From Darwin to Hitler, or Not? Part 3

| 126 Comments

Here at PT, we have recently had several posts on banned books and Nazis.

Last week, the American Library Association recognized Banned Books Week, and we had the spectacle of the ID movement trying to claim that Of Pandas and People was banned from the Dover school library. Subsequent discussion revealed that (a) the Court explicitly debunked that idea in March 2005, (b) the book is still in the Dover school library as far as anyone knows, and (c} the ALA does not have Pandas on its banned books list, although they have a record of a challenge in 1993.

Regarding Nazis, a month or two ago we had another resurgence of discussion of DI fellow Richard Weikart’s book, From Darwin to Hitler, and the crass propaganda based on the book that the ID/creationist movement has pumped out. In short, two historians (one of eugenics, and one of Germany) have said that Weikart’s attempt to link Darwin and Hitler is tenditious at best.

Well, last night I was at the book store looking for Seed magazine (the new issue is not up on the website yet, but have a look at the November issue if you get a chance). I poked around in the science section, and discovered Richard Dawkins’ new anti-religion book, The God Delusion. Whatever you think of its merits on the whole (I have not read it yet and am instinctively pessimistic when Dawkins gets outside of biology), it has at least one very good point: it prominently cites Bottaro et al. in the Behe-debunking section. The main ID people have yet to even acknowledge the article, but it’s nice to know that someone is paying attention. So that was pretty cool.

Then, I happened to walk by the history section (much bigger than the science section), about half of which seems to be about WWII and Nazis. Somewhere in there I saw something about the famous Nazi book burnings of 1933, and probably because of the above-described PT posts, I thought, “Hmm, I wonder what books were burned by the Nazis?” This question I promptly forgot about (welcome to my brain). But something jogged my memory today and I did a bit of googling.

The best resource on the matter seems to be “When books burn”, an online exhibit sponsored by the University of Arizona Library. It was created by Lisa Bunker and Bonnie Travers. Of course the exhibit begins with the famously prophetic and sobering line from an 1821 play by German playwright Heinrich Heine: “Where one burns books, one will soon burn people.” (Not to be confused with the lines from one of the Indiana Jones movies: “Goose-stepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them.” And: “Nazis. I hate these guys.”)

Anyway, the exhibit contains a page called “Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939.” The page begins by noting that it is hard to tell exactly what books the Nazis burned at their various book burnings (which I believe were largely orchestrated by radicalized university students, another sobering point):

Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939

What was forbidden? What was burned? It is difficult to say for sure, in part because there were so many agencies which got involved. According to Leonidas Hill, author of “The Nazi Attack on Un-German Literature, 1933-1945,” by 1934, over forty agencies had lists ennumerating 4,100 publications to be banned. The following list is necessarily partial, but should represent the most influential literature blacklists from 1933 to 1935.

The page then presents eight lists of books that the Nazis banned, including images of the documents, the text in German, and the translation in English. The seventh is some “guidelines” published in Die Bucherei, “the official Nazi journal for lending libraries.”

[Guidelines] 1935 Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation “guidelines” during the second round of “purifications” (saüberung).

Well, what’s in the list? Naturally, communists, jews, democrats, pacifists, and…guess who…

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).

2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.

3. Pacifist literature.

4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).

5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

7. Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn).

8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld).

9. The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of “Asphalt and Civilization” literati! (Graf, H. Mann, Stefan Zweig, Wassermann, Franz Blei). [transl. note: a derogatory term for writers dealing with upper middle class urban society].

10. Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field.

11. Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life’s goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.

12. Nationalistic and patriotic kitsch in literature (P.O. Höcker!).

[Source for German text: pp. 143-144 of Strothmann, Dietrich. Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik: ein Beitrag zur Publizistik im Dritten Reich. Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1968. Translation by Dr. Roland Richter. Bold added.]

Another list, the “Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries,” includes this as an item:

According to the principles governing the compilation of this list, the following publications must be removed from public and commercial lending libraries:

a) All writings that ridicule and belittle the state and its institutions, or that attack or question its moral foundation.

b) All writings that attack or attempt to dissolve the order of the community of the Volk and its moral foundation, specifically those against the race and biological requirements of a healthy Volk (marriage, family, etc.).

c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

Considering that the Discovery Institute’s Richard Weikart has said (e.g. here, and in his book) that Darwin undermined traditional Christianity and therefore respect for life, and thereby made possible the Nazis and their atrocities, isn’t it odd that he didn’t mention the above points in his book?

