Category Archives: Darwinism

Photo: Dr. Josef Mengele (center) at Auschwitz, by Bernhard Walther or Ernst Hofmann or Karl-Friedrich Hcker, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Im still reeling at the stupidity of whoever atScientific Americandecided to give a green light to publishing an article, Denial ofEvolution Is a Form of White Supremacy, by Allison Hopper. The absurdity of tarring critics of Darwinism with racism boggles the mind given how Darwins own legacy, down to todays Alt-Right, is so tied up with racial pseudo-science, viciously denigrating Africans, African-Americans, and others. See, On Evolution and Racism,Scientific AmericanGoes to War Against the Truth.

As a reminder of that historical reality,Evolution Newshas been republishing some of our past ample coverage on the theme. However, this had escaped me when it was first published: an essay atTabletby Ohio State bioethicist Ashley K. Fernandes asking, Why Did So Many Doctors Become Nazis? Perhaps more so today than ever, there is a tendency to sanctify the medical profession, with the white coat serving as an icon of wisdom, compassion, and morality. But history offers a warning.

German physicians (nurses, too) were a rich source of recruits to the Nazi cause professionally speaking, the richest:

It is worthy of emphasis that although many professions (including law) were taken in by Nazi philosophy,doctors and nurses had a peculiarly strong attraction to it. Robert N. Proctor (1988) notes that physicians joined the Nazi partyin droves(nearly 50% by 1945),much higher than any other profession. Physicians wereseven times more likely to join the SS than other employed German males. Nurses were also major collaborators.

Between 1933 and 1945, the Nazis established a biocracy, which ultimately murdered millions of innocent persons. [Emphasis added.]

That word, biocracy, is a keeper a more specific form of scientocracy. Now, where did that come from?

In 1859, Charles Darwin publishedThe Origin of Species. This scientific theory elucidated the theory of evolution in a pre-genetic era but made no broad claims about philosophical anthropology. Darwins work was decidedly descriptive, not prescriptive. Later, Francis Galton coined the term eugenics in his workInquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development(1883), and the application of evolution on a societal level was born. Social Darwinists such as Charles B. Davenport in the USA and Karl Pearson in England, for example, made the case, in different ways and utilizing the language of science, that the genes of the fit should be promoted, and the genes of the unfit discouraged. Daniel J. Kevles (1995) traces the origins of the eugenics movement through Europe and the United States, and the powerful influence on social policy in the prewar era, including resistance to it, notably from the Catholic Church and its intellectuals (such as G.K. Chesterton), as well as a minority of brilliant secular scientists.

Still, German eugenicists took discouragement of the unfit further, cooperating eagerly with the Nazi party as they were willing to supportforcedsterilization of the unfit. More than a decade before the Nazis, Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding (1920) published their influential book,Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens(The Authorization of the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life). The book had spoken of the incurable feebleminded who should be killed but for now, sterilization was a good start.

Most know how the tragic story unfolded from here

Yes, we do. The Nazi physicians, the notorious Dr. Mengele among them, were simply following the science of the time, the good science, as Fernandes ironically puts it. She notes, Physicians, dressed in white coats, gave the imprimatur that indeed, those that were to be gassed were not human persons at all.Read the rest of her fascinating essay here.

That still doesnt tell us what got into the heads of those editors atScientific Americanthat drove them to give their own imprimatur toAllison Hoppers article. Reflecting on that the other day, our colleague Bruce Chapman pointed to the idea of a social pandemic. It does seem that Covid unleashed a sort of madness across the culture. The past year and a half, almost, have seen unprecedented distortions in social thinking: about science, doctors, government, race, and much more. That the countrys leading popular science journal would agree to such insanity slandering those who question evolutionary orthodoxy as white supremacists could well be attributed to the social pandemic.

For a primer on evolutionary thinking and scientific racism, watch John Wests documentary Human Zoos:

View post:

Following the Science, Doctors Joined the Nazis In Droves - Discovery Institute

Charles Darwin, nineteenth century English naturalist, is known as one of the most brilliant minds in history. He was a curious intellectual and a brave adventurer, well-liked by those who knew him personally and greatly revered in the scientific community. His 1859 and 1871 books, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, enlightened the world with a transformative understanding of life that became the foundation of modern biological thought. But theres a darker side of Darwin, a side that perhaps calls into question his prized intellect and cherished legacy. Darwins writing was racist, and discriminatory beliefs and practices follow directly from his theories. If youre a lover of evolution or biology major like I am, you may be tempted to reject that claim. But hear me out: Support for the idea that Darwins theories are racist may come from where you least expect it.

Id only heard of Darwins dark side in passing, and Id always assumed that Darwins critics were driven by ignorance or ulterior motives. But as I scrolled by debates online about Darwins theories, I noticed something peculiar: Darwins defenders most often cited his abolitionist identity, notes from his diaries, or quotes from people who knew Darwin. His accusers, on the other hand, often directly cited text from The Descent of Man. Conclusions drawn from the authorial approach to the question, in which defenders focused on proving that Darwin himself was not a racist, starkly contradicted conclusions drawn from the approach of consulting Darwins text itself. Im familiar with Darwins theories, but I had never actually read his books; I suspect the same is true for most of you. However, I found that to determine whether or not Darwins theories are racist, the text of his books is revealing and conclusive. Information outside the text of The Descent of Man can help us understand the man behind the pen, but it does nothing to soften the brutal racism and white supremacism found in the text of his theory.

