Correspondence 3a
Dear Jameson, William, and the more elegant members of our circle,
Thank you for your responses so far and for not allowing intellect to be overcome by personal feelings. I’d like now to write about Eugenics for a while, as it has come up more than once in both the Orson Card article and is one of the key focuses of the Ben Stein film. Eugenics and its sordid history has been one of the focuses of my area of study both within and outside of my post secondary career. Hopefully I’ll be able to segue into the concept of intelligent design as well.
On this topic (and many others) Gilbert Chesterton is one of my biggest influences, regardless of the fact that he was an outspoken Christian apologetic, and I think it only fare to my good and respected friend Jameson who is both a scholar and a Christian himself that I lean heavily on that particular source just to show that I am always willing to listen to both sides of the argument despite any personal views I may have. I’m hoping that in discussing the concept of Eugenics we can also uncover something of the debate against the establishment of “Intelligent Design” as a valid science and attempt to clear science's name after Orson Scott Card and Ben Stein's smear campaign. As anyone who knows me can attest my strongest belief is in liberty, a concept that Chesterton and I seemed to share. He was a staunch critic of big government, and a staunch critic of the Eugenics movement of his time. He was deeply religious, yes, but he expressed profoundly libertarian views on society, morality, and government proving that these ideologies and philosophies are compatible.
While such forms of socially enforced barbarism as selective breeding and leaving newborns exposed to the elements predates the scientific method entirely, going back thousands of years to ancient times, it was during the Victorian era that this concept would be masqueraded as science under the deceptive alias of “Eugenics”. However intelligent and sceptical men like Chesterton knew that Eugenics was not science. He knew it was simply a method of state control when he said “They have no Science of Eugenics at all, but they do really mean that if we will give ourselves up to be vivisected they may very probably have one some day. I point out, in more dignified diction, that this is a bit thick.” I wrote earlier that a “Social Darwinist believes he is taking a scientific approach to greed” when perhaps what I should have said is “a Social Darwinist is attempting to give legitimacy by cloaking greed in the guise of science.” This is the modus operandi of the con man, they use the language of “science” to baffle us and legitimize the worst in supernaturalism, in pseudoscience and in quackery. From the proponents of “NLP” to the proponents of “ID”- mysterious acronyms that contain words like “Neuro-Linguisitics” and “Intelligent Design” to make them sound legitimate - but a closer look reveals the emperor to be naked and as Chesterton said: "Woe unto you, hypocrite that devour widows' houses and for a pretence uses long words." Words like Eugenics and Intelligent Design are nothing more than ways for unscrupulous people to dress their ideology in the lab coat of the scientist, when before they’d dress it in the vestments of spirituality or the uniform of fascism. Darwinism in of itself calls for nothing. It is not a manifesto, it is not a dogma or a rallying cry, it is simply a hypothesis based on the observations of one bearded Beagle-riding man on a lonely island covered in strange creatures. It is not a scientist or a Socialist who adds “Social” to “Darwinism”, it is not the scientist who calls for his ideology to be enforced on us; the teaming masses. Eugenics was the handy work of the robber baron, the financier and the despot who demanded we all pay the toll for their promise of a better way of life.