Obligatory cautions

Since Nazis are to internet discussions what gasoline nitroglycerin is to fires, I will make some obvious points to head off misinterpretation:

1. The fact that Darwin and Haeckel (or at least “primitive Darwinism”, whatever that means – additional insight here is welcome) were banned does not automatically make Darwin/Haeckel/evolution good. There is (or should be) no reverse Godwin’s Law wherein anything oppressed by the Nazis automatically wins. An obvious example here is communist writings.

2. Just because anti-Christian writings were banned does not mean that Christianity is bad or supported Nazism. Hitler was a vegetarian; it does not follow that vegetarians are evil. Although some ID supporters have difficulty getting this sort of subtlety through their thick skulls, the point of raising Christianity when Darwin/Hitler is being discussed is not to besmirch Christianity, but to show that the Nazis were blustering, inconsistent thugs primarily interested in hate and power, and would happily appropriate/coopt/twist/distort any concept, consistent or not, that they thought would help their selfish causes. Raising the case of Christianity also usually exposes the hypocrisy of ID/creationists who push the Darwin-to-Hitler propaganda as part of their apologetics agenda, because they typically respond in injured tones about how the Nazis weren’t actually employing true Christianity. Exactly our point.

3. The above lists do not prove that books by Darwin or Haeckel were actually physically burned, only banned; such details may or may not exist somewhere in the historical record. It is also possible that Darwin/Haeckel were promoted at some times/places and banned in others, because after all, as noted above, the Nazis were inconsistent goose-stepping morons.

4. Darwin and evolutionary biology do not get a free pass. Even though it is ludicrous to say that Darwin led to Hitler (which is highly dubious even for Haeckel, as Weikart acknowledges repeatedly, not realizing how this sinks his Darwin argument), despite the fact that he was a liberal and opposed to slavery, Darwin still had some of the racism of his day, as can be seen in Descent of Man. Furthermore, although Darwin cannot really be blamed for this either, eugenics was bad enough on its own terms (although if you want to get technical it actually came to prominence in the early 1900s, when natural selection (“Darwinism”) was in scientific eclipse), and there are a number of biologists who should have known better. (Apparently T.H. Morgan in 1925 was the first major scientific critic, and still quite late and too mild. Clarence Darrow evidently did better in 1926.) You won’t learn this from the ID movement, but suitably scathing reviews on the subject can be found in places like the Encyclopedia of Evolution and Melvin Konner’s book The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit.

5. [Added in edit on a commenter’s suggestion] Since we are being thorough here, it is also worth pointing out that many Christians resisted the Nazis, from opposing them via the churches to hiding jews. A notable example is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who resisted the Nazi attempts to take over the church and, despite his earlier commitment to pacifism, eventually participated in a plot to kill Hitler. He was arrested, put in jail, then concentration camps, and finally executed by hanging in April 1945 just weeks before the camps were liberated by the Allies.

126 Comments

Excellent post. I think it wise to add that any Christians who actually practiced their faith- concerned with social justice and pacifism- were in great trouble under Hitler, and the camps were filled with many of those as well.

Game, set, and match? That, along with the other countlessly mentioned lines of argument, pretty much eschews the “Darwin to Hitler” tangent.

Excellent post. I think it wise to add that any Christians who actually practiced their faith- concerned with social justice and pacifism- were in great trouble under Hitler, and the camps were filled with many of those as well.

I agree completely. Read my Dietrich Bonhoeffer in college, in fact.

Just a comment on eugenics: J.B.S. Haldane wrote an article where he promulgated a “positive” eugenics, where parents would be able to choose the characteristics of their offspring (“Oh, I soooo want a daughter who looks like Paris Hilton!” - the father’s reply resulting in immediate ejection from the clinic). Now, I think his arguments were naïve but he certainly had good intentions.

My main point is that we should be careful to paint eugenics as necessarily evil. A lot of it was, but some eugenics ideas were being promoted for entirely high-minded ideals. I don’t agree with them, but I think one should at least respect the motives of the promotors.

My other point is that Haldane is worth reading. If PZ can find a copy of his article “The argument from design” (I’ve got it in a collection called “Science and Life: essays of a rationalist”), he’ll have a lot of fun. More relevant here is his article “The biology of inequality” (in “On Being the Right Size”), where he demolishes the “nasty” eugenics in 3 very short footnotes. He then quotes a Dr. Johann von Leers’ argument that the Nordic culture had its peak a few thousand years ago when it was pure, and was now (i.e. 1930s) returning to this peak. To which Haldane comments:

It is interesting to think that the Nordic race, if properly purified, may rise even higher than the culture of the Stone Age. When one reads statements as that, one is tempted to ask whether they are made in order to obtain or retain posts, or whether, possibly, they may not be a rather subtle form of propaganda intended to make the existing racial doctrines in Germany appear ridiculous.

I think Haldane would have fitted in rather well at PT, don’t you?

Bob

Just a comment on eugenics: J.B.S. Haldane wrote an article where he promulgated a “positive” eugenics, where parents would be able to choose the characteristics of their offspring (“Oh, I soooo want a daughter who looks like Paris Hilton!” - the father’s reply resulting in immediate ejection from the clinic). Now, I think his arguments were naïve but he certainly had good intentions.

Incidentally I think that’s the plot of Gattaca.

Yes, communists like Haldane were much more sensitive to the role that class could play in producing social misery, and critical when biology was used as an excuse for what were obviously social problems.

I took another look at Morgan’s 1925 book, Evolution and Genetics, which I have. The final chapter discusses human genetics and genetic diseases. He doesn’t absolutely oppose eugenics in all its forms, but he is pretty harsh on much of the stupidity that was going on. He especially has it in for the “race-propagandists”, who he mentions several times. Here are the last two paragraphs of the chapter (and book):

Least of all should we feel any assurance in deciding genetic superiority or inferiority as applied to whole races, by which is meant not races in a biological sense but social or political groups bound together by physical conditions, by religious sentiments, or by political organizations. The latter have their roots in the past and are acquired by each new generation as a result of imitation and training. If it is unjust “to condemn a whole people” meaning thereby a political group, how much more hazardous is it, as some sensational writers have not hesitated to do, to pass judgment as to the relative genetic inferiority or superiority of different races.

If within each human social group the geneticist finds it impossible to discover, with any reasonable certainty, the genetic basis of behavior, the problems must seem extraordinarily difficult when groups are contrasted with each other where the differences are obviously connected not only with inateiial advantages and disadvantages resulting from location, climate, soil, and mineral wealth, but with traditions, customs, religions, taboos, conventions, and prejudices. A little goodwill might seem more fitting in treating these complicated questions than the attitude adopted by some of the modern race-propagandists.

(Thomas Hunt Morgan (1925), Evolution and Genetics, pp. 206-207. Italics original.)

I have read several eugenics historians mention Morgan but basically say it was too little, too late. Haldane is sometimes mentioned also, but in an ambiguous way. But the above quote, coming from probably the leading biologist in the country at the time, in his popular-level book on evolution in the year of the Scopes Trial, was not insignificant I think. According to his Nobel biography (he won the Nobel in 1933), he was made a Foreign Member of the Royal Society of London in 1919 and won the Darwin Medal in 1924. Not a lightweight.

Just a nitpick: Heinrich Heine wrote lyric and - extremely witty - political poems (e.g. the Wintermärchen), but never any plays.

HRG (who considers Heine lyrics set to music by Schubert or Schumann as among the most sublime works of art).

JBS Haldane seems to have been a considerable wit as well. Apart from his famous remark about god & beetles, I rather enjoyed the fact that he called his parrot Onan ‘because it spilt its seed upon the ground’.

Eugenetics was commonly practised all around the world in some way. Maybe not as radical as the Nazi’s, but the forced sterilisation of disabled people to prevent procreation of them is the same. And by widening the definition of what fell under ‘disabled’, you could get a lot of people under there.

I’m about halfway through Dawkins’ book. The first few chapters were both informative and very funny. I found his scientific argument against a deity a little weaker. I agree with his contention that one can argue scientifically against a deity, and that ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ is a cop-out; I just don’t think he made the case as strongly as he could have.

But overall, so far, I’d highly recommend it.

Just a nitpick: Heinrich Heine wrote lyric and - extremely witty - political poems (e.g. the Wintermärchen), but never any plays.

Except Tragödien nebst einem lyrischen Intermezzo (1823), with the plays Almansor and William Ratcliff (both of which have been performed on the stage).

The quote is from Almansor I think.

Nick Wrote:

…the Nazis were blustering, inconsistent thugs primarily interested in hate and power, and would happily appropriate/coopt/twist/distort any concept, consistent or not, that they thought would help their selfish causes.

Gee, you’d think the IDists would have a very intimate understanding of this sort of attitude.

(Not to be confused with the lines from one of the Indiana Jones movies: … “Nazis. I hate these guys.”)

“I hate f@#$ng Illinois Nazis.” – Jake Blues (John Belushi), “The Blues Brothers”

A competent scholar like Dr. Weikart should certainly have been able to find those documents.

Perhaps he didn’t have space in his book to write about them?

Hitler in his own words:

* My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…and if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. Speech in Munich (12 April 1922)

* Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country] … I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past … [few] years. The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922—1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871—872.

* The Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attaches the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and is endeavouring to develop them. o Speech at the Reichstag (23 March 1933)

* The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were. … I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions. 26 April 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall’s The Holy Reich]

* Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions. Speaking in the Reichstag on 30 January 1934

* And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. Mein Kampf, p. 174

* The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine. Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 12

* For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? …Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas… it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith. ove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 5

A very quick search for “primitive Darwinism” turned up the phrase in some T.S. Eliot criticism and also with A.E. Wilder-Smith, the creationist. Again, from very hurried reading it appears that “primitive Darwinism” refers to “Darwinism that deals with man as only an animal, without consideration of theology”. Wilder-Smith uses this connection to link Darwinism to Communism. (I wonder what he would have made of Pol Pot?)

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 279, byte 279 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

Wheels wrote

Either way, Hitler being Christian or simply selling himself under the Christian label, there’s a lesson for IDists or anybody else who want to make appeals to God in order to push their vision through the masses for the purposes of social upheaval.

It’s not social upheaval that’s the goal, it’s social control. See “Dominionism” and ponder the fact that the major funder of the Disco Institute has been Christian Reconstructionist Howard Ahmanson.

RBH

Hmmm.… religious themes in a nazi propaganda piece.… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triump[…]_Will#Themes

Well I figured the IDists were somewhat less ambitious at that than than the Nazis. As far as I know they only wanting to overturn secular society and bring back The Good Ole Days that never existed, before Darwinist Materialism bore its oh so bitter fruits that cause all sorts of problems. With the Nazis, their dream was more about reshaping society so that they would have immediate, personal power and influence over society. Honestly, I can’t see Johnson or Dembski going for such power grabs themselves. Maybe there’s something I’m missing?

Excellent post. It gives a very nice objective portrayal of the actual events without taking any cheap potshots at anyone. This is exactly how we defenders of science ought to approach this issue. Well done!

Actually, I did take some potshots at the Nazis I think.

Nick Matzke Wrote:

Hitler was a vegetarian.

Actually, he was not. He suffered severe stomach pains if he ate meat, though, so he kept his intake of cooked flesh to a minimum. He especially liked liver dumplings.

(Hitler)…especially liked liver dumplings

I had been on the fence regarding Hitler, but this detail cinches it. He was evil.

Although Hitler had probably never read Darwin, he tended more to philosophy, he was without question inspired by the American Eugenics movement.

Edwin Black in War Against the Weak establishes this definitively. His website is www.waragainsttheweak.com

Maybe there’s something I’m missing?

Yes, there is.

Do a Google for “Christian Reconstructionists”.

Then do a Google for the name of DI board member (and cash cow) Howard Ahmanson.

What DI wants is theocracy. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Wheels: I think many of the authoritarians have learned that you get defeated faster when you go public; so instead you prop up a figurehead who will act as a sort of lightningrod for criticisms of your policies (e.g., Reagan, Bush II).

Nazis were leftists, like the americans who aggressively tout state schools and state run evolution teaching.

Just saying that -said:

Nazis were leftists, like the americans who aggressively tout state schools and state run evolution teaching.

Huh?

…oookay…then explain why they considered the communists their political polar opposites and why Hitlers greatest support came from the major industrialists in the form of capital and exclusive access to the conservative media.

Or are you saying the 1930’s German communists (it was unsafe to claim being one after Hitler came to power) were right wing?

You need a history lesson there JST the nearest analog to the the Nazis in present day American politics that has the same support by capital and the conservative media is?

pwe Wrote:

Just for the record: it is Simplicit you are quoting :-)

Oop, my bad.

I believe to have read somewhere that F.D.R. was very pro-Nazi in the beginning.

I don’t think that was ever the case; FDR was always more hostile to Nazi Germany (and fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan) than the American mainstream. America was dominated by isolationism pre-Pearl Harbor, whereas FDR advocated direct intervention to aid nations under military attack.

I’ve seen a few quotes suggesting that the Nazis admired FDR, but only for his economic skill in helping the US out of the Depression.

Ok, I have to apologize to Nick for having overlooked this. But, just to be an evil evilutionist, I have to mention that Weikart doesn’t actually have a “Darwin argument”. His argument is somewhat vague, since it deals with ‘Darwinists’/’Darwinism’, and that’s his real problem. It’s unclear from his book, if all of these Darwinists understood excatly the same by being Darwinists.

In political writing, it is often convenient to make points by being intentionally vague. By making links without actually stating them, you can make points you could never get away with actually defending if anybody called you on them. Frequently stating things near one another to give the impression they are related, or playing fast and loose with categories like “darwinism” and assuming your reader will read in the equivocation for you, are good ways of expressing things this way. It doesn’t really matter whether you ever actually said it, what matters is whether your reader walks away with the impression you did.

Given that Weikart wrote a book named “From Darwin to Hitler” whose front cover contains pictures of Darwin and Hitler and some kind of note about evolution “fueling” “Hitlerism”, but he then later made public statements backing away from linking Darwin to Hitler, I think it’s entirely fair to say he was doing this kind of thing on purpose. His argument may be vaguely worded, but it is not subtle. Given the circumstances I don’t think we are really obligated to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.

A lot of people were Pro-Nazi back when all the world at large knew about the Nazi party was that they were nationalist Germans bent on fixing Germany’s screwed up economy and self-image.

There was a time when the Nazi weren’t known for death camps and hate.

A lot of people were Pro-Nazi back when all the world at large knew about the Nazi party was that they were nationalist Germans bent on fixing Germany’s screwed up economy and self-image.

There was a time when the Nazi weren’t known for death camps and hate.

This may have some truth but anyone paying close attention could plainly see they were thugs throughout the 20s and right up to 1933 when they got power and rapidly banned/arrested all of the other parties – first communists, then social democrats, then the Centre Party (catholics), then the right-wing Nationalists merged with the Nazis and it was a one-party state.

Part of the problem in post-WWI Germany was that it was almost in a low-level civil war, and each party, even the centrist moderate parties, had its own paramilitary organization, and these groups would run around and beat each other up. This served to legitimate/obscure the Nazis’ violence as they proceded to get better at violent oppression than everyone else.

MS II:

A lot of people were Pro-Nazi back when all the world at large knew about the Nazi party was

Nick:

This may have some truth but anyone paying close attention could plainly see

Both Michael’s and Nick’s comments are fair, but–before we descend into a needless wrangle–let’s be clear that they’re not premised upon the same people having access to the same degree of information: Michael is talking about the impression which might reasonably have been formed by people at a distance from the turmoil with only superficial information to work from, what “most” people actually knew during the early going; Nick is talking about people who were either unavoidably closer to the situation, or those who took the trouble to dig beneath superficial impressions, i.e., what people should have known before claiming to be informed.

Often a crucial distinction, that, and one which we see crop up around here with reference to a good many other bodies of “knowledge,” about which people assert opinions.

More seriously, we can’t check everything - occasionally we need to rely on others, and we can’t check each and everything down to the bottonless bottom.

Right. So if someone says “the moon is made of green cheese”, and someone else says “the moon is made of rocks”, there’s no way we can check each and every thing down to the bottomless bottom, and hence no way for anyone to determine whether the moon actually IS made from rocks or from green cheese. It’s all just a matter of this word or that word.

Right?

What an idiot. (sigh)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on October 1, 2006 9:54 PM.

The Educational Consequences of ID was the previous entry in this blog.

A working list of species “concepts” is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter