Interessanter Beitrag, aber...

Dr. Blume hat für Evolution und Schöpfung einen Beitrag geschrieben, 'Warum ich als Christ und Wissenschaftler UD und ID gleichermaßen problematisch finde'. Der Tenor des Posts ist, dass man die Existenz eines Gottes weder beweisen noch widerlegen kann und wer das Eine oder das Andere versucht, damit die "Grenzen der empirischen Erkenntnisfähigkeit" überschreitet.

Während ich ihm weitgehend zustimme, habe ich mich doch über einen Absatz sehr geärgert:

Nicht minder furchtbar wirkten und wirken sich aber auch Evolutionsforscher aus, die aus der Biologie ein vermeintliches „Recht des Stärkeren“ ableiteten und die Gleichwertigkeit aller Menschen schließlich bestritten. Auch sie haben damit den Erkenntnisbereich der Wissenschaften weit überschritten und gewachsene Glaubenswahrheiten (etwa der Bibel) nicht nur hinterfragt, sondern vom Tisch gewischt. Und ebenso, wie auch IDs heute die Wissenschaft meist eher behindern als voranbringen, haben auch moderne UDs wie Richard Dawkins längst (und nach ihren Prämissen völlig logisch) wieder damit begonnen, über „Menschenzucht“ nachzudenken. Es gibt kaum etwas Neues unter der Sonne…

Das ist meiner Meinung nach reinste Propaganda.

Das *Evolutionsforscher* mit der Evolutionstheorie Rassismus oder das "Recht des Stärkeren" rechtfertigten, bestreite ich. Da hätte ich doch gerne Quellen zu. Dass die Evolutionstheorie von Machthabern dazu *missbraucht* wurde, solches zu rechtfertigen, das mag sein. Aber beide "Konzepte" gibt es ja nicht erst seit Darwin und auch die "Glaubenswahrheiten" der Bibel wurden und werden immer mal wieder dazu missbraucht, beides zu rechtfertigen.

Das Richard Dawkins begonnen habe, über Menschenzucht nachzudenken, ist eine Falschinformation, um es mal vorsichtig auszudrücken. Hier der Artikel, auf den er sich hier bezieht (warum kein Link?):

From the Afterword
By Richard Dawkins

IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
advertisement

Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University

Wo befürwortet er denn hier Menschenzucht?

Ich finde es schade, dass dieser ansonsten lesenswerte Beitrag (für mich) durch diese Propaganda abgewertet wird. Das wäre meiner Meinung nach nicht nötig gewesen.

MfG,
JLT

---

UPDATE 01.08.07: Michael hat in einem Kommentar einen Link zu dem Volltext des Richard Dawkins-Nachworts angegeben.

---

UPDATE 31.07.07: Ich habe noch ein bisschen zu der Geschichte des Richard Dawkins-Artikels recherchiert. Ich würde allen empfehlen, die die Behauptung aufstellen, er würde Menschenzucht befürworten, sich die entsprechenden Links mal anzuschauen.

How Predictable: Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics von Wesley J. Smith

In den Kommentaren dazu meldet sich Richard Dawkins selbst zu Wort:

19. Comment #9524 by Richard Dawkins on November 25, 2006 at 2:36 am

This is the real Richard Dawkins, and of course I did NOT write Comment #9492. Nor, by the way, did I write any such article in the Sunday Herald, as Wesley J Smith alleges. I wrote something similar as the Afterword to a book by John Brockman (What's your Dangerous Idea?) but that book is not yet published. If any Scottish readers can explain to me the origin of the rumour that I wrote an article or a 'Letter to the Editor' (see http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html) in the Sunday Herald (allegedly 19th November 2006) I'd be glad to hear. Was this 'Letter to the Editor' written by yet another impostor like the one who wrote Comment #9492?

und hier:

23. Comment #9554 by Richard Dawkins (real) on November 25, 2006 at 5:27 am

Comment #9547 by Clive Bradley: "Assuming comment 9524 is the real Richard Dawkins, and still left wondering what he thinks about eugenics, I am intrigued to know what the various members of the RD fan club leaping to the defence of their hero now think, knowing he evidently didn't write it in the first place."

As I said in Comment 9524, "I wrote something similar" in the John Brockman book, to be published next year. That clearly means that you may assume that the words attributed to me are correct, and you are therefore not left wondering what I think. (I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't quote myself in a letter to the Sunday Herald. To have done so in advance of publication of the Brockman book, without asking Mr Brockman's permission, would have been reprehensible. Apparently somebody else did quote me in the Herald, and it seems that they may have mendaciously passed it off as a letter from me. I still haven't managed to track down a copy of the Herald. I am still curious)

Now, Clive Bradley seems to be making a nasty little insinuation that what I said requires 'defence'. Why? Does Bradley have a PROBLEM with the following:- "I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?" Why does Bradley think that somebody who puts a QUESTION like that needs DEFENCE? What actually IS the moral distinction between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. I said that I thought there probably is a moral distinction, but I thought people should at least ask themselves the question of what that distinction might be. Don't you think it is an interesting question? Do you have an answer to it yourself? Above all, why do you think somebody who asks such a question needs "defence"?

und hier:

27. Comment #9576 by Richard Dawkins (real) on November 25, 2006 at 7:24 am
Mystery solved. John Brockman has now informed me that the British hardback edition of "What is your dangerous idea?" was released last week (see Amazon.co.uk) and the Sunday Herald published extracts, including part of my Afterword. How 'Book Extract' mutated to 'Letter to the Editor' (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html)I don't know, and I guess it doesn't matter very much. I'm glad to have got to the bottom of it, and I stand by every word that I actually wrote.

Wesley J. Smith hat darauf seine Behauptung zurückgezogen ['I retract my claim that Richard Dawkins supports eugenics'] und auch erklärt, was ihn zu der Annahme verleitet hat:

Well, it seems that my post on Dawkins supporting eugenics was linked over at the Richard Dawkins official WEB site. In a comment to the post, Dawkins explains that the piece in the Herald was excerpted from an article he wrote in another forum. (It would have been nice if the Herald had explained that.) This means that Dawkins did not write the "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" headline, which is what caught my eye originally. Without that headline as a guide to interpreting his comment, his words take on a different tone. [...]

Aus der Zusammenfassung von Amazon zum Buch 'What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable' von John Brockman:

The history of science is replete with ideas that were considered socially, morally or emotionally dangerous in their time. The Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are obvious examples -- radical, brilliant insights that did not so much push the envelope as rip it into shreds. These ideas were dangerous because they challenged our comfort zone. But what are the dangerous ideas of the twenty-first century? Which theories do the world's leading thinkers and scientists regard as too hot to handle -- not because the idea might be false, but because it might turn out to be true? Collecting together the very best contributions to the renowned Edge.org question from the most eminent respondents, WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA? is another endlessly fascinating and provocative insight into the bleeding-edge of intellectual endeavour.

Das lässt das ganze doch in einem ganz anderen Licht erscheinen. Die Recherche dazu hat übrigens keine 10 Minuten gedauert. Aber man hinterfragt eben nicht gerne, was man glauben will.