ORTHODOX JUDAISM EMBRACES DARWIN! So writes Evan Goldstein--contributing editor of Moment Magazine--in the Wall Street Journal. He refers to Rambam, YU, Rav Kook, and of course Rabbi Natan Slifkin. Rabbi Slifkin of course is brought to illustrate not only that Orthodox Jews can embrace evolution but also that:

Yet there are important exceptions to this tradition of moderation, and in certain parts of the ultra-Orthodox world, Darwinism has always been denounced as subversive and dangerous.

This arguments pro and con are not the issue--but one thing that Goldstein does not explore is the ideology that has accompanies Darwinism.

In Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It, Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman write:

Nazi racial ideologies can indeed be traced back to the end of the nineteenth century, to the linking of social Darwinism and eugenics that burst on the scene in Germany, arriving from England, where the "science" of eugenics was founded by Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton. (p. 225)

Shermer and Grobman give an example of the case of a girl who, along with her mother were found to be "feebleminded." When the girl gave birth to an illegitimate daughter who was also found to be feebleminded, it was decided on the basis of the science of the day that 3 generations of feeblemindedness constituted a hereditary cause and the girl should be sterilized.

A court finally handed down a judgment in the case--a judgment that was used by the Nazis to justify their sterilization program:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing the kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. (p. 226-7)

The girl's name was Carrie Buck. The case was took place in the US--not Nazi Germany. The court was the US Supreme Court and the above words were the opinion of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.

As Shermer and Grobman note, "In America, a similar commitment to social Darwinism resulted in mass sterilizations of the 'feebleminded' and other 'undesirables.'" From 1907 to 1928 almost 9,000 Americans were sterilized and there were approximately 20,000 sterilizations by the mid-30's.

A more current example shows how far things have gone. Adriene Sere reviews A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion. Here is a book that has sociological implications way beyond science:

The media's excitement is based on the book's argument that "rape is, in its very essence, a sexual act" that developed through evolution. Evolution created men's desire to rape, the argument goes, by favoring unattractive men who raped over unattractive ones who didn't. The unattractive men who raped passed on their sexuality through their genes, and therefore all modern men are biologically wired to rape women.

Because the authors and their publishers cannot admit to having a pro-rape agenda, they claim to be motivated by the desire to prevent men's sexual attacks on women. Rape is best prevented, the authors argue, by requiring "educational" classes for those trying to obtain a driver's license. At these classes, the instructors would explain to young men how natural rape is, and then tell them that they shouldn't rape. Instructors would advise young women to cover their bodies so they don't provoke sexual attacks. In their scholarly concern for women's safety, The Sciences illustrated Thornhill and Palmer's argument with pictures of naked women and women's body parts.

Science freely crosses the line into areas of sociology and morality.

Of course one can argue that sociological arguments have no validity in arguing scientific truth--fair enough. But then again, Goldstein's article is not about the existing arguments for an against Darwinism. He wants to show that Orthodox Jews have no problem with evolution.

But as Orthodox Jews we should we should look at the arguments Goldstein ignores surrounding evolution--both scientific and otherwise.

Technorati Tag: Judaism and Darwin and Evolution and Rabbi Natan Slifkin.