Although best known for On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as savages: It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages. Darwin explains that the highest races and the lowest savages differ in moral disposition and in intellect (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have low morality, insufficient powers of reasoning, and weak power of self-command (97). Darwins specific consideration of intellectual capacities is especially alarming. He begins with animals: No one supposes that one of the lower animals reflects whence he comes or whither he goes,what is death or what is life, and so forth (62). His remarks soon expand to humans. How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence (62). Darwin writes that Australians are incapable of complex thought, and insinuates that they are akin to lower animals: His perspective on non-European races is incredibly prejudiced and absurd. Modern evolutionary scholars and teachers tend to ignore or omit that component of Darwins theory, but it hasnt gone completely unnoticed. For example, Rutledge Dennis examined Darwins role in scientific racism for The Journal of Negro Education and found that in Darwins world view, talent and virtue were features to be identified solely with Europeans (243). White supremacy is clearly embedded in The Descent of Man, regardless of Darwins brilliance or the accuracy of the rest of his theory.

Darwin makes a disturbing link between his belief in white supremacy and his theory of natural selection. He justifies violent imperialism. From the remotest times successful tribes have supplanted other tribes. At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations (160). Darwins theory applies survival of the fittest to human races, suggesting that extermination of non-white races is a natural consequence of white Europeans being a superior and more successful race. Further, Darwin justifies violently overtaking other cultures because it has happened regularly throughout natural history. The arc of Darwins evolutionary universe evidently does not bend toward justice: He has no problem with continuing the vicious behavior of past generations. Claims such as those made evident in the title of a 2004 book, From Darwin to Hitler, may not be as alarmist as they seem.

Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the western nations of Europe now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization (178). Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans exterminate and replace the worlds savage races, and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (201). Read that last line again if you missed it: Darwins theory claims that Africans and Australians are more closely related to apes than Europeans are. The spectrum of organisms is a hierarchy here, with white Europeans at the top and apes at the bottom. In Darwins theory, colored people fall somewhere in between. Modern human is essentially restricted only to white Europeans, with all other races viewed as somehow sub-human.

The text of The Descent of Man clearly contains a racist and white supremacist ideology, but not everyone who reads Darwins theory believes that the text tells the entire story. Adrian Desmond and James Moore argue against the idea that Darwins theories are racist in their 2009 book, Darwins Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwins Views on Human Evolution. As the title suggests, Desmond and Moore claim that Darwins intent in studying evolution was actually to bolster the abolitionist cause. Darwins starting point was the abolitionist belief in blood kinship, a common descent (xvii). In response to Darwins defectors, they say that the real problem is that no one understands Darwins core project. No one has appreciated the source of that moral fire that fueled his strange, out-of-character obsession with human origins (xix). How can Desmond and Moore claim to know Darwins intent? They reached their conclusions after an exhaustive search through a wealth of unpublished family letters and a massive amount of manuscript material, and use Darwins notes, cryptic marginalia (where key clues lie) and even ships logs and lists of books read by Darwin. His published notebooks and correspondence (some 15,000 letters are now known) are an invaluable source (xx). Using these sources, Desmond and Moore attempt to make a substantial case against the idea that Darwin was racist, citing evidence such as the diary that Darwin kept during his Beagle voyage. Darwin writes of slavery, It makes ones blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty (quoted in Desmond and Moore, 183). Darwin often wrote thoughts that dont quite align with the ideas in The Descent of Man. In his theory, Darwin suggests that it is natural for more successful races to dominate over others, and speaks comfortably of white Europeans exterminating other races. However, he wrote in his diary that the white Man has debased his Nature & violates every best instinctive feeling by making slave of his fellow black (quoted in Desmond and Moore, 115). Desmond and Moore view Darwins later contradictions of his racist ideas in The Descent of Man as reason to interpret the text of Darwins theory cautiously.

Desmond and Moore also offer details of Darwins life that they claim are incongruent with his purported racism. Darwin came from a family that fought to emancipate Britains slaves, and many of his friends and readers were abolitionists as well. As a young man, Darwin took lessons in bird-stuffing from a local African American servant. Desmond and Moore write, Evidently the sixteen-going-on-seventeen year old saw nothing untoward in paying money to apprentice himself to a Negro, and the forty or so hour-long sessions which he had with the blackamoor through that frosty winter clearly made an impact (18). Desmond and Moore see Darwins willingness to associate with African Americans as evidence that he was not prejudiced. Finally, the authors bring up a story that is actually mentioned in The Descent of Man. When Darwin writes of similarities he has noticed between savages and himself, he mentions a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate (232). Again, Desmond and Moore see Darwins personal experiences with colored people as evidence that he is not biased against them; further, they believe this information should influence our interpretation of The Descent of Man.

A final argument made in favor of Darwin blames the time period in which he wrote. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education writes that Darwin, like [Abraham] Lincoln, believed in white supremacy, but he was far more enlightened and sympathetic to blacks than most white men of his time (39). In this view, The Descent of Man must be considered within the context of its conception, namely a period and location in which white supremacy was the norm.

The external information supplied by Darwins personal notes, experiences, context, etc. adds to our understanding of Darwin himself, but it cannot change our understanding of his theories. The question of whether Darwin was a racist man is separate from the question of whether his theory was racist, and the answer to the former question has no bearing on the latter. The text of The Descent of Man is undeniably racist, and readers only engage with the presented text: They dont know what Darwin wrote in his diary, whether his family supported abolition, or how much he interacted with African Americans, nor should a reader have to know these things in order to correctly interpret the text. The Descent of Man exists separate from its author and context. Claims that readers should not take the racism in Darwins theory literally in light of external information reject the nature of literature. As Roland Barthes says, a texts unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology; he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted (148). Barthes argument is especially salient in this case because The Descent of Man was written so long ago, and Charles Darwin is long dead. Darwin and the context in which he wrote his theory have long passed, but the text lives on and will continue to exist as an independent entity that deserves to be interpreted as such.

Thus, the value of considering contextual details depends on which question we are asking. When wondering about Darwin himself, a full range of sources is applicable. However, when determining whether Darwins theories contain dangerous racial ideology, the alarming text of his theories cannot be at all softened or explained away with outside information. Now I understand why Ive never been asked in a biology class to read the original text of Darwins theories: Our contemporary reverence for Darwins gentlemanliness and the pure scientific brilliance of his theories is an overly optimistic illusion that shatters upon a closer look at his publications.

Works Cited

Barthes, Roland. The Death of the Author. In Image-Music-Text. Translated by Stephen Heath.Hill and Wang, 1978.

Blacks Less Likely to Accept Charles Darwins Dethronement of Mankind. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, vol 21. CH II Publishers, Autumn 1998. USA.

Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. John Murray, 1871. Albemarle Street, London.

Dennis, Rutledge M. Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and the metaphysics of race. The Journal of Negro Education, 64:3. Howard University Press, 1995. USA.

Desmond, Adrian and Moore, James. Darwins Sacred Cause. Penguin Group, 2009. London.

View original post here:

The Dark Side of Darwinism | Philosophy for the Many

Gary Pinnell| Guest Columnist

What is vaccine Darwinism?

Darwinism is the theory that natural selection increases an individuals ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Or decreases. In economics, the weakest businesses fail. In history, the weakest civilizations fail.And in COVID-19, the weakest humans fail: the weakest immune systems and the weakest thinkers.

The strongest thinkers observed CDC guidelines: they wore masks, they washed hands; when vaccines became available, they rolled up sleeves.

The anti-vaxers? According to the National Institutes of Health, in 2009, about 60 percent of parents with children aged 24 to 35 months did not delay or refuse diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella and polio vaccines.

About 26 percent of parents did delay or refuse vaccines; they selected their own children to test their own anti-vaccine theory. Now they risk themselves and their children for COVID-19.

Thats vaccine Darwinism.

Gary Pinnell, Oklahoma City

Originally posted here:

Letter to the editor: On vaccine Darwinism - Oklahoman.com

Darwinism revisited

Seven months ago I wrote a wishful thinking letter that most of the country would be vaccinated by now and that we would be on the road back to normalcy. Well, were here and yes, much of life has returned to pre-pandemic days. But we are also beginning a new surge with the more transmissible Delta variant. Epidemiologists have been on target every time with plenty of advance warning to take precautions, but are facing an increasingly uphill battle with the politicized resistance against the vaccines. Cynically, I felt comfortable in my bubble of vaccinated friends/family, citing that Darwinism would take care of the anti-vaxxers.

However, the caveat is now the warning that new, more dangerous variants are constantly evolving in the populations of the unvaccinated. This opens the door to the possibility that these new strains could make vaccines ineffective. Isnt it time for those who have not been vaccinated solely for reasons related to didnt get around to it or certain politicians/newscasters said they were dangerous to start to follow the science on keeping their loved ones safer? Finally, perhaps remembering which administration instituted Operation Warp Speed will convince them to get the shot(s).

Douglas Iseri

Traverse City

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Go here to read the rest:

Letter: Iseri | Letters To The Editor - Traverse City Record Eagle

Photo: Statue of Charles Darwin, Shrewsbury Library, by Bs0u10e01 / CC BY-SA.

Editors note: Recently,Scientific Americanviciously smeared all critics of Darwinian theory with an article titled, Denial ofEvolution Is a Form of White Supremacy, by Allison Hopper. Aspromised, we are presenting some of our extensive past coverage of the tight links between racism and evolution.This article was originally published on June 25,2020.

Ive wondered if the marauding vandals will come eventually for the Darwin statues. I hope NOT, but lets face it between Francis Scott Key or Ulysses Grant, on one hand, and Charles Darwin on the other, whose work has done more to undergird racism? Theres no contest.

A classic episode ofID the Future, republished now, is eerie in its relevance to the culture at the moment. Host and science historian Michael Keas interviewed historian and Center for Science & Culture Senior Fellow Richard Weikart about the racial pseudoscience thats integral to the Darwinian scientific heritage.

As Professor Weikart explains, Darwins racism is notincidentalto his case for evolution. Its not as if he wasmerelya product of his time, with the reprehensible attitudes held by other upper class Brits when he wrote his books. Yes, he was anti-slavery. And yes, he embodied the racism that came before him. He didnt invent it. But he also used it as evidence for his theory. He believed that different races of humans represented biological variations (in intelligence, moral capacity, and more) on which the natural selection process could work, just as it could on finch beaks. His conclusion of a racial hierarchy with Africans at the bottom, his projection of eventual racial extermination, were no stray inference. The documentariesHuman ZoosandThe Biology of the Second Reichshow how Darwinian theory continued to motivate racism, eugenic drives, and genocide into the 20th century.

Weikart continues by noting that later Darwinists (such as Peter Singer) drew logical consequences from evolution, including that since all human beings are the product of random natural forces, they possess no special dignity. Human life is not precious. Or to put it another way, viaJohn Zmirak: NO LIVES MATTER. By contrast, the religious traditions that evolutionary theory pushes aside possess ample reason for respecting humans universally as equals, of identical value and dignity, no matter the color of their skin. Of course, there have been religious racists. But that is a contradiction with their professed faith. Those who call for vandalizing churches because ofdepictions of a white Jesusdont understand this.

On the other hand, while most evolutionists today reject scientific racism, with exceptions like James Watson they have no necessary reason for doing so. White nationalists of the Alt-Right appreciate that not as a bug but as a feature.

Download the podcast or listen to it here. Listen and learn.Find out more about Weikarts books here.

And say a prayer for the statues, all of them. Some have argued that the vandals have no agenda other than anarchy and destruction. Ill be persuaded of that if they pull down the Lenin statue in Seattle. Again, I hope they dont! In its way, it is a delightful if perverse symbol of our city. Lets hope Darwin and Lenin are both safe tonight, along with Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and other iconic historical figures.

The rest is here:

Darwinism and No Lives Matter - Discovery Institute

WASHINGTON Breakthrough coronavirus cases have emerged in multiple offices in Congress, including the speakers. The line for in-house testing snakes through a long corridor and into a visitors center atrium. The Capitols doctor has warned of the possible return of a mask mandate.

The Delta variant has reached Capitol Hill, but a common enemy has only made recriminations and anger worse between the two political parties. Republicans, caught between a political base that is often resistant to vaccination and an imperative to save the lives of their voters, point their fingers at Democrats and blame them, without evidence, for covering up the viruss origins.

Democrats fault Republicans who have done little to push back against vaccine skeptics in their ranks, and even now are soft-pedaling their calls for people to take the shot.

Weve got people here whove refused to get vaccinated and are actually discouraging others to get vaccinated, said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. The Republican Party no longer lives in reality. Its pathetic.

For much of the vaccinated nation, the coronavirus resurgence is somewhere else. In states like Vermont, Hawaii and Massachusetts, where at least 84 percent of the adults have at one shot or two, surges in Alabama, Florida, Missouri and Arkansas are far, far away.

But the Capitol is one of the few places in America where red and blue mingle almost daily and resentment is high.

Congress is like a nationwide convention every single day, said Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat who has begun wearing a mask again, though he is fully vaccinated and 76.5 percent of adults in his state of Maryland have received at least one shot. There are people who have come from every corner, hamlet and precinct of the country. Its a petri dish for the development of political ideas, but also plagues.

Republicans point out that the most recent high-profile carriers of the current plague were Democrats, Texas legislators who fled Austin to stop passage of a measure restricting voting. Six of them all of whom said they were vaccinated then tested positive, and are suspected of infecting a senior aide to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The aide, also vaccinated, is mildly symptomatic.

I think that you as the press have a responsibility to ask questions of the Democrats as well, Representative Ronny Jackson, Republican of Texas, snapped on Thursday when he and other Republican doctors were asked how many in their conference had been vaccinated. How many of the Democrats are willing to say whether or not theyve been vaccinated? What about the Texas delegation from the Texas House, including the six that tested positive?

It is clear in the Capitol that the resurgence of the coronavirus which is once again filling intensive care units around the country is not pulling the nation together.

Some of my frustration comes from talking to former colleagues still working in the I.C.U., said Representative Ami Bera, Democrat of California and a doctor. The first year, they didnt have much to treat patients. They were intubating and just trying to keep them alive. Now for every patient theyre putting on a ventilator, this was absolutely preventable. Every one of them is unvaccinated.

To be fair, the Texas legislators who made a show of defiance, then brought the virus, spread fears in both parties. Representative Kim Schrier, Democrat of Washington and a pediatrician, said those six breakthrough cases were a wake-up call in the Capitol community.

On the House floor, at least among Democrats, masks are going back on. Lawmakers are sending staff members for testing. Ms. Pelosi and some senators have told aides to work from home just weeks after many of them returned to Capitol Hill.

July 24, 2021, 11:34 a.m. ET

And as lawmakers and aides look toward this fall, when school resumes before children under 12 are expected to have access to vaccines, their worries only worsen.

If youre in an area with a lot of unvaccinated people and you have unvaccinated kids, I would recommend you put your masks on again, Dr. Schrier said. If I had children under 12, I would be taking very big precautions right now.

It is still unclear how many Republicans in the House and Senate are vaccinated, as many of them have refused to say one way or the other. Both Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin who has pushed fringe theories about the virus have said they will not get the shot because they have already had Covid-19. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that people who have had the virus still be inoculated.)

Representative Lauren Boebert, Republican of Colorado, proudly proclaimed this month at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas: Dont come knocking on my door with your Fauci ouchie. You leave us the hell alone. She was referring to Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has become a boogeyman for the right.

Congresss attending physician, Dr. Brian P. Monahan, indicated that some remained unprotected when he pleaded this week with lawmakers in a memorandum: The Delta variant is a severe threat. I urge unvaccinated individuals to come for vaccination at any time.

Leadership aides say the number of unvaccinated lawmakers is slowly dwindling. The No. 2 House Republican leader, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, got his first shot on Sunday, a remarkable delay considering that one House Republican, Ron Wright of Texas, and one Republican member-elect from his home state, Luke Letlow, died of Covid-19.

Understand the State of Vaccine Mandates in the U.S.

Its startling to read about members getting vaccinated in July when they could have been vaccinated in December, Mr. Raskin grumbled.

But many Republicans will not divulge their vaccination status, even when pressed on whether they should be setting an example for their constituents.

We believe in health privacy. The bottom line is we believe it; it doesnt stop at the Covid door, Representative Andy Harris, Republican of Maryland and a doctor, said Thursday. It is every citizens right to choose to get a vaccine, and then to choose not to reveal whether theyve gotten a vaccine.

That kind of reluctance rankles Democrats. Andy Slavitt, a health policy expert who recently left the Biden White Houses pandemic response team, called out Mr. Paul by name for talking down the vaccine.

Why are we letting these people who are not working in our best interest to damage our country? he asked.

Mr. Paul, an ophthalmologist, shrugged it off and focused on the unproven theory that the novel coronavirus was created by scientists in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, maintaining that it could have been far worse.

Four million people have died in this pandemic with a 1 percent mortality rate. Theyre experimenting with SARS viruses that have a 15 percent mortality rate, he said. The good news about the Delta variant is that the vaccine seems to cover it. So does natural infection.

And the lawmakers who have been most vocal about questioning the efficacy of the vaccines, though slightly defensive, still persist. Mr. Johnson said he was only trying to provide transparency on the part of the federal government so that my constituents have as much information to make an informed choice for themselves as to whether to get vaccinated.

He then launched into a discourse on recent data showing continued coronavirus infections in Israel, which prominent vaccine skeptics have cited to cast doubt on the efficacy of getting inoculated. But those statistics do not tell the whole story. According to the most recent Israeli analysis, the vaccine is more than 90 percent effective against hospitalization.

Even beyond the Capitol, lawmakers frustration is showing. Representative Raul Ruiz, a California Democrat who was an emergency room doctor, said that he recently joked with a friend in his district who is a vaccine denier about the dire consequences of his beliefs.

This will prove Darwinism, Mr. Ruiz said he had told his constituent, because those with common sense who use their intelligence will survive.

He didnt sound as though he was joking.

Carl Zimmer contributed reporting.

Follow this link:

In the Capitol, the Delta Variant Spreads Worry and Partisanship - The New York Times

We live in an age which idolizes newness. There is a tacit assumption that the newest is best. Since Darwinism was propounded 150 years ago, much of the West has assumed we are ever evolving to higher forms of life. This Darwinian preference for the modern has influenced not only our understanding of biology but has become the creed in social sciences as well.

Certainly a 2021 Ford is superior to a 1908 Model-T but in the realm of thought the same progressive ideal may not be so compelling. Genocide has been refined to unimaginable efficiency in the past hundred years. In some ways society seems to mimic physics in observing the second law of thermodynamics where, left to itself, progress is to greater disorder not greater order. Evidence might say we devolve not evolve.

Who am I? In some respects, I am my heritage. Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th century commentator on American society said, When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness. I am informed by the past and can thereby avoid the errors of the past.

In World War I, millions of soldiers died making frontal assaults into the face of machine gun fire with little discernible gain from this tactic. Subsequent generations have wisely abandoned that military strategy. In 1854, John Snow demonstrated that cholera was transmitted by contaminated water. If we ignore his historic discovery, millions die.

In our day society has developed two prevailing attitudes toward history: outright rejection or weaponization. Many moderns would agree with Henry Fords 1921 declaration. History is more or less bunkthe only history that is worth a tinkers dam is the history we make today. Many in academia believe with Louis de Bernieres that History is the propaganda of the victors. They propose that the powerful should rewrite history to serve their purposes, to promote their cultural narrative. Yet for thousands of years conventional wisdom agreed with the Roman statesman, Cicero, who 2000 years ago stated that Not to know what happened before you were born, is to remain forever a child. A child encounters the world as a series of painful new learning experiences unless he is mentored by adults to respect the received wisdom of the ages.

The Christian view of history is quite different from these secular views. Christians see man as Gods special creation, made in Gods likeness. Gods likeness was marred when man rebelled against Gods authority but it was not eliminated. Each person has dignity because he resembles to some degree the holy, perfect God. History is the story of God working through men to restore His image in humankind, and thereby raising humanity to its full intended glory. History has purpose and direction.

It is not mere random facts, which can be interpreted differently by each person. It is the unfolding revelation of Gods loving initiative to deliver humanity from self-destructive rebellion into eternal companionship with Him. My identity is determined in my discovering my role in that unfolding saga.

Christianity is anchored in history. Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus were historical characters. Archaeology once scoffed at the historicity of Scripture, but discoveries over the past two centuries have repeatedly attested to the historical reliability of the Biblical accounts. The verified integrity of the New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in all of literature. We are far more certain of what Jesus said than we are of the actual words of Plato or Shakespeare (whose works are less than one-quarter as ancient).

The marvelous deeds of God in history give Christians solid grounds for their faith. Indeed, the modern attack on history is in part motivated by the desire to deprive Christians of the foundation which establishes the validity of their faith commitments. The foes of Christianity understand that the Church is unassailable if its historical roots are intact.

Isaac Newton, the 18th century father of the Scientific Revolution, stated that If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

As Christians we are building on the shoulders of giants: Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, Wilberforce, Lewis, Graham. All but Jesus were sinful men and hence fallible but all have made meaningful contributions to our understanding of liberty and justice, to our ability to create societies that elevate humanity, restoring it to the true likeness of holy God.

We must not let progressive arrogance deny us the heritage through which we find our identity as children of the living God destined to be conformed to His image as we draw on the eternal wisdom delivered to us by our forefathers. History is not bunk. It is not propaganda. It is the lode star which orients us in our earthly journey. We neglect it at our own peril.

Doug Kiesewetter is a serial start-up business and social entrepreneur, having launched 13 for-profit ventures and many non-profits over the past 4 decades. He is currently CEO of a Montrose-based solar manufacturer and chairman of Waterstone, a public Christian foundation in Colorado Springs. Doug is a member of Cedar Creek Church. He and his wife Deborah have two adult children and four grandchildren.

Originally posted here:

RELIGION: Standing on the shoulders of giants - Montrose Daily Press

Waterford No other example illustrates the changing path of youth sports better than travel teams, where purveyors poach the best talent and then leave town for the promise of better competition. Theirhigh costs cater to families with means, creating athletic Darwinism.

Chris Muckle and Jerry Sullivan have watched it erodetheir passion of youth football in Waterford. It's been like tooth decay steady but not necessarily obvious until one day things stand as they do today.

"We've been members of the Southern New England Youth Football Conference for years. I'd say 60 years," Muckle was saying last week. "Unfortunately, it's on the verge of being extinct. On life support. The whole conference. Some programs are struggling greatly. A couple of teams (Norwich and New London) have left for travel and what they feel is better competition."

And so Muckle, Sullivan and the rest of the town's youth football leadership are mounting an offense in the wake of elimination: open Waterford's borders to all the New London kids who can't afford travel teams, creating opportunity where there has been none. The beginning of a beautiful friendship?

"When a town leaves the league, the town closest to them gets the kids," Sullivan said. "So Waterford would get the New London kids who can't afford to pay travel team costs. It's a normal fee to play in our conference, but it's much less. The problem now is parents and their egos. 'My kid ain't wearing blue.'"

Example: Sullivan said that signs posted throughout New London inviting football players and cheerleaders to participate in Waterford have been ripped down.

"Now the signs simply say 'youth football' and how to sign up. Nothing about Waterford," Sullivan said, "because they'd get taken down again."

Imagine this line of thinking: Deny kids a chance to play and cheer because of ego or some old wounds from the playing days. I suppose sports offer more pathetic examples of sniveling adulthood. It'll just take us all a while to think of any.

This, too: Here is an entire league that's all for a cultural blend between neighboring towns. What if and just thinking out loud here the Waterford kids and New London kids actually (gasp!) started learning about each other? Liking each other? Becoming friends? Oh, the humanity.

"To me, youth sports aren't about the kids anymore. It's about the coaches and their egos," Muckle said. "They're more worried about themselves than the kids. X Box and smart phones are the best babysitters in the world because that's all these kids know how to do now. They don't want to put the work in. Their parents don't push them. Youth sports are about making memories, making friends, learning how to be a teammate. We're not making legends."

They're just giving kids a place to play.

"Jerry and I and three quarters of our board have no kids in the league. That should say something," Muckle said. "We're trying to do the right thing for kids. We have no dog in the fight. Just trying to keep football going."

Muckle said the Waterford Youth Football Facebook page has all the details about how to register online. The fee is $99 per kid, with family plans available. Then Muckle said, "If there's still a money issue, we can bend."

And they truly don't care if what they teach kids from New London ultimately benefits New London, where many or most would likely attend high school.

"It's helping both the Waterford and New London programs," Muckle said. "Learn the game and go back to play in New London? That's great. No problem with that. We're still going to be happy for them. We have no dog in the fight. We just want the kids to learn football and get ready for high school. Look, I've been a Corrections Officer for 22 years. I know what happens when kids don't have structure."

Opportunities, a wise man once said, are like sunrises: If you wait too long, you'll miss them. Here are two guys who could use their energy and money on anything else they want. Their passion is with teaching kids and keeping a league going. The residual effect: A Waterford-New London thing benefits both towns and both programs.

This ought to be a no-brainer. Exceptthe no brains part comes from anybody ripping down signs because they say "Waterford." This isn't about you. It's about the kids and the elixir to athletic Darwinism.

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro.

See the original post here:

Is this the beginning of a beautiful (New London-Waterford) friendship? - theday.com

Image: Getty Images

The threat of ransomware dominates the cyber news right now, and rightly so. But this week Rachael Falk, chief executive officer of Australia's Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre, made a very good point.

Ransomware is "totally foreseeable and preventable because it's a known problem", Falk told a panel discussion at the Australian Strategy Policy Institute (ASPI) on Tuesday.

"It's known that ransomware is out there. And it's known that, invariably, the cyber criminals get into organisations through stealing credentials that they get on the dark web [or a user] clicking on a link and a vulnerability," she said.

"We're not talking about some sort of nation-state really funky sort of zero day that's happening. This is going on the world over, so it's entirely foreseeable."

There are "four or five steps you could take that could significantly mitigate this risk," Falk said. These are patching, multi-factor authentication, and all the stuff in the Australian Signals Directorate's Essential Eight baseline mitigation strategies.

The latest Essential Eight Maturity Model even comes with detailed checklists for Windows-based networks.

"Companies are on notice that this is a risk for them," Falk said. "There's a known problem often, and a known fix, but people haven't done it."

So given this laziness, given that cyber wake-up calls have been ignored since the 1970s, and given that organisations continue to willfully fail to follow the advice they're given, your correspondent has a question.

Has the time come to let Darwinism loose? Should we let all these lazy organisations get hacked, and just let God sort them out?

"I love that approach," Falk said. "It is glacial-like movement, and I think the only change now that might accelerate it is legislation, which obviously government is potentially seeking to introduce at the moment," she said, referring to proposed changes to critical infrastructure laws.

Maybe we'll only start paying attention when there's more 5G, more device-to-device communication, and more personal dependence on the network.

"I kind of wonder, though, in a macabre kind of way, will the test be when people just can't use their phones for half an hour," Falk said.

"That's when you'll get people going, oh, we just have to have law about this because we can't cope with [no] iPhones, internet, fridge, streaming, Netflix, you name it."

OK, we're joking. Probably.

In cybersecurity as in public health, blaming the victim is counterproductive. And in many cases it's the customers and citizens who'd really suffer from ransomware and other cyber attacks that take out an organisation.

"It could really, really impact life, and be a threat and risk to life. So I think people have to start thinking about this as not some sort of a joke," Falk said.

"The fact that we joke about, oh, the internet being down for 30 minutes, it could be the matter of a medical procedure is stopped and someone dies halfway through."

In Germany last year, for example, a patient died following a ransomware attack on a hospital in Duesseldorf, which caused her to be re-routed to a hospital more than 30 kilometres away. A police investigation found that she probably would have died anyway, but next time we may not be so lucky.

Fortunately, a global consensus on how to tackle ransomware does seem to be emerging.

Just one example is a new report from ASPI's International Cyber Policy Centre, Exfiltrate, encrypt, extort: The global rise of ransomware and Australia's policy options, of which Falk is co-author.

On the vexed question of whether organisations should pay a ransom or not, the report recommends that paying them should not be criminalised. Instead, there should be a "mandatory reporting regime ... without fear of legal repercussions".

This would be a major step in transparency. Out of all the major ransomware incidents in Australia -- Toll Holdings, BlueScope Steel, Lion Dairy and Drinks, legal document-management services firm Law in Order, Nine Entertainment, Eastern Health in Victoria, Uniting Care Qld, and JBS Foods -- only JBS has admitted to paying a ransom of $11 million.

Such a scheme has already been proposed by Labor in its Ransomware Payments Bill 2021 introduced onto parliament last month as part of its national ransomware strategy.

The ASPI report recommends expanding the role of the ASD's Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC) to include the real-time distribution of publicly available alerts.

ACSC should also publish a list of ransomware threat actors and aliases, giving details of their modus operandi and key target sectors, along with suggested mitigation methods.

The ASD is already known to be using its classified capabilities to warn of impending ransomware attacks.

The report also recommends tackling the "low-hanging fruit" of incentivisation and education.

This includes incentives such as tax breaks for cyber investment, grants, or subsidy programs; a "concerted nationwide public ransomware education campaign, led by the ACSC, across all media"; and a "business-focused multi-media public education campaign", also led by the ACSC.

"[This campaign should] educate organisations of all sizes and their people about basic cybersecurity and cyber hygiene. It should focus on the key areas of patching, multifactor authentication, legacy technology, and human error."

Finally, the report recommends creating a "dedicated cross-departmental ransomware taskforce", including state and territory representatives, to share threat intelligence and develop policy proposals.

Your correspondent finds none of these recommendations unreasonable, though there are perhaps questions about whether ACSC is currently well-equipped to run an effective and engaging major public information campaign.

Nevertheless, given how slowly Australian organisations have adapted to cyber risks over the last couple of decades, maybe we need a little less carrot and a bit more stick.

Here is the original post:

May ransomware blight all the cyber stragglers and let God sort them out - ZDNet

Photo: HQ of New York Magazine, by David Shankbone, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.

In form, the fight over critical race theory in schools resembles earlier panics over the teaching of intelligent design and its cousin creationism, observes Sarah Jones in arecent articleforNew YorkMagazines onlineIntelligencerwebsite.

I found myself doing a double-take after reading that sentence. Does Jones really mean to suggest that those creating a panic over critical race theory (CRT) are like the dogmatic Darwinists who tried to create a panic over the teaching of intelligent design?

In her article, Jones essentially argues that worries about critical race theory have been ginned up by conservative provocateurs who play fast and loose with the facts. In her view, critical race theory is simply an effort to teach historical reality, and those attacking it are unfairly manufacturing a crisis over it.

But ifthatswhat she believes about those who are creating panic over CRT, then the logic of her comparison would seem to require a similar view of those who opposed intelligent design: The intolerant defenders of Darwinian evolution who tried to instill panic over the teaching of intelligent design must also have been provocateurs who were ginning up a fake controversy, while in reality there was nothing wrong with teaching intelligent design.

Surely Jones couldnt actually meanthat, I thought.

Sure enough, she didnt. Reading the rest of her article I realized she simply didnt know how to frame a proper comparison. She actually was attempting to malign those who support intelligent design, not those who tried to create panic over it. Apparently neither she nor her editor is particularly good with logic.

Later in her article, Jones takes a cleaner shot at supporters of intelligent design. However, that shot misses the mark just as much as her first, as I will explain shortly.

First, full disclosure: The primary target of Joness article on critical race theory is Christopher Rufo, a former colleague of mine at Discovery Institute in a different program. Rufo came to Discovery because of his work on poverty and homelessness, and he didnt have any involvement in the Center for Science & Culture, which I help run, and which deals with intelligent design. Likewise, I had nothing to do with his efforts on critical race theory.

Nevertheless, Jones thinks she has discovered a nefarious connection between Rufo and supporters of intelligent design:

At both the K-12 and college levels, education represented a challenge for the Christian right to which Rufos former employer, the Discovery Institute, belongs.Like many a young Evangelical, I encountered the think tank in the 1990s, when they battled the forces of Darwinism.They argued schools should teach intelligent design, if not as the sole truth of the world, then as a credible scientific theory. Rufo was surrounded by people long accustomed to classroom culture wars. Teach the controversy, they urged.Decades later, with Rufo, they appeared to have changed their minds. When did it conclude that some controversies matter more than others? [Emphasis added.]

They argued that schools should teach intelligent design, Jones opines wrongly. Discovery Institute opposed requiring intelligent design in K-12 schools. Its teach the controversy policy referred to teaching the scientific evidence for and against modern evolutionary theory, not teaching intelligent design along with evolution. Thats why Discovery Instituteopposedthe now infamous Dover school policy andurged its repealbefore there was any lawsuit. If you want to know Discovery Institutes real policy on science education, you can read about iton its website.

Jones next suggests that Christopher Rufo somehow caused Discovery to change its mind about schools teaching controversies. Her point seems to be that we favored teaching the controversy over evolution, but Rufo convinced us that we shouldnt teach the controversy over critical race theory: When did it conclude that some controversies matter more than others?

But in fairness to Rufo and other critics of CRT, I dont think they are really objecting to thecontroversyover CRT being taught. They are claiming that the problem with CRT is precisely that it doesnotteach the controversy. Discovery Institute founder Bruce Chapmanexplains:

The idea that criticizing Critical Race Theory programs is somehow anti-free speech is especially preposterous. Those programs are typically coercive, and they are themselves antithetical to free speech. Attendance is compelled, and the ability of participants to freely share their real views without punishment is nil. Critiquing such coercive programs is not an assault on free speech. It is a defense of it. Thus, claims that opposition to Critical Race Theory programs constitute an assault on free speech are nothing short of Orwellian.

Perhaps this view of CRT is correct; perhaps it isnt. My intention is not to wade into that debate, or to explain my own views about the serious issues of racial discrimination and disparities we still face in America. My point is that Joness analysis doesnt grapple with the actual concerns being raised by critics of CRT, let alone the idea of a teach the controversy approach to education on the topic of evolution. The idea of the teach the controversy approach was to fairly cover both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory in the classroom, not to propagandize students.

Alas, Jones doesnt seem especially interested in understanding those she is critiquing. She has all the zeal of the impassioned convert, which can sometimes blur ones thinking. In prior centuries, conversion narratives were popular among the religious. They allowed those who came to God to share their personal journeys for the edification of fellow believers. In our own day, we have similar conversion stories offered by earnest secularists. Usually the story goes something like this: A poor oppressed and/or repressed young man or woman grows up in a fundamentalist home, goes to college, loses his or her faith, and then finds liberation in disbelief and secularism, which they then spend their lives promoting. This secularist conversion narrative has become a rather tired trope among contemporary writers, and Jones seems to be a prime example.

According to a profile intheNew York Times, Jones grew up in a fundamentalist family and lost her faith in God in college (a Christian college no less!). Then came what might be considered the secularist equivalent of missionary work: She volunteered for Planned Parenthood, followed eventually by a stint at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Now she has graduated to evangelizing for her views in various publications, often recycling stereotypes from her conversion narrative in the process.

By the way, Jones must have been quite intellectually advanced as a child. In her current article she says that Like many a young Evangelical, I encountered the think tank [Discovery Institute] in the 1990s, when they battled the forces of Darwinism. Discovery Institute did not start its program on intelligent design (the Center for Science & Culture) until 1996. According totheNew York Times,Jones was 26 in 2014. That would make her all of 8 years old in 1996. As I said, she must have been quite intellectually advanced for her age to become interested in the debate over Darwin in the early years of grade school.

Of course, Jones was homeschooled for much of her childhood, and homeschoolers are known for beingmore advanced academicallythan their peers. So perhaps that explains it.

Read more from the original source:

Critical Race Theory and Intelligent Design: The Mixed-Up Comparison of Sarah Jones - Discovery Institute