism? (1874).[24] However, unlike Johnson, Hodge confined the term to exclude those like American botanist Asa Gray who combined Christian faith with support for Darwin’s natural selection theory, before answering the question posed in the book’s title by concluding: “It is Atheism.”[25][26] Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his followers, whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief.[27] In the 2008 documentary film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which promotes intelligent design (ID), American writer and actor Ben Stein refers to scientists as Darwinists. Reviewing the film for Scientific American, John Rennie says “The term is a curious throwback, because in modern biology almost no one relies solely on Darwin’s original ideas… Yet the choice of terminology isn’t random: Ben Stein wants you to stop thinking of evolution as an actual science supported by verifiable facts and logical arguments and to start thinking of it as a dogmatic, atheistic ideology akin to Marxism.” [28]

However, Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish the modern evolutionary synthesis, sometimes called “neo-Darwinism”, from those first proposed by Darwin. Darwinism also is used neutrally by historians to differentiate his theory from other evolutionary theories current around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thoughtparticularly contrasting Darwin’s results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

In political discussions in the United States, the term is mostly used by its enemies. “It’s a rhetorical device to make evolution seem like a kind of faith, like ‘Maoism,'” says Harvard University biologist E. O. Wilson. He adds, “Scientists don’t call it ‘Darwinism’.”[29] In the United Kingdom the term often retains its positive sense as a reference to natural selection, and for example British ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in his collection of essays A Devil’s Chaplain, published in 2003, that as a scientist he is a Darwinist.[30]

In his 1995 book Darwinian Fairytales, Australian philosopher David Stove[31] used the term “Darwinism” in a different sense than the above examples. Describing himself as non-religious and as accepting the concept of natural selection as a well-established fact, Stove nonetheless attacked what he described as flawed concepts proposed by some “Ultra-Darwinists.” Stove alleged that by using weak or false ad hoc reasoning, these Ultra-Darwinists used evolutionary concepts to offer explanations that were not valid (e.g., Stove suggested that sociobiological explanation of altruism as an evolutionary feature was presented in such a way that the argument was effectively immune to any criticism). Philosopher Simon Blackburn wrote a rejoinder to Stove,[32] though a subsequent essay by Stove’s protegee James Franklin’s[33] suggested that Blackburn’s response actually “confirms Stove’s central thesis that Darwinism can ‘explain’ anything.”

Read more:

Darwinism – Wikipedia

Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist and …

by Coel Hellier

1: Introduction2: Nazi Racial Theory (de Gobineau)3: Houston Stewart Chamberlain 4: Hans Gnther 5: Hitler and Mein Kampf 6: Creationist denial 7: Religion in the Third Reich 8: Christian Denial 9: Conclusion

Among those who dislike Darwins explanation of human beings as the product of evolution a common accusation is that Darwinian thinking has led to horrors such as the Nazi holocaust. For example the American religious commentator Ann Coulter writes: From Marx to Hitler, the men responsible for the greatest mass murders of the twentieth century were avid Darwinists (which is wrong on all the others, not just Hitler). So widespread is the claim that even many who accept that Darwinian evolution has been established as true, well beyond any reasonable doubt, also believe that Darwinian ideas were misused to justify Nazi atrocities. For example the British political commentator Andrew Marr writes that Darwinism was used to justify the Nazi holocaust.

Are these claims correct? Remarkably, for a claim so widely accepted, no they arent. Indeed, the Nazi ideology underpinning the extermination of the Jews was opposed to and incompatible with Darwinism, instead being a religious and creationist doctrine.

Even such a staunch Darwinian as Richard Dawkins fails to appreciate how anti-Darwin the Nazis were, hugely underplaying the differences. These differences are best illustrated by the schematics in Figure 1. On the left is the Darwinian evolutionary tree showing the origin of man out of monkey-like ancestors. In the middle is a schematic of the family tree of todays dogs. The domestic dog, as with other domesticated and farmed species, is partially the product of Darwinian natural selection and partially the product of human artificial selection to produce desired outcomes. Dawkins is correct to make a distinction between artificial selection something weve known about since the invention of farming and natural selection, Darwins idea explaining the evolution of species over geological timescales.

