I’ve been following this controversy for the past couple of days and don’t know yet what I think of it. Coral Ridge Ministries will be airing a documentary called Darwin’s Deadly Legacy in which they draw links between Darwinian evolution and the extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany.
My main concern with the documentary is that it may be discrediting evolutionary theory using the fallacy of guilt by association. While it may be true that Darwinian evolution leads to moral decay, that in and of itself doesn’t falsify the theory. I don’t doubt for a second that a worldview that is based upon the theory of evolution will lead to a destruction of ethics, or that Hitler used it as a foundation for his own horrifying natural selection. But does this video devolve (pardon the pun) into one big ad hominem attack? I won’t know until I watch it I guess.
If the documentary is seeking to point out an inconsistency in the worldview of evolutionists by showing the logical conclusion that ethics are destroyed by evolutionary theory, I’m all for it. But if the argument is merely, “Darwin, therefore Hitler,” I don’t know if that will do any good. To say to an evolutionist, “Hey, why are you making ethical decisions? Your worldview doesn’t allow for ethics. Take the case of Hitler for example, he was a consistent evolutionist…” is a valid argument because you are pointing out the flaw in their own thinking. But that is a far cry from saying that evolution is false because Hitler believed in it.
What is incredibly interesting about this controversy is the amount of reaction it has garnered from its critics. Of course, the documentary hasn’t been released, so it is quite mind-blowing to see the venom spewed from the mouths of its already-detractors. You think that these people, including the Anti-Defamation League, would hold off on its criticism until the show actually goes public. How do you criticise something you know nothing about? It really displays the bias of these people against anything but evolutionary theory. Their adherence to it is a pre-committment – a presupposition if you will. Why not wait, evaluate the facts, and then make a decision either for or against. And why all the hysteria? Can’t we be rational about this?