Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, April 20, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

by Richard Dawkins

On 18th April, the day Ben Stein's infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew (referencing a past article that Shermer had written debunking the Holocaust deniers) whose identity I shall conceal as "David J".

Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!


Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:

Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit.


It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.

Richard



Dear Mr J

Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.

1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!
Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.

2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.

3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?

4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).

6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.

7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. 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. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.

With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins

Comments 1 - 50 of 1932 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #164731 by Madphatcat on April 20, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Excellent letter.

At first I assumed the message from David J was a prank, but you can never be sure of these things, can you. In any case somebody out there actually believes in the things David J said so an open letter like this is necessary.

Other Comments by Madphatcat

2. Comment #164732 by Matt7895 on April 20, 2008 at 4:17 pm

 avatarA very good letter, Richard. I hope he has the decency to reply, and like you I can sympathise with his position. The exploitation of the holocaust in 'Expelled' is nothing short of outrageous and disgusting, and by the box office figures it looks like many people will see the film and many of those people may be drawn in by Ben Stein's lies.

I just hope they listen to the rebuttals from people like yourself and read the website by the NCSE, http://www.expelledexposed.com

Other Comments by Matt7895

3. Comment #164738 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 4:32 pm

 avatarI have sympathy for anyone who had lost family members and especially those who lost family members in the manner of those millions who died in the holocaust.

I have to admit thought that I feel less sympathy for a Jewish person who ignorantly verbally assaults Michael Shermer just because said Jewish person is ignorant of what actually happened in the holocaust and the events that led up to it.


The theory of evolution had as much to do with the holocaust as the theory gravity has to do with apartheid in South Africa.

Read your history Mr J

Other Comments by Zaphod

4. Comment #164739 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 4:32 pm

 avatar

We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!


Oh, lovely, the torches and pitchforks have already started to come out.

What a fun next few months these are going to be.
*Eyeroll*

Other Comments by Diacanu

5. Comment #164740 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 4:33 pm

 avatarDue to the poor condition of our science education system, the opportunity existed for Ben Stein and his associates to use intellectual vandalism to make a quick buck, and thus they have done so. It always costs society to repair the damage from vandalism, and I see the letter from J. as an example of someone from a family twice wronged.

Other Comments by Quine

6. Comment #164743 by Chris Jackson on April 20, 2008 at 4:39 pm

 avatarAs one would expect, a kind, thoughtful and sensitive letter from RD. However, honourable as his sentiment may be, I cannot help but feel that it may fall on deaf ears. From the tone of the given excerpt, David J may have already made up his mind that all atheists, secularists and Evolutionary advocates are Jew-hating Nazis. If this were the case, the kindest words in the world would have held no sway.

It may be the post G & T blues hitting, but I feel distinctly pessimistic about the impact of this letter. Sad too, to know that this film is already having such a detrimental effect.

Shame.

Other Comments by Chris Jackson

7. Comment #164745 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 4:40 pm

 avatar
Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way.


Indeed. BBC Radio 4 recently broadcast a programme called "A Rage In Dalston" about how anti-semitism carried on in the UK after world war 2, led by the British Union of Fascists.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

8. Comment #164746 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 4:43 pm

 avatarYou think this is a crank letter? I don't know, but I do know that the sentiments expressed in it (Darwin's theory of evolution led inexorably to so-called "Social Darwinism" and hence to eugenics, racial anti-semitism and the Holocaust) are all too common, alas. Books, articles, and countless web posts have been written about this subject. Just a cursory look at Amazon reaveals books with titles like From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart, The Pure Society: From Darwin to Hitler by Andre Pichot and David Fernbach, Darwin's Blind Spot: Evolution Beyond Natural Selection by Frank Ryan...and not necessarily by creationist cranks, either (though generally that seems to be the case).

I'm not really sure how to counteract this perception, except to say that I guess more education is needed!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

9. Comment #164748 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm

I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?

Other Comments by Hmmmm

10. Comment #164749 by Christopher Davis on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm

So the take-away message from "Expelled" is "atheists caused/approve of the Holocaust"?

This is worse than I thought.

I'm working on becoming a more civilized individual, but right now I'd just like to kick Ben Stein in the nuts.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

11. Comment #164751 by phil rimmer on April 20, 2008 at 4:46 pm

 avatar
It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you


This is exactly the point. To merely argue against a scientific theory ain't no big thing. But this is the rotten heart of the matter, the core of their intentions, to impute evil.

It is entirely proper that the mirror is held up to them.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

12. Comment #164754 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 4:48 pm

 avatarWell, that is rather sad. Things like this make me thing think that, like Nietzsche, I am not a pessimist who is waiting for it to rain, I'm already soaked.

I feel bad for German people. No one lets the Nazi thing go. No one brings up the fact that the pilgrams that formed the US and Canada massicured 80% of the 100 million or more natives in the americas.

Not as if I am saying to forget about it, but it seems no one can shut up about it, while at the same time being completely ignored of the actual events and causes of the events. I think Japan is barely even mentioned in this because they got nuked, and people don't like to mention that. Though Germany too a massive beating to it's population and cities as well.

Anyone, I just think it must be increasingly frustrating if you're German. It seems no one can mention German without Nazism being in the sentence along with it. Which simply isn't fair.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

13. Comment #164757 by Chris Jackson on April 20, 2008 at 4:51 pm

 avatarIt's also important to note that Hitler was influenced by a number of cultural precedents, such as Wagner, whom he held in God-like regard. Wagner himself was a passionate anti-Semite and part of a long tradition of intolerance in German history (he once expressed disgust at how a synagogue blotted the skyline of Vienna).

From Crusaders who massacred Jews as they went to the holy land to the "Willing Executioners" of WW2, Germany is somewhat infamous in its persecution.

Regrettable, Yes. Disgusting, Yes. Religious, Yes. Darwinian, No.

Other Comments by Chris Jackson

14. Comment #164759 by BryanEvans on April 20, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Stein and his colleagues are cleverly appealing to vulnerable people's emotions in a truly despicable and manipulative way. I do hope that Richard Dawkins' honest, and very concerned letter will go some way to levelling the emotional playingfield.

Other Comments by BryanEvans

15. Comment #164761 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm

 avatarHmmmm-


but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest.


*Facepalm*

*Long, long, long sigh*

Darwinian natural selection isn't a "philosophy", it's the process by which lifeforms evolved.

That's it.

It has nothing to say about how society's should be run, any more than the theory of gravity does.

Other Comments by Diacanu

16. Comment #164762 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm

 avatar
I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?


What part of naturalism argues for helping nature out? Evolution and the idea of survival of the fittest are what is observed in Nature. To imply they should be the basis of ethical decisions is as nonsensical as to suggest that because of we know of the second law of thermodynamics we should all light fires to increase entropy, or that because of Einsteins theory of gravity, using planes is immoral. It's nuts.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #164764 by mjwemdee on April 20, 2008 at 4:57 pm

 avatarThankyou Richard, I wish your reply well, but I too fear that the damage is done. As Chris Jackson says (Comment #164743) your elegantly expressed explanation of the whole sorry mess will probably fall on deaf ears.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

18. Comment #164766 by alexmzk on April 20, 2008 at 5:01 pm

ah yes, the real point of the film becomes clear: demonise atheists yet further. *sigh*

Other Comments by alexmzk

19. Comment #164767 by Jamougha on April 20, 2008 at 5:03 pm

A letter? As in, on paper? Wow.

Other Comments by Jamougha

20. Comment #164768 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 5:04 pm

 avatar
A letter? As in, on paper? Wow.


Yeah, really...snail mail? What is this? Horse and buggy time?

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

21. Comment #164769 by Vaal on April 20, 2008 at 5:06 pm

 avatarTragic that Richard has to write this letter at all. Not only is "Expelled" utter tripe and a nasty dose of Religious right wing propaganda, it seems to have the unfortunate side effect of regarding atheists and evolutionary scientists as people to blame and hate for the disgusting holocaust, a blemish on all humanity.

In fairness though, J seems to have been easily duped by such obvious propaganda. I would have thought somebody whose family had been murdered in the holocaust would not have been so impressionable.

However, I am sure we shall hear the same theme quite often from the gullible, regardless of what Richard or anyone else says, unfortunately.

Other Comments by Vaal

22. Comment #164773 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:08 pm

No one really answered the question...and I am curious. I understand your point about naturalism not being a philosophy, if someone really believes we evolved from inert chemicals, what is the basis for goodness to our fellow man.

Other Comments by Hmmmm

23. Comment #164774 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm

 avatarComment #164773 by Hmmmm
No one really answered the question...and I am curious. I understand your point about naturalism not being a philosophy, if someone really believes we evolved from inert chemicals, what is the basis for goodness to our fellow man.


Conscience and conversation. We have the ability to empathise with others. We have always done things this way, and clearly without any supernatural guidance, as no-one has been able to agree on what that guidance says.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

24. Comment #164775 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm

 avatarAnd it is being used by others as a touchstone, as in this piece of crap and this other piece of crap.

Edit: The latter piece of crap actually goes after Prof. Dawkins by name, based on the movie, while admitting not having seen the movie. :roll:

Other Comments by Quine

25. Comment #164777 by qomak on April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm

 avatar
I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave.


The above might be trivial to prominent biologists and secular humanists but it's not really obvious at all to the ordinary people. This is a great quotation which can really help to correct various philosophical misunderstandings of theory of evolution (for example the is/ought problem).

I think Ken Miller was right when he said these people really have no factual disputes with evolution and that they are not really interested in facts. Maybe quotations like this can help some of these misguided people and make them more receptive.

Other Comments by qomak

26. Comment #164778 by Dog Boots on April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are!


This is horrible. I hope he actually meets an atheist someday and sees how wrong he is.

Other Comments by Dog Boots

27. Comment #164779 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm

 avatar
I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?


Look up "naturalistic fallacy" or "Natural Law fallacy" or "appeal to nature," print it out, and keep it taped on your computer monitor until it sinks in. "Ought" cannot be derived from "is"! Just because things are a particular way does not mean that is the way they should be.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

28. Comment #164781 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm

 avatar
Comment #164748 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm

I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?


Darwinism? Or Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory of how life forms changed throughout the history of life on this planet. It isn't a philosophy. The concept of social Darwinism is a bastardisation of evolution. Darwin didn't come up with the "survival of the fittest" Herbert Spencer did. It should be called social Spencerism. What Hitler did as the letter above states (did you read it?) was artificial selection, known well before Darwin.

As for a naturalistic basis for morality you can look up terms like reciprocal altruism, kin selection etc. Books that talk about "morality" in an evolutionary way are "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright, "Moral Minds" By Marc Hauser or "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker. Also you could look up something called ethics.

Other Comments by Zaphod

29. Comment #164782 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Conscience and conversation. We have the ability to empathise with others. We have always done things this way, and clearly without any supernatural guidance, as no-one has been able to agree on what that guidance says.


How did empathy evolve...does it really help organisms survive?

Other Comments by Hmmmm

30. Comment #164784 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Thanks for the references Zaphod. I'll check them out.

Other Comments by Hmmmm

31. Comment #164786 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 5:22 pm

 avatarHmmmm-


How did empathy evolve...does it really help organisms survive?


Ever watched nature specials on monkeys?

Clearly, they care for their children, and clearly this helps the child survive.
As does extended family aiding in child rearing, and so on.
Many higher mammals display traits that could be considered "humanitarian".

Cooperation helps the group, and thus the individuals within it survive.
This is beneficial.

I'm surprised this is a question that actually had to be asked.

Other Comments by Diacanu

32. Comment #164788 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 5:25 pm

 avatarI have a book called "Auschwitz - The Nazis and The 'Final Solution' " by Laurence Rees. It won History Book Of The Year from the British book awards 2006.

Imagine this

Darwin or evolution do not appear in the index.

Other Comments by Zaphod

33. Comment #164790 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:29 pm

That's helpful...would have been even more helpful without the jab...

Ok...but there are plenty of nature specials that explain animals eating thier own young as being benefical to the species. It obviously compassion isn't always selected.

Other Comments by Hmmmm

34. Comment #164791 by GabrielJBuckley on April 20, 2008 at 5:29 pm

 avatarProfessor Dawkins you continually impress me as not only a beacon of intelligence and logic, but as an exemplar of patience, understanding and plain good manners. I hope that Mr J does you the courtesy of replying to such a well-written missive.

How did empathy evolve...does it really help organisms survive?