What worries me about the views of Stein and Card is the fact that they not only dress ID in the costume of science, but that its proponents even choose to do so in the first place; as though their beliefs required science's stamp of approval, and yet at the same time they decry science as being the root of such evils as the holocaust! Why then would they even consider a shotgun marriage between science and faith considering their rather nasty opinion on science itself? It goes deeper than that though. Chesterton said “All I assert here is that the Churches are not now leaning heavily on their political establishment; they are not using heavily the secular arm. Almost everywhere their legal tithes have been modified, their legal boards of control have been mixed. They may still employ tyranny, and worse tyranny: I am not considering that. They are not specially using that special tyranny which consists in using the government.” Chesterton would probably be sickened by the way this is changing in our modern context. Today religion is doing just that, attempting to gain political funding, not to search for God, but to teach children that God is the answer to deep and important scientific questions. Does god need a microscope in a federally funded lab to be seen? Does he cease to exist if children are not taught about him as scientific fact in public schools? Does he not reveal himself in the majesty of his creation? And if not, will the stern words of the instructor change any of that? I posit that god, if he does exist; cannot be killed by science or disbelief. Contrary to Card’s statements, Stein’s “scientists” are not being barred from the scientific community because they are Christians. There is no scientist that I can uncover who is being barred a research grant because they wear a crucifix around their neck or go to church on Sunday. No, Stein’s champions aren’t even being barred, what is being barred is their desire to insert religion into science. Make no mistake, religion is an ideology, religion requires faith, faith requires obedience. Science married to a system of obedience is perhaps one of the most dangerous ideologies possible, be it political or religious in nature. Chesterton wrote “Men merely finding themselves free found themselves free to dispute the value of freedom. But the important point to seize about this reactionary skepticism is that as it is bound to be unlimited in theory, so it is bound to be unlimited in practice. In other words, the modern mind is set in an attitude which would enable it to advance, not only towards Eugenic legislation, but towards any conceivable or inconceivable extravagances of Eugenics.” And so too of Intelligent Design. Card talks about the danger of a situation where the conclusions become more important than the methods, but this is precisely what he is advocating by suggesting that Intelligent Design be taken seriously by science, or in fact be treated as a viable solution to the mystery of creation and the development of life. ID does not seek to find God in the test tube or the microscope, or uncover his workings in any meaningful way, it does not seek to as Einstein said “know the thoughts of God”. ID merely proposes that God is the ultimate answer, and by his nature an unlimited answer. If ID becomes accepted science, then science as a methodology is undermined and destroyed by a philosophy that pre-supplies every conclusion in the form of God. In their world there is no reason for the scientific method, God is an ontological pre-determined conclusion, with it there is no reason for experimentation or analysis - once God walks through the door into the laboratory, the laboratory is destroyed. In Mark Twain’s satirical classic “Christian Science” he summed up this position ideally when he wrote about a Christian Scientist explaining to him why his broken arms and legs were nothing to be worried about because matter did not exist, therefore his broken arms and legs did not exist. Puzzled, he asked the Christian Scientist to explain this:
"It is quite simple," she said; "the fundamental propositions ofChristian Science explain it, and they are summarized in the fourfollowing self-evident propositions:1. God is All in all.2. God is good. Good is Mind3. God, Spirit, being all, nothing is matter4. Life, God, omnipotent Good, deny death, evil, sin, disease.”
Chesterton once wrote of Eugenics “We are discussing whether we know enough, as responsible citizens, to put such powers into the hands of men who may be deceived or who may be deceivers. I conclude that we do not.” Without reading into this one could conclude that Chesterton was afraid of science, or believed science was inherently evil or atheistic (as Ben Stein and Card do). But what he was actually afraid of were the men who wielded power irresponsibly. On the History of the Eugenicist Chesterton said: “He does not live in a dark lonely tower by the sea, from which are heard the screams of vivisected men and women. On the contrary, he lives in Mayfair. He does not wear great goblin spectacles that magnify his eyes to moons or diminish his neighbors to beetles. When he is more dignified he wears a single eyeglass; when more intelligent, a wink. He is not indeed wholly without interest in heredity and Eugenical biology; but his studies and experiments in this science have specialized almost exclusively in equus celer, the rapid or running horse. He is not a doctor; though he employs doctors to work up a case for Eugenics, just as he employs doctors to correct the errors of his dinner. He is not a lawyer, though unfortunately often a magistrate. He is not an author or a journalist; though he not infrequently owns a newspaper. He is not a soldier, though he may have a commission in the yeomanry; nor is he generally a gentleman, though often a nobleman. His wealth now commonly comes from a large staff of employed persons who scurry about in big buildings while he is playing golf.”
More on this later . . .
Thank you for your responses so far and for not allowing intellect to be overcome by personal feelings. I’d like now to write about Eugenics for a while, as it has come up more than once in both the Orson Card article and is one of the key focuses of the Ben Stein film. Eugenics and its sordid history has been one of the focuses of my area of study both within and outside of my post secondary career. Hopefully I’ll be able to segue into the concept of intelligent design as well.
On this topic (and many others) Gilbert Chesterton is one of my biggest influences, regardless of the fact that he was an outspoken Christian apologetic, and I think it only fare to my good and respected friend Jameson who is both a scholar and a Christian himself that I lean heavily on that particular source just to show that I am always willing to listen to both sides of the argument despite any personal views I may have. I’m hoping that in discussing the concept of Eugenics we can also uncover something of the debate against the establishment of “Intelligent Design” as a valid science and attempt to clear science's name after Orson Scott Card and Ben Stein's smear campaign. As anyone who knows me can attest my strongest belief is in liberty, a concept that Chesterton and I seemed to share. He was a staunch critic of big government, and a staunch critic of the Eugenics movement of his time. He was deeply religious, yes, but he expressed profoundly libertarian views on society, morality, and government proving that these ideologies and philosophies are compatible.
While such forms of socially enforced barbarism as selective breeding and leaving newborns exposed to the elements predates the scientific method entirely, going back thousands of years to ancient times, it was during the Victorian era that this concept would be masqueraded as science under the deceptive alias of “Eugenics”. However intelligent and sceptical men like Chesterton knew that Eugenics was not science. He knew it was simply a method of state control when he said “They have no Science of Eugenics at all, but they do really mean that if we will give ourselves up to be vivisected they may very probably have one some day. I point out, in more dignified diction, that this is a bit thick.” I wrote earlier that a “Social Darwinist believes he is taking a scientific approach to greed” when perhaps what I should have said is “a Social Darwinist is attempting to give legitimacy by cloaking greed in the guise of science.” This is the modus operandi of the con man, they use the language of “science” to baffle us and legitimize the worst in supernaturalism, in pseudoscience and in quackery. From the proponents of “NLP” to the proponents of “ID”- mysterious acronyms that contain words like “Neuro-Linguisitics” and “Intelligent Design” to make them sound legitimate - but a closer look reveals the emperor to be naked and as Chesterton said: "Woe unto you, hypocrite that devour widows' houses and for a pretence uses long words." Words like Eugenics and Intelligent Design are nothing more than ways for unscrupulous people to dress their ideology in the lab coat of the scientist, when before they’d dress it in the vestments of spirituality or the uniform of fascism. Darwinism in of itself calls for nothing. It is not a manifesto, it is not a dogma or a rallying cry, it is simply a hypothesis based on the observations of one bearded Beagle-riding man on a lonely island covered in strange creatures. It is not a scientist or a Socialist who adds “Social” to “Darwinism”, it is not the scientist who calls for his ideology to be enforced on us; the teaming masses. Eugenics was the handy work of the robber baron, the financier and the despot who demanded we all pay the toll for their promise of a better way of life.
What worries me about the views of Stein and Card is the fact that they not only dress ID in the costume of science, but that its proponents even choose to do so in the first place; as though their beliefs required science's stamp of approval, and yet at the same time they decry science as being the root of such evils as the holocaust! Why then would they even consider a shotgun marriage between science and faith considering their rather nasty opinion on science itself? It goes deeper than that though. Chesterton said “All I assert here is that the Churches are not now leaning heavily on their political establishment; they are not using heavily the secular arm. Almost everywhere their legal tithes have been modified, their legal boards of control have been mixed. They may still employ tyranny, and worse tyranny: I am not considering that. They are not specially using that special tyranny which consists in using the government.” Chesterton would probably be sickened by the way this is changing in our modern context. Today religion is doing just that, attempting to gain political funding, not to search for God, but to teach children that God is the answer to deep and important scientific questions. Does god need a microscope in a federally funded lab to be seen? Does he cease to exist if children are not taught about him as scientific fact in public schools? Does he not reveal himself in the majesty of his creation? And if not, will the stern words of the instructor change any of that? I posit that god, if he does exist; cannot be killed by science or disbelief. Contrary to Card’s statements, Stein’s “scientists” are not being barred from the scientific community because they are Christians. There is no scientist that I can uncover who is being barred a research grant because they wear a crucifix around their neck or go to church on Sunday. No, Stein’s champions aren’t even being barred, what is being barred is their desire to insert religion into science. Make no mistake, religion is an ideology, religion requires faith, faith requires obedience. Science married to a system of obedience is perhaps one of the most dangerous ideologies possible, be it political or religious in nature. Chesterton wrote “Men merely finding themselves free found themselves free to dispute the value of freedom. But the important point to seize about this reactionary skepticism is that as it is bound to be unlimited in theory, so it is bound to be unlimited in practice. In other words, the modern mind is set in an attitude which would enable it to advance, not only towards Eugenic legislation, but towards any conceivable or inconceivable extravagances of Eugenics.” And so too of Intelligent Design. Card talks about the danger of a situation where the conclusions become more important than the methods, but this is precisely what he is advocating by suggesting that Intelligent Design be taken seriously by science, or in fact be treated as a viable solution to the mystery of creation and the development of life. ID does not seek to find God in the test tube or the microscope, or uncover his workings in any meaningful way, it does not seek to as Einstein said “know the thoughts of God”. ID merely proposes that God is the ultimate answer, and by his nature an unlimited answer. If ID becomes accepted science, then science as a methodology is undermined and destroyed by a philosophy that pre-supplies every conclusion in the form of God. In their world there is no reason for the scientific method, God is an ontological pre-determined conclusion, with it there is no reason for experimentation or analysis - once God walks through the door into the laboratory, the laboratory is destroyed. In Mark Twain’s satirical classic “Christian Science” he summed up this position ideally when he wrote about a Christian Scientist explaining to him why his broken arms and legs were nothing to be worried about because matter did not exist, therefore his broken arms and legs did not exist. Puzzled, he asked the Christian Scientist to explain this:
"It is quite simple," she said; "the fundamental propositions ofChristian Science explain it, and they are summarized in the fourfollowing self-evident propositions:1. God is All in all.2. God is good. Good is Mind3. God, Spirit, being all, nothing is matter4. Life, God, omnipotent Good, deny death, evil, sin, disease.”
Chesterton once wrote of Eugenics “We are discussing whether we know enough, as responsible citizens, to put such powers into the hands of men who may be deceived or who may be deceivers. I conclude that we do not.” Without reading into this one could conclude that Chesterton was afraid of science, or believed science was inherently evil or atheistic (as Ben Stein and Card do). But what he was actually afraid of were the men who wielded power irresponsibly. On the History of the Eugenicist Chesterton said: “He does not live in a dark lonely tower by the sea, from which are heard the screams of vivisected men and women. On the contrary, he lives in Mayfair. He does not wear great goblin spectacles that magnify his eyes to moons or diminish his neighbors to beetles. When he is more dignified he wears a single eyeglass; when more intelligent, a wink. He is not indeed wholly without interest in heredity and Eugenical biology; but his studies and experiments in this science have specialized almost exclusively in equus celer, the rapid or running horse. He is not a doctor; though he employs doctors to work up a case for Eugenics, just as he employs doctors to correct the errors of his dinner. He is not a lawyer, though unfortunately often a magistrate. He is not an author or a journalist; though he not infrequently owns a newspaper. He is not a soldier, though he may have a commission in the yeomanry; nor is he generally a gentleman, though often a nobleman. His wealth now commonly comes from a large staff of employed persons who scurry about in big buildings while he is playing golf.”
More on this later . . .