The Phantom City

Notes from our travels across a mysterious world.

Somehow I figured the first side I read that brought Nazis — or, in this case, Holocaust denial — into the Intelligent Design debate would be the ID proponents, not the opponents. Guess I was naive.

Oh well, Godwin’s law wouldn’t exist if Nazi analogies weren’t useful across the political spectrum.

And, by the way, darn those “techniques of rhetoric and debate”. If we just didn’t have those, we’d be in a much better…Oh wait, he doesn’t say what those are, does he? 😉

Update: In the comments, Mark Nutter points out some prior art that confirms my original impression. Thanks, Mark!

2 Comments

  1. Maybe you weren’t so much naive as just looking in the wrong places:

    http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2157&program=CSC-News&callingPage=discoMainPage, announcing the publication of the book From Darwin To Hitler by Richard Weikart, a Fellow with the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.

    According to the DI press release, “Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary “fitness” (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis.”

  2. Yep, that makes more sense. I’d heard similar arguments before, but not in the last couple of years of intensive ID debate, which was starting to make me wonder why. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

© 2017 The Phantom City

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