Unfortunately empathy is something that doesn't show up too well in the fossil record so we are unable to observe its evolution along the same lines as we might observe the evolution of an upright stance or large cranium. So any attempt to explain the 'evolution' of empathy would be a fairly judicious stab in the dark at best.

However, "survival of the fittest" doesn't solely mean "survival of the strongest" or "survival of the most ruthless". It can - and does in many observable instances - mean that organisms which display what we might anthropomorphically describe as "altruistic" behaviour benefit from that behaviour over and above those who don't.

Other Comments by GabrielJBuckley

35. Comment #164792 by Count von Count on April 20, 2008 at 5:30 pm

 avatar

Hmmmm:

Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion?

Sure! Read "The Selfish Gene!" Besides being a very eye-opening book, it is practically devoted to answering your question.

Other Comments by Count von Count

36. Comment #164795 by mordacious1 on April 20, 2008 at 5:34 pm

The links by Quine above are surely pieces of crap and yet they speak volumes about what these people are all about. My BP started to rise, then I realized it's the same old, well "crap".

Other Comments by mordacious1

37. Comment #164796 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 5:34 pm

 avatarAnother good book is "Primates and Philosophers - How Morality Evolved" By Frans De Waal.

Other Comments by Zaphod

38. Comment #164797 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 5:37 pm

 avatarHmmmm-


That's helpful...would have been even more helpful without the jab...


What jab?


Ok...but there are plenty of nature specials that explain animals eating thier own young as being benefical to the species.


I don't recall seeing it in higher primates.

Lions will kill a litter of cubs so the mother will go into heat, and he can impregnate her with his genes instead.

But, we aren't lions, we're people.

When people do that type of thing, we send them to prison.


It obviously compassion isn't always selected.


Hey, not all humans have empathy.
We call them sociopaths, and keep and eye on them, lock them up when they become troublesome, and try really hard to avoid electing them to public office.

Sometimes, a sociopath or two leaks through our usuals filters, and makes it to the White House, or makes a nasty documentary with Ben Stein as the narrator.

*badump-ching!*

Other Comments by Diacanu

39. Comment #164798 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 5:38 pm

 avatarHmmmm, also see The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley.

Other Comments by Quine

40. Comment #164799 by LaTomate on April 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm

 avatarThank you Professor Dawkins for taking the time to answer this confused fellow.

I'm quite fed up with people who refuse to realize that science is simply the rational and objective search for truth about our universe. Science is not an excuse for your troubles, nor is Darwin a scapegoat for your losses.

The theory of evolution has survived everything we've thrown at it since it's inception - new discoveries in biology, all the evidence we've amassed - and has permitted us to predict and understand so much. Without the theory of evolution, biology would topple over like a cheap house of cards.

Claiming that a scientific theory is immoral or not is totally ridiculous and irrelevant. Science has nothing to do with morality - it is the study of nature. A scientific theory is a collection of statements of fact about nature which are so extremely probably true that we can consider them to be so. The theory of evolution is as true as the theory of general relativity. Not liking that won't make it any less true. Scientific truth is not democratically decided.

I'm sick of pseudo-scientists who claim science has anything to do with religion or morality. Especially these intellectually dishonest clowns who are trying to destroy the value of science to suit their religious needs and who, as this article shows, warp the minds of others with their wickedness.

I see only one positive point is all of this: these ignoramuses are trying to appropriate science since they now understand that science is the serious benchmark for truth, not religion.

Other Comments by LaTomate

41. Comment #164800 by BillG on April 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Hello Mr. Dawkins,

I just wwanted to post a quick question to this point of yours:

>>
Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written ...that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave.
<<

One wonders upon what basis do you delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory? If all is "nature" (i. e. there is no "super-nature" or "supernatural") would that not also include our behaviour? Why then, would a theory of the development of biological organisms, including their (presumabely) biologically determined behaviours, not apply as well to that behaviour?

Bill

Other Comments by BillG

42. Comment #164801 by BigChiefRainInFace on April 20, 2008 at 5:47 pm

 avatar
Cooperation helps the group, and thus the individuals within it survive.
This is beneficial.

I'm surprised this is a question that actually had to be asked.

To be fair, this tends to be one of the least know aspects of evolution by laymen. Hmmmm, please read "The Selfish Gene" - another valid title could have been "The Altruistic Gene" and this will be clear as you read it.