Fig. 1: The `branching’ pattern of descent produced by Darwinian natural selection and by artificial selection contrasts with Nazi racial ideology of separate creation of distinct races, and the sinfulness of “contaminating” the “God’s handiwork” Aryan race by allowing inter-breeding with “lesser” races.

Dawkins writes, in response to Ben Steins propaganda film Expelled

Hitler didnt apply NATURAL selection to humans. [] Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia.

The suggestion here is that Hitler wanted to use farming techniques to artificially select desired traits and so produce a master race. This would indeed be an ideology that had some similarities to Darwinism. However, while Professor Dawkins can be excused for never having looked into Nazi ideology, abhorrent and unscientific as it is, this misunderstands Nazi racial doctrine and what they were trying to achieve. In fact, Nazi racial ideology was radically different, being based on a creationist vision that was totally incompatible with and opposed to Darwinian evolution.

The panel on the right of Fig. 1 illustrates Nazi racial doctrine. They believed that the different human races were distinct and separate, created as God wanted them, and they regarded these permanent racial characteristics as all important to human culture and destiny. Further, they believed that allowing racial inter-mixing had led to the downfall of civilizations, and was a sin against Gods creation. Thus they considered it of overwhelming importance to preserve their own Nordic/Aryan race, which they regarded as superior and created in Gods own image, by preventing inter-breeding with inferior races which they regarded as literally sub-human, being separate creations.

Flag of the Nazi Deutsche Christen

So, yes, the Nazis wanted to use selective breeding, but not to create a master race, but to preserve an Aryan master race, preserving the primordial Aryan characteristics which they believed were the highest image of God.

This ideology shares one thing with Darwinism, namely the possibility of using selective breeding to achieve a desired end, a possibility mankind had known about since the invention of farming, about 12,000 yrs ago. But in all other respects it is profoundly anti-Darwinian. Whereas in Darwinian evolution all mankind evolved out of a common monkey-like ancestor, with all human races sharing a common origin in the recent past, in Nazi ideology the different human races were distinct and separate creations.

In other words, the Nazis, like many creationists today, accepted what creationists call micro-evolution, the operation of natural selection within a species; but, like other creationists, they totally rejected macro-evolution, the evolution of one species into another.

While the mutability of species, with new species evolving out of distant ancestors, is the central theme of Darwinism, the Nazis found that idea anathema, and placed a heavy emphasis on racial purity and the distinctiveness and separateness of different species. Further, the Nazis found abhorrent the materialist notion that man might be just like other animals, and, from their religious and moralistic perspective, they insisted that man had a spiritual soul.

That is why leading Nazi ideologues wrote books explicitly rejecting Darwinism, and why they banned Darwinian works from public libraries. The truth is that nothing in Nazi ideology derives from Darwin the slight overlap is only in areas known about long pre-Darwin. Nor are there any quotes of leading Nazis looking to Darwin or pointing to Darwin as justification if there were the creationists would likely have found them by now. In short, the association of Nazi doctrine with Darwinism is an outright fabrication by those who wish to discredit Darwinism and the scientific account of the origin of man.

The Nazis racial theory is straightforwardly traced back to the writings of Arthur de Gobineau (18161882), a French aristocrat, novelist and diplomat. His work on the Inequality of the Human Races was published in 18531855 (before Darwins Origin of Species), and was translated into English in 1856, and into German in 1897, by Ludwig Schemann, a leading proponent of Nazi theory.

Arthur de Gobineau

De Gobineaus central argument is that humans races are distinct and unequal, and he argues against the unitarian idea that all men are descended from a common origin. In Chapter 11, headed Racial differences are permanent, he writes:

I conclude, from this refutation of the only arguments brought forward by the Unitarians, that the permanence of racial types is beyond dispute; it is so strong and indestructible that the most complete change of environment has no power to overthrow it, so long as no crossing takes place.

By crossing de Gobineau means inter-racial breeding. He argues that inter-racial mixing causes degeneracy, with the blood of the superior races being polluted by that of inferior races.

Much of the book is concerned with the fall of civilizations, asking why the great civilizations of the past fell. He argues that it resulted from the degeneration caused by inter-racial mixing:

And when I have shown by examples that great peoples, at the moment of their death, have only a very small and insignificant share in the blood of the founders, into whose inheritance they come, I shall thereby have explained clearly enough how it is possible for civilizations to fall .

In Chapter 1 de Gobineau, a Catholic Christian, wrote:

The fall of civilizations is the most striking, and, at the same time, the most obscure, of all the phenomena of history. The wisdom of the ancients yields little that throws light on our subject, except one fundamental axiom, the recognition of the finger of God in the conduct of this world; to this firm and ultimate principle we must adhere, accepting it in the full sense in which it is understood by the Catholic Church. It is certain that no civilisation falls to the ground unless God wills it .

This laid the seeds of an idea that would be echoed in Mein Kampf, that the fall of civilizations was God-ordained as a punishment for racial inter-mixing, that God wanted his separately created races to be kept separate, and that allowing racial inter-mixing was counter to Gods will.

de Gobineau admits that one counter-argument which I confess, gives me more concern is that It is said that Genesis does not admit of a multiple origin for our species. He argues that:

We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the *white* race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white,

and that:

there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all. Not a word is said about the yellow races, and it is only an arbitrary interpretation of the text that makes us regard the patriarch Ham as black.

Thus de Gobineau is arguing that the Mankind created by God in the Garden of Eden was the White race, and that the other races, who could be regarded as sub-human, had had separate creations. This idea has cropped up periodically in Christian thought, for example in the Dutch Reformed Church as a justification of apartheid, and explains puzzles such as why the Mark of Cain was needed to protect Cain if there were no other peoples.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain (18551927) was one of the intellectual founders of Nazism. His The Foundations Of The Nineteenth Century sold a quarter of a million copies by 1938. On Chamberlains 70th birthday, the Nazi party newspaper dedicated five columns to him, describing The Foundations as the gospel of the Nazi movement. This books ideas of Aryan supremacy and a struggle against Jewish influence became the intellectual justification of Nazism, being carried in all public libraries and included in school curricula. Rosenberg described himself as electrified by reading this book, which he regarded as the inspiration for his own Myth Of The Twentieth Century.

Hitler visited Chamberlain several times between 1923 and 1926, and attended his funeral in 1927. In 1923 Chamberlain wrote to Hitler saying:

Most respected and dear Hitler That Germany, in the hour of her greatest need, brings forth a Hitler that is proof of her vitality I can now go untroubled to sleep May God protect you!.

Houston Stewart Chamberlain

Chamberlain was a Christian, devoting chapters of his Foundations to his version of Christianity. He believed that much of Church doctrine was a distortion of Christs teaching, writing that:

the whole superstructure of the Christian Churches has hitherto been outside of the personality of Christ

and that:

we need a regeneration that shall be specifically religious: we need to tear away the foreign rags and tatters that still hang upon our Christianity as the trappings of slavish hypocrisy: we need the creative power to construct out of the words and the spectacle of the crucified Son of Man a perfect religion fitting the truth of our nature .

In the introduction to Foundations Chamberlain writes of Darwinism as A manifestly unsound system. He explicitly advocates a dualistic and spiritual vision of man, rejecting monism (the idea that humans are simply physical material) and saying that Darwinism and so-called `scientific monism, materialism were shallow and therefore injurious systems [] which have nevertheless in the nineteenth century produced so much confusion of thought.

He then says that as a result of such errors theists become in the twinkling of an eye atheists, a strikingly common thing in the case of Jews .

Chamberlain continued that for us (Teutons) God is always in the background. He contrasts this with a Jewish scholar in whom he had occasion to observe the genesis and obstinacy of the apparently opposite atheistical conception, and remarked that:

It is absolutely impossible ever to bring home to such a man what we Teutons understand by Godhead, religion, morality. Here lies the hard insoluble kernel of the `Jewish problem. And this is the reason why an impartial man, without a trace of contempt for the in many respects worthy and excellent Jews, can and must regard the presence of a large number of them in our midst as a danger not to be under-estimated.

This association of atheism with Jews was later echoed by Hitler in Mein Kampf, and was widespread at the time. As one example, Cardinal Hlond, Primate of Poland, issued a pastoral letter in 1936 to be read in all Catholic churches saying:

It is a fact that Jews are waging war against the Catholic church, that they are steeped in free-thinking, and constitute the vanguard of atheism, the Bolshevik movement, and revolutionary activity. It is a fact that Jews have a corruptive influence on morals [] from a religious and ethical point of view, Jewish youth are having a negative influence on the Catholic youth in our schools.

Although Chamberlain did some work in botany, he described himself in his book The Aryan Worldview (1905) as someone who has no scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, as with many Christians, he had deep antipathy to Darwinism, which he saw as materialist and soul-less. In his major work Immanuel Kant (1905) he attacked Darwinism at length.

In the section Plato he defended ideas of a Platonic essence, such that different races were of different essence, and totally rejected Darwins ideas of races and species as malleable, and evolving into different species. Here are some quotes:

A characteristic symptom of our modern intellectual disease is the increasing tendency to relegate things to ever remoter and remoter origins. Thus, for instance, man was said to be descended from the ape; the anatomical impossibility of this is established to-day by a thousand reasons

the nonsensical dogmas of the theorisers on natural selection and descent may once and for all be rejected.

That is how anti-science and phantasticism have invaded our times. And how did this happen? It was the inevitable consequence of wishing to understand nature from the process of growth instead of from its Being, [The Being here being the constant Platonic essence, in contrast to changeable Darwinian growth.]

Constancy, not only of single species without any change from the oldest palaeozoic strata until to-day but, as I have just shown, constancy of precisely the same structural conditions down to every detail that is the great fundamental fact, the fact of all facts, which pure conception gives us in regard to life. Life is form, constant form.

And he gets quite disparaging about Darwin: These few remarks only serve to show what a want of reflection disfigures the fundamental thoughts of Darwin and his followers.

And lauds a Darwin critic: This testimony of a professional man rich in knowledge and prudent in judgement, deserves attention at a time when the Darwinian craze works such mischief []

Further, Chamberlain is totally dismissive of the Darwinian idea that man could ascend from a bestial past and that natural selection, in its blind choice, is forsooth to transfigure us into an exalted being.

This passage is worth quoting more fully, since the usual accusation is that the Nazis took from Darwin an idea of using selective breeding to create a master race. Chamberlain, the foremost intellectual founder of Nazism, totally and explicitly rejects this, instead wanting to preserve the past:

Darwin specially recommends his theory for our acceptance in that it also promises to mankind that all corporal and mental endowments will tend to progress in the direction towards perfection. I, on the contrary, should have thought that we might have contented ourselves with the gifts of a Plato, a Descartes, a Leonardo, a Goethe, a Kant how far better this than that we, fooled by delusions out of a bestial past that is no past should with outstretched greedy hands, without cease or rest, clutch at a phantastic future in which natural selection, in its blind choice, is forsooth to transfigure us into an exalted being, the like of which is beyond the imagination of the great and holy and sublime men of the present generation!

Thus, to Chamberlain, Nazi theory was not about using selective breeding to perfect a master race, Nazi ideology was that the Aryans were already a master race, and had always been, since an original creation by God. And that the Aryan master race was now threatened by interbreeding with lesser races of human, which it was their duty to prevent. This theme was later to make up a large swathe of Mein Kampf.

This is a complete rejection of the Darwinian idea of humans having a common origin and having evolved from apes. Indeed Chamberlain is quite disparaging about Darwinism, calling it an English sickness:

If we might not say that this craze [Darwinism] is only the last belated straggler of romanticism and Hegelism in alliance with flat English utilitarianism, and that a hundred years will not have passed before it will be judged as men to-day judge alchemy, if we did not see around us an energetic shaking off of this English sickness, as the Zoologist Friedrich Dreyer called it in a happy phrase, we might abandon all hope of a future for Science and culture.

Alfred Rosenberg was another leading Nazi, and a major proponent of Nazi ideology, who also explicitly opposed and criticised Darwinism. In his Myth Of The Twentieth Century he writes:

The liberal epoch brought enormous desolation in the church domain. This was precipitated by its many pseudoscientific beliefs such as evolution. [] The tragic thing about the spiritual history of the last hundred years is that the churches have made the liberal materialistic outlook their own. [] Thus the Darwinian era was able to create enormous confusion.

The above sections have shown how Nazi racial ideology originated prior to Darwin, in the form of de Gobineau, and from ideologues such as Chamberlain who explicitly opposed and rejected Darwinism. Lets now turn to Nazi ideologues during the Third Reich era, of whom Hans Gnther is a prominent example.

Hans Gnther

Hans Gnther (18911968), known as the Race Pope (Rassenpapst) was the leading Third Reich exponent of Nazi racial ideology. His Short Ethnology of the German People was published in 1929, selling 270,000 copies. He was appointed to a chair in racial theory at Jena in 1931, and joined the Nazi party in 1932, being lauded and decorated by Hitler.

Gnthers major work was The Racial Elements of European History (English translation, 1927). Gnther drew heavily on de Gobineau and Chamberlain, writing (Chapter 12):

The French Count Arthur Gobineau (1816-82), was the first to point out in his work, Essai sur linegalite des races humaines (1853-5), the importance of the Nordic race for the life of the peoples. Count Gobineau, too, was the first to see that, through the mixture of the Nordic with other races, the way was being prepared for what to-day (with Spengler) is called the Fall of the West. it is thanks to Schemann [and] his translation of the Essay on the Inequality of Human Races, which appeared 1898-1901, that Gobineaus name and the foundations he traced for the Nordic ideal have not fallen into forgetfulness. The very great importance of Gobineaus work in the history of the culture of our day is shown by Schemann in his book, Gobineaus Rassenwerk (1910).

About the same time, too, in 1899, appeared the work which for the first time brought the racial ideal, and particularly the Nordic ideal, into the consciousness of a very wide circle through the enthusiasm, and also the opposition, which it aroused: this work was The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, by H. S. Chamberlain

Since the works of Gobineau and Chamberlain appeared, many investigators, in the realms of natural and social science, have devoted themselves eagerly to bringing light into racial questions, so that to-day not only the core of the theory both of Gobineau and of Chamberlain stands secure, but also much new territory has been won for an ideal of the Nordic race. A new standpoint in history, the racial historical standpoint, is shaping itself. Following the terms used by Gobineau and Chamberlain, we come here and there upon more or less clear conceptions of the need for keeping the Germanic blood pure, or (following Lapouge) of keeping the Aryan blood pure.

Thus we have the leading Third Reich race ideologue explicitly attributing his ideas to pre-Darwin and anti-Darwin writers. It is true, though, that Gnther then goes on to mention selection and Darwin, saying: the influence of the conception of selection only really begins to show itself after the foundations of modern biology were laid by Darwins Origin of Species in 1859. The conception of selection was bound to have an effect on the view taken of the destiny of the peoples. Darwins cousin, Francis Galton (18221911), the father of eugenics, was the first to see this.

However, it is clear that from Darwin he is taking only a mechanism, namely selection, whereas it is from Gobineau and Chamberlain that he is taking motivation. He continues: Through researches such as these [Darwin, Galton, Mendel] Gobineaus teachings received a deeper meaning, and found fresh support from all these sources, from the sciences of heredity, eugenics, and race: the Nordic movement was born. And Gobineaus central thesis was the anti-Darwinian idea of separately created and permanent racial types, and the idea that allowing racial mixing would destroy the Aryan/Nordic superior race.

After a lengthy lead-up reviewing the origins of Nazi doctrine, lets now turn to Mein Kampf (19251926). This was the book that sold 10 million copies, it was this book above all that was read by the German populace, being the single most influential statement of Nazi doctrine. If a people were willing to support or silently acquiesce to the removal and elimination of the Jews from German society, it was above all the justification presented in Mein Kampf building on a thousand years of Christian antipathy towards Jews that mattered.

Mein Kampf does not mention Darwin even once. Where atheism is mentioned (twice) it is pejorative, associating atheism with Jews and Marxism (namely: They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation and atheistic Marxist newspapers ). Instead, Mein Kampf presents a religious, creationist and moralistic argument for removing Jews from German society. That is the major theme of the book, running through it repeatedly.

Hitler ends Chapter 2 with:

And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.

In line with the above Nazi thinkers, Hitler believed that mankind did not have a common origin, but consisted of several distinct and separately created races. The Aryan race was the superior race, with other races such as Jews and Slavs being literally sub-human. Hitler believed that the Aryans had enjoyed a golden past, and that Germanys current troubles were the result of allowing racial inter-mixing, which was destroying the master race, leading to a degeneration of society. Thus it was morally necessary to prevent racial inter-mixing, if necessary by a final solution to the Jewish problem.

Hitler spends much time criticising the churches for opposing each other rather than the Jews:

Catholics and Protestants are fighting with one another to their hearts content, while the enemy [Jews] of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve. Look at the ravages from which our people are suffering daily as a result of being contaminated with Jewish blood.

Think further of how the process of racial decomposition is debasing and in some cases even destroying the fundamental Aryan qualities of our German people.

This pestilential adulteration of the blood, of which hundreds of thousands of our people take no account, is being systematically practised by the Jew to-day.

Systematically [Jews] corrupt our innocent fair-haired girls and thus destroy something which can no longer be replaced in this world.

Note the can no longer be replaced. Hitlers conception was of an original creation of the Aryan race by God, and that any change from there is degeneration. This is creationist and the opposite of idea of creating a master race by selective breeding.

The two Christian denominations look on with indifference at the profanation and destruction of a noble and unique creature who was given to the world as a gift of Gods grace.

So to Hitler the Aryan was a noble and unique creature who was given to the world as a gift of Gods grace, an ideal that was being corrupted.

Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow Gods handiwork to be debased.

So to Hitler the Aryan race was Gods handiwork and the Will of God was that it be preserved.

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against Gods Creation and Gods Will.

So the Aryans are Gods Creation and whoever allows racial inter-mixing destroys His work and wages war on Gods Will.

Over against all this, the VOLKISCH concept of the world recognises that the primordial racial elements are of the greatest significance for mankind.

The primordial racial elements refers to the distinct races as separately created by God. This is the complete opposite of any Darwinian evolutionary account.

In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind.

Conservation of what already exists, of a created Aryan race, not the Darwinian idea of an evolving man.

But, on the other hand, [the Volkish principle] denies that an ethical ideal has the right to prevail if it endangers the existence of a race that is the standard-bearer of a higher ethical ideal.

Excusing what might be seen as unethical (oppressing Jews) by appeal to a higher ethical ideal of preserving Gods creation as God intended.

More:

Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist and …


12345...10...