Other Comments by BigChiefRainInFace

43. Comment #164802 by home8896 on April 20, 2008 at 5:50 pm

 avatarEven here within these comments, the jaw-dropping misunderstanding of evolution is becoming obvious. Some things were more likely to succeed and did succeed in nature, with no hand determining the success. There is no application going on. We developed empathy and compassion. They benefited us. We strive to hone these hallmarks of humanity. This furthers our survival. How hard is it to see that? What is being taught that people would feel that humanity developing by being empathetic and seeking to control those who are not is such a difficult concept to grasp?

Other Comments by home8896

44. Comment #164803 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm

 avatarBillG-

Have you ever used birth control?
Then, you're weren't using sex for its designed purpose.

Have you ever been on a plane?
Then, you've defied gravity.

Have you, or a parent, or a grandparent been saved by modern medicine?
Then, you owe your existance to someone defying the will of nature.

Now, did you need God for all these decisions?
I bet not.
I bet you were just getting through your daily existence like everybody without a thought to it.

So,how did you "pick and choose", how to "delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory".

Or, Newtons/Einsteins for flight?

Other Comments by Diacanu

45. Comment #164804 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm

 avatarI think Diacanu said it best.
I join him in his eyeroll

Other Comments by MaxD

46. Comment #164805 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:52 pm

OK...I have plenty of reading material on that one.

Here's an new question to make you sigh and groan...but I would like an answer to.

I have heard many different aguments from homology...similar body stuctures...DNA based, etc...and they all seem to provide different "family trees". If the science is truely as sound as it appears to be, shouldn't there be more convergence in the research?

Other Comments by Hmmmm

47. Comment #164806 by alexmzk on April 20, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Bill:
One wonders upon what basis do you delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory? If all is "nature" (i. e. there is no "super-nature" or "supernatural") would that not also include our behaviour? Why then, would a theory of the development of biological organisms, including their (presumabely) biologically determined behaviours, not apply as well to that behaviour?

the theory does, apparently apply to behaviour too. Diacanu has raised some good points about morality above that you should read. if you also read Prof. Dawkins' letter again, your question should be answered.
the idea that because genes often are propagated at the expense of other genes, we must be selfish and unGodly to each other is a non sequituur. humans are a social animal, and altruism benefits us all. it is easy to see how a concept of "being good to each other" would evolve in a population of herd animals - indeed you won't tend to see animals that behave as immorally you imply in large groups in nature.

Other Comments by alexmzk

48. Comment #164807 by jaytee_555 on April 20, 2008 at 5:57 pm

This is the kind of human story that newspapers are interested in. If it gets picked up by them, I believe that Ben Stein's cunning plan may well become unraveled. He may not be a Holocaust Denier, but it is easily demonstrated that he is a 'Holocaust Dissembler'.

The story has genuine human interest (I really felt sad for this man) and Richard's sincere and concerned humanity shown in the letter he wrote to this deceived person surely give the lie to Expelled's stated 'moral' motives. Getting this story and Richard's lucid explanation out beyond the blogosphere would do a lot to expose in a very concrete way, exactly what sinister mischief Ben Stein is up to.

Other Comments by jaytee_555

49. Comment #164809 by alexmzk on April 20, 2008 at 6:02 pm

I have heard many different aguments from homology...similar body stuctures...DNA based, etc...and they all seem to provide different "family trees". If the science is truely as sound as it appears to be, shouldn't there be more convergence in the research?

don't know where you got that from because actually, they all provide the exact same "tree", the same "tree" (would you believe it) you'd expect had evolution occurred.

Other Comments by alexmzk

50. Comment #164810 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 6:02 pm

 avatarThe important thing to remember about science, is that it is discriptive, not prescriptive. It can only tells us how things are, not how they ought to be.

I have heard many different aguments from homology...similar body stuctures...DNA based, etc...and they all seem to provide different "family trees". If the science is truely as sound as it appears to be, shouldn't there be more convergence in the research?


I don't understand the question. There is nothing to converge on. There is no goal or end to evolution. Evolution merely means changed basically. Things change to suit their environment, there is nothing for evolution to converge on. There is zero convergence. Some particular traits are discovered indepentently of each other, like the eye. Is that what you mean?

In which case why should any amount be expected? Let alone more be expected?

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: