Jack Krebs posted Entry 3103 on May 3, 2007 06:52 AM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/3093

I’d like to direct you all over to Red State Rabble to read Pat Hayes’ post this morning entitled “Discovery’s Disturbing Legacy.”

The ID movement has failed scientifically (never having got off the ground), in the courts, and at the ballot box in school Board elections at the state and local level. This has not fazed the Discovery Institute, which is now concentrating on the culture war tactic of associating science (“Darwinism”) with Nazism, eugenics and other cultural evils.

Pat writes,

Thwarted by the court in their central strategic objectives, increasingly shunted off to the side by the news media, at odds with their creationist allies, and unable to produce any credible science of their own, the Discovery Institute has now adopted a cynical Plan B: If you can’t build your own house, you may as well tear your neighbor’s down.

Discovery’s Plan B has popped up with increasing frequency over a number of months, but got its official launch with speeches in Washington and Philadelphia earlier this week by Discovery fellow John West that quickly cut the Nazi’s six million victims to “hundred of thousands.”

According to West, “Darwinism” is responsible for “the eugenics movement that sterilized scores of thousands of Americans deemed unfit in the early decades of the last century, the concurrent rise of the abortion movement, and the extermination of hundreds of thousands of supposed social undesirables by the Nazis in Germany.”

After listing other examples of Plan B in action, Pat notes,

If what Weikart, West, Coulter, and Discovery say is true, one might think that Jewish organizations would welcome their support. However, just the opposite is true.”

“Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people,” according to a statement issued by the Anti-defamation League when “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy” was aired.

“Trivializing the Holocaust,” said the ADL, “comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.

“It must be remembered,” the ADL continued, “that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to ‘reclaim America for Christ’ and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.”

Now the DI is taking their road show to Europe:

Next week, Discovery is participating in the World Congress of Families in Warsaw. In doing so, they are joining with a motley crew of far-right anti-immigrant zealots who claim Muslims and other immigrants are contributing to the “demographic destruction” of Europe, extreme homophobes, misogynists, and anti-abortion fanatics who, holding life sacred, call openly for the murder of abortion providers.

Members of the European Parliamentary Working Group on Separation of Religion and Politics have protested the conference saying that several people scheduled to speak at the three-day conference have taken positions that clash with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

This is the real “Intelligent Design” movement at work. The “science” was meant to be a cover all along, and now that they are found out, there is no need for further subterfuge. The real issues are out in the open and on the table, and now that they are I think it is clear that it is more important than ever that these folks be resisted.

I encourage you to read Pat’s whole essay: Red State Rabble

Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.

Post a Comment

Use KwickXML formatting to markup your comments: <b>, <i>, <u> <s>, <quote author="...">, <url href="...">, etc. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Comment #173306

Posted by Ed Hensley on May 3, 2007 8:34 AM (e)

Another classic example of quote mining. The author, the website, and the Disco Institute should be ashamed. I went to the UD website still can not get over how audacious they are in continuing this fraud. Even though the fraud is clearly pointed out by responders, DaveScot totally ignores that fact and uses the opportunity to ignorantly rant about medicine and evolution! These people are shameless!

Comment #173311

Posted by Raging Bee on May 3, 2007 9:10 AM (e)

In doing so, they are joining with a motley crew of far-right anti-immigrant zealots who claim Muslims and other immigrants are contributing to the “demographic destruction” of Europe, extreme homophobes, misogynists, and anti-abortion fanatics…

So the “far-right anti-[Muslim-]immigrant zealots” will be aligned with Muslim creationist zealots like interior-designer-turned-Khomeini-wannabee Harun Yahya? I regret to say we’ve probably not heard the last of such bits of irony…

Comment #173312

Posted by Ben (t.o.o.) on May 3, 2007 9:13 AM (e)

Ann Coulter = instant credibility! …or not

ID is in its death throes…

What next? Violence to science educators and scientists (because its worked so well at stopping abortion)? They are running out of options if they are to stop the spread of evilution.

Comment #173313

Posted by Mike Klymkowsky on May 3, 2007 9:19 AM (e)

Perhaps the secularist side should simply equate religion with slavery, torture and subjugation of women.

Comment #173314

Posted by raven on May 3, 2007 9:28 AM (e)

Backlash against religious extremists? I’ve read this a few times lately.

The way things are going in the USA is not real popular with large segments of the population. The present regime’s approval ratings are very low at ca. 30%.

More to the point, we see every day what religous fanatics can do. In Iraq, two muslim sects brutally kill each other in large numbers on a daily basis over an obscure theological point in a dispute that has been going on for 1400 years. Religious violence also periodically flares up elsewhere, India, Indonesia, Africa.

Makes many people think that the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they mandated separation of church and state.

Comment #173322

Posted by TomS on May 3, 2007 9:50 AM (e)

Remember that many of the anti-evolutionists insist upon telling us that they accept evolution within a “kind”.

They cannot distance themselves, therefore, from any social/political movements which are supposedly motivated by evolution within “mankind”.

None of these social/political movements were the least bit interested in “macro”evolution.

And, of course, these movements were decidedly non-“darwinian” in that they didn’t understand that “random variation and natural selection” didn’t need a helping hand from “design”. These movements were interested in the non-“darwinian” idea of “progress”, or at least concerned that evolution, left to its own, would result in “degradation”.

Recall that the early 20th century, when these movements had their strength, were also the days of “the eclipse of darwinism”, when “mendelism” was preferred over “darwinism”.

How many non-“darwinian” aspects of the “science” that these movements appealed to - how many of them are on the list of things that the anti-evolutionists claim for themselves?

Not that I am trying to slur today’s anti-evolutionists by associating them with these movements.

Comment #173324

Posted by Ed Hensley on May 3, 2007 10:00 AM (e)

My previous comment was meant for another blog entry (Sal Cordova’s Rank Dishonesty) but wound up here. Sorry for any confusion.

Comment #173335

Posted by raven on May 3, 2007 10:59 AM (e)

Hitler was influenced by a variety of factors,

Hitler was also a Roman Catholic who frequently claimed that god was on his side. The cynical might say he was just another politician playing the religion card.

It doesn’t really matter. Evolution is a scientific theory which lives or dies based on whether it explains the facts in the real world. What Darwin or Hitler or anyone thought is irrelevant. I’m sure Hitler also believed in the law of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of the round earth. So what? Does this discredit them?

Comment #173337

Posted by Frank J on May 3, 2007 11:08 AM (e)

Jack Krebs wrote:

The “science” was meant to be a cover all along..

To all of you reading this, I’m curious, when and how did you realize that?

For me it was this: In 1998, while reading Michael Behe’s painful misrepresentation of evolution in “Darwin’s Black Box,” I came upon his punch line of what he thinks might have happened instead. Namely that the designer might have pre-loaded all the genetic information for subsequent species into the first cell, ~4 billion years ago. Although that reeked of pseudoscience, I was still naïve enough to think that Behe might try to support that hypothesis directly, and at least compete with YEC and OEC in the “alternative science” arena. Even if Behe et al weren’t confident in that particular hypothesis they could have still seized the opportunity to make ID scientific by concentrating on “what the designer did, when, and how,” and avoiding the scientifically vacuous and legally risky “evidence of design” (a la Behe and Dembski) and the long-discredited “evidence against evolution” (a la Wells). By ~2000 it was clear to me that they were doing the exact opposite, with anything remotely scientific steadily retreating into “don’t ask, don’t tell.” They knew that, like YECs and OECs, they had nothing scientific to offer. But they at least had a big tent.

Comment #173343

Posted by TomS on May 3, 2007 11:38 AM (e)

Posted by Blair:

Hitler was influenced by a variety of factors, including Martin Luther’s anti semitism, Nietzsche’s Will to Power, and Darwins idea (which he accepted although it was a later addition) of the “survival of the fittest.”

I’d like some clarification on this last point. Let’s ignore the “is”/”ought” problem for the purposes of discussion. It seems to me that these various social/political movements of the early 20th century were operating on a principle contrary to “survival of the fittest”. They didn’t like the prospects of who would survive, and thought that they had to determine who deserved to survive. If they really did think that “survival of the fittest” gave directions to how we ought to behave, then they’d let the “fittest survive.”

Assuming, also, of course, that they really did do any thinking about this.

Comment #173344

Posted by Dan Gaston on May 3, 2007 11:39 AM (e)

TomS:

Good post. Too many people forget that in the early decades of the Twentieth century supporters of Evolution fell in to two distinct camps, the Darwinists and the Mendelians. It took the work of people like Fischer in the 40’s to reconcile the two camps in the synthesis. It seems like most people, especially the anti-evolution, anti-intellectual crowd are constantly talking as if Darwin published his initial work and we’ve been operating out of the same playbook ever since. They prey on the ignorance of the masses (because this isn’t something frequently covered in school) to spout their misinformation and get away with it.

They also seem to forget the fact that the notion of Evolution, at least in general, predates Darwin and it is primarily some of those older ideas that stuck around in the ideas of racial purity and eugenics. While Malthus for instance influenced Darwins ideas, Darwin hardly agreed with the message Malthus was spreading, Darwin just recognized that that idea of fitness and selection was a useful one as a general concept in nature. I would argue that the ideas of Malthus directly influenced the eugenics movement and related ideas much more than Darwin actually did.

Scientific illiteracy + no view of historical context = recipe for disaster.

Anti-intellectuals and religious fanatics like those that make up the core of the ID and Creationist movements are purposefully exploiting this, and it is a difficult tactic to counter because once the root of misinformation takes hold displacing it with fact is difficult. This is especially true when you consider that a good deal of their target audience is learning these lies from a pulpit and believe whatever their preacher says regardless of what evidence they are presented with to the contrary.

I might not live in the US but I am very concerned given the influence there, and increasingly such activities are being applied here in Canada as well but I think with far less effect. We tend to be a little bit more ambivalent about religion here, more like the Brits, than people on average are in the US even though we have no explicit separation of Church and State.

Comment #173346

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 3, 2007 11:50 AM (e)

Yes, Hitler was a paragon of science. This explains his concern about “Jewish science” and his sense that “superman” can be made via cultural means.

I don’t deny the use of “Darwinism” in the eugenics movement, naturally, and the Nazis were more amenable to using standard genetics for their own attempts at breeding than the bolsheviks (under Stalin) were. But what of that? Religion was long used for similar purposes, and well before the cultural aspect of “Darwinism” was pressed into service of existing prejudices.

It seems to me that those closest to a concept of a Jewish/Bolshevik/atheist conspiracy theory regarding science happen to be the creation of the IDists at DI today. My God no, we can’t have anything that those atheists or “leftist Jewish” groups believe in. We must go back to Christian views of science and of cultural/racial divisions, and the science which has shown us to all be one species and race (depends on definition of race, but using the general scientific definition we’re one race) is to be understood as unreliable and prejudiced.

That there is some truth in the use of “Darwinism” in eugenics seems to be a shift in strategy by the DI, that is, to make their false stories out of more than just whole cloth. There’s enough truth to confuse the people who wouldn’t be fooled by Sal’s latest bald-faced lying (UD had plenty who agreed with him, however).

I don’t think it’s true, though, that ID was a cover for something else, or at least no more than vice-versa. It’s all of one piece, to call their beliefs/prejudices the standard for truth and judgment, so that desired outcomes and the premises which they insist are “truth” are essentially the same thing. Indeed, they might be taking the “eugenics angle” now because they don’t need to lie quite so much about this as they do about their “science”, and if they can paint science as being “wrong” in one way or another they hope to smear the results of modern science by that proxy.

For it is as important to them that organisms were spoken into existence as that decrees and commands were spoken into existence. Everything must be judged by their holy beliefs, meaning that neither biology nor social science is to stand in the way of their license to rule.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o

Comment #173347

Posted by mark on May 3, 2007 11:57 AM (e)

There are still a few folks in the Dover, PA, area who haven’t accepted reality. The mention of Nazis above reminded me a a letter to the editor that appeared in the York Daily Record this week, in which the writer said

Our government-sanctioned genocide of more than 47 million people towers over Nazi Germany’s estimated 21 million.

And, of course, there is a link from Nazis to evolution:

With prayer, the Bible, and creation-supporting science removed from government schools, what remains is humanistic indoctrination. I was unsurprised to hear about the failure of godless abstinence teaching, as students are taught no accountability to God for their actions.

Comment #173349

Posted by harold on May 3, 2007 12:02 PM (e)

Blair -

Hitler may or may not have been “influenced” by Darwin for all I know.

There’s not much doubt that somebody, somewhere has surely justified support for some kind of brutal, inhumane policy by using terms like “natural selection” or the inaccurate, colloquial “survival of the fittest”.

It’s easy to observe that brutal, inhumane behavior and policies long predate modern science. Hitler certainly stands out in all of human history in both the scale and savagery of his evil actions, as does his contemporary Stalin (a vehement evolution denier), but the competition is stiff, and always has been. There is precious little evidence that the discovery and clarification of the theory of evolution has anything to do with inhumane, brutal behavior.

But it’s irrelevant at any rate. The theory of evolution is just the scientific explanation of how the diversity of cellular and post-cellular life arose on earth. It’s what the evidence shows. It has absolutely nothing to do with how we “should” behave (although it has something to do with how we “tend to” behave). If some evil dictator happens to have the education to understand the theory of evolution, or the “germ” theory of infectious disease, or the theory of relativity, that has nothing to do with the validity of the theories.

I doubt very strongly that Hitler had a correct understanding of the theory of evolution. However, I’m sure he believed many things that are true. I’m sure he believed that the sun “comes up” in the direction we call “east”, but that doesn’t mean that this fact is wrong, or that there is a connection between this observable fact and his political views.

Comment #173352

Posted by Vyoma on May 3, 2007 12:13 PM (e)

This is a strategy, if they have indeed adopted it (as opposed to simply having adopted Ann Coulter to bring them some name recognition), is almost guaranteed to blow up in their faces. It will repulse most sane people, even those in the religious right, for many of the same reasons that arguments based on “religious fascism” from the left repulses them. In America, at least, most people recognize equating peaceful people with Nazi genocide as the result of an unbalanced mind.

It’s rather easy to kick the legs out from under this argument, too. Essentially, it consists of a chain of concepts that runs Darwin —> eugenics —> Hitler, and so eugenics is often brought out as the intermediate bogeyman. The fact is, though, it’s not too difficult to demonstrate that it’s the misapplication of eugenic principles, and not the principles themselves, that causes problems. For instance, I don’t think that many people — even hardcore Creationists — oppose genetic counseling when couples whose respective families have a history of disorders decide whether or not to have a child… but such genetic counseling is a proper application of eugenics (at least, the vast majority of people would agree it is), because its goal is not to “purify the race,” but to prevent human suffering. It’s not based on abortion, nor even contraception, so even people who have a very conservative stance on reproductive politics are generally fine with such an application of eugenics.

So if what’s left of the Obfuscatory Institute really does think that this will turn out to be a fruitful tactic in their culture war, good for them. My suspicion is that just about everyone who hears it will ultimately be pointing and laughing.

Comment #173356

Posted by Steve Reuland on May 3, 2007 12:22 PM (e)

…the Discovery Institute has now adopted a cynical Plan B: If you can’t build your own house, you may as well tear your neighbor’s down.

And how is that any different than Plan A? You mean, there was a time when they did anything but attack evolution as being responsible for all the world’s ills and launch dishonest and nasty smear campaigns against the scientists who support it? I must have missed that phase.

Comment #173364

Posted by Vyoma on May 3, 2007 1:01 PM (e)

Blair wrote:

Edwin Black would definitely disagree with your apologetic for the role of various evolutionary theories in world politics.

Whats more, he backs in up.

Check out his material.

OK, I checked it out. Where in any of it does he lay the blame on evolutionary biology, as opposed to “prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy” and “legislated segregation and sterilization.” Moreover, where exactly does anyone in modern biology offer an “apologetic” for such activity, and where in the works of Darwin (which the DI is attacking with this new tactic, apparently) is it ever advanced as something desireable?

If anything, “prestigious academic fraud” immediately brings to mind another DI tactic, such as advancing people with academic credentials in areas totally unrelated to biology, or even science, as authorities in those fields. By the criteria Black is putting forward, it sounds to me as if such people would be much more in keeping with the foundations of the very scare tactic that’s being talked about.

Comment #173366

Posted by harold on May 3, 2007 1:36 PM (e)

Blair -

You seem to somewhat confused.

There are not “various evolutionary theories” from a scientific point of view.

No-one claims that we’re even close to knowing the entire story, but there is one unifying theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution does not logically justify brutal and inhumane behavior.

Neither, of course, does it provide the means of deciding whether some organisms or individuals are “better” or “worse” than others (it certainly allows us to see which are the most related to humans in various ways, a different matter).

Nor does its development correlate with an apparent increase in such behavior. For example, we have seen massive development of the theory of evolution since WWII - essentially, all of modern cellular and molecular biology, including the understanding of nucleic acid-based genetics.

Of course, some misguided individuals who promote inhumane policies such as eugenics, genocide, denial of medical care, or the like, may make use phrases that seem, to the layman, to be related to “evolution”. They may even claim that “Darwin” or “evolution” justifies their policies. They may also claim that “God” supports their policies. So what? In most cases, such people don’t even understand (or care about) the actual science. Even if they do, they’re still wrong. There’s nothing to apologize for.

If anything, it’s possible to make a weak case that the theory of evolution argues in favor of humane behavior. We evolved the capacity for empathy, the ability to control the environment, and the capacity to relieve as well as produce the suffering of others. However, even this is rather tenuous.

The theory of evolution simply explains how the physical diversity of cellular and post-cellular life on earth developed and will continue to develop. That is its sole contribution, and that contribution is more than enough. Those who perceive the theory of evolution as an ethical or theological work are the victims of bad education (or have deliberately chosen to educate themselves badly).

It seems that perhaps you want to argue that some bad people “believe in” or “be influenced by” the theory of evolution, so therefore evolution must not be true. But that doesn’t make sense. Bad people believe in gravity, bad people believe that Henry VIII was a real person, bad people believe that the earth rotates the sun, bad people are influenced by Shakespeare, who cares?

Comment #173367

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on May 3, 2007 1:54 PM (e)

It seems that perhaps you want to argue that some bad people “believe in” or “be influenced by” the theory of evolution, so therefore evolution must not be true. But that doesn’t make sense. Bad people believe in gravity, bad people believe that Henry VIII was a real person, bad people believe that the earth rotates the sun, bad people are influenced by Shakespeare, who cares?

It’s worse than that. You could argue that bad people “believe” in the theories of atomic bonding when they construct explosives. You could argue that bad people “believe” in Newton’s theory of gravity when they aim a gun (using ballistics) or when they drop bombs on someone. You could argue that bad people “believe” in Bernoulli’s principles when they pilot airplanes into buildings.

Application of scientific facts (which these theories are, from the point of view of a well tested theory), irrespective of how repellent those applications may be, never negates the facts, only points out that they can be misused.

On a related note, from (of course, Talk Origins Index to Creationist Claims):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html…
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.ht…

Comment #173376

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on May 3, 2007 4:16 PM (e)

GvlGeologist, FCD wrote:

You could argue that bad people “believe” in Bernoulli’s principles when they pilot airplanes into buildings.

So you are saying creationists “believe” in evolution when they get vaccinated?! Seems there are no creationists in sick beds!

Comment #173379

Posted by Thanatos on May 3, 2007 4:46 PM (e)

raven wrote:

In Iraq, two muslim sects brutally kill each other in large numbers on a daily basis over an obscure theological point in a dispute that has been going on for 1400 years.

guys although literally the above
(and other similar comments and views ,over many global geopolitical issues,
expressed here and elsewhere in the past and present)
is kind of true ,I just cannot see how you manage not to put in the picture
the west’s divide and conquer attitude and strategy over the
arab world-middle east
since the fall of the ottoman empire in WWI till the present occupation of iraq.
(initially performed mostly by the British Empire and nowadays mainly by the US)

the west in a way,in order to keep petroleum “cheap” and “accessible” has been
keeping arabs illiterate ,divided and weak.
when a once favoured “leader” in the arab world-league seems
to get too much power (remember nasser,sadam?),
we conveniently “support” the centrofugal forces.
concentrating on their dark-age beliefs and practices is one thing.
they are indeed stupid.
forgeting (even if unconciously) to mention that in a way
WE are keeping them thus, is ,well,at least unscientific.

Comment #173380

Posted by GuyeFaux on May 3, 2007 4:48 PM (e)

So you are saying creationists “believe” in evolution when they get vaccinated?!

Do Creatonists go in for flu shots? Seriously, I’d like to know.

Comment #173384

Posted by GuyeFaux on May 3, 2007 4:56 PM (e)

I just cannot see how you manage not to put in the picture
the west’s divide and conquer attitude and strategy over the
arab world-middle east
since the fall of the ottoman empire in WWI till the present occupation of iraq.

Because it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand in general and has nothing to do with Raven’s point in particular.

Comment #173385

Posted by daenku32 on May 3, 2007 4:57 PM (e)

I suppose it is only a matter of time until terrorists start using dirty bombs, or even an actual nuke. Then, the Discovery Institution can also connect the Atomic Theory to pure evil (some might argue that is not necessary to consider nuclear bombs evil, but hey, let’s consider DI’s political slant here).

Comment #173389

Posted by GvlGeologist, FCD on May 3, 2007 5:18 PM (e)

So you are saying creationists “believe” in evolution when they get vaccinated?! Seems there are no creationists in sick beds!

I’d say that they’re dealing with a pretty strong disconnect here. And didn’t PT recently finish a long series of posts about a particular neurosurgeon who denied any connection between medicine and evolution?

Comment #173390

Posted by realpc on May 3, 2007 5:20 PM (e)

I agree with PT on this, and I think the DI is making big mistakes. Criticizing Darwinism because of eugenics or Social Darwinism is like criticizing the theory of relativity because it led to the atom bomb.

A theory is true or it isn’t. We can’t stamp out the theory of relativity just because we don’t like some of it’s uses, and we can’t stamp out Darwinism just because we don’t like some of its implications.

As I have said here many times before, I believe in some aspects of Darwin’s theory and I disagree with others. My reasons are scientific and logical, not sentimental.

The DI often fails to separate emotion from science, which damages their credibility.

Of course, PT does the same thing in reverse. You want religion to be a delusion, for emotional reasons.

Comment #173392

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 3, 2007 5:30 PM (e)

Note: the posters named Ed, Blairsman, and Cocky on this thread are all the same person. Posting under multiple identities is against our Comment Integrity Policy. All comments by this person on this thread have been unpublished. If this person wants to post here, they need to choose one name and stick with it.

Comment #173394

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 3, 2007 5:35 PM (e)

realpc writes,

“PT does the same thing in reverse. You want religion to be a delusion, for emotional reasons.”

No. “PT” is a group of people with a variety of opinions about religion - we certainly do not hold to any monolithic viewpoint. I, for instance, do not “want religion to be a delusion.” Please don’t over-generalize about the contributors to PT: we are a diverse bunch with lots of different perspectives on lots of things, but with a common commitment to supporting science.

Comment #173397

Posted by CJO on May 3, 2007 5:38 PM (e)

You want religion to be a delusion, for emotional reasons.

Uh, you misspelled “I want you to want religion to be a delusion, for emotional reasons.”

Comment #173399

Posted by Thanatos on May 3, 2007 5:58 PM (e)

GuyeFaux wrote:

Because it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand in general and has nothing to do with Raven’s point in particular.

how convenient!

so one can bring up points(global political,geopolitical,cultural,etc)
like the ones below

In Iraq, two muslim sects brutally kill each other in large numbers on a daily basis over an obscure theological point in a dispute that has been going on for 1400 years.

Now the DI is taking their road show to Europe:

Hitler certainly stands out in all of human history in both the scale and savagery of his evil actions, as does his contemporary Stalin (a vehement evolution denier), but the competition is stiff, and always has been

Hitler was influenced by a variety of factors, including Martin Luther’s anti semitism, Nietzsche’s Will to Power, and Darwins idea (which he accepted although it was a later addition) of the “survival of the fittest.”

Scientific illiteracy + no view of historical context = recipe for disaster.

It seems to me that those closest to a concept of a Jewish/Bolshevik/atheist conspiracy theory regarding science

I suppose it is only a matter of time until terrorists start using dirty bombs, or even an actual nuke. Then, the Discovery Institution can also connect the Atomic Theory to pure evil (some might argue that is not necessary to consider nuclear bombs evil, but hey, let’s consider DI’s political slant here).

but one cannot examine the causes-generators and the involvement of the west in the
fathering of muslim fanatism and “terrorism”.

I understand that the main topic are the DI and ID,eugenics,Darwin and Hitler etc.
nevertheless arguments and facts that touch upon other “realms” and topics have been presented.
(as presented above)
and it wouldn’t be the first time,I believe,that the posting in a thread diverged from the initial topic.

and again and again I’ve been reading here at the PT (and elsewhere)
threads and posts ,that although are very informative,educating and fun :-) (thank you guys!),
with regards to global issues they are usually very “naive” and/or american-view-centered and/or
ignoring many important key facts-factors.
I just-only wanted to mention that.
if you guys don’t want to continue on my point-argument,simply don’t.
again I just-only-simply wanted to mention that.

Comment #173401

Posted by GuyeFaux on May 3, 2007 6:07 PM (e)

I just-only wanted to mention that.
if you guys don’t want to continue on my point-argument,simply don’t.
again I just-only-simply wanted to mention that.

I have no problems with you connecting whatever dots you like. It’s this accusatory question I responded to:

I just cannot see how you manage not to put in the picture…

Comment #173404

Posted by GuyeFaux on May 3, 2007 6:13 PM (e)

Of course, PT does the same thing in reverse. You want religion to be a delusion, for emotional reasons.

Realpc, you post on PT, do you not? I suppose this means you want religion to be a delusion, for emotional reasons.

Comment #173405

Posted by Thanatos on May 3, 2007 6:24 PM (e)

this

GuyeFaux wrote:

I have no problems with you connecting whatever dots you like. It’s this accusatory question I responded to:

is quite unlike this

Because it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand in general and has nothing to do with Raven’s point in particular.

Anyway
my “accusation” ,as mentioned ,was made de facto.not de jure.

but in order to be civil and polite let me rephrase:

I would like I just cannot see how you manage not to put in the picture…

ok now?

Comment #173407

Posted by David B. Benson on May 3, 2007 6:27 PM (e)

GuyeFaux — Most people have both gray and white matter between their ears. realpc seems to have only black matter, and not much of that…

Comment #173409

Posted by GuyeFaux on May 3, 2007 6:50 PM (e)

my “accusation” ,as mentioned ,was made de facto.not de jure.

Understood.

In which case let me point out that the

west’s divide and conquer attitude and strategy

is a clear consequence of the theory of rational numbers.

Comment #173410

Posted by Thanatos on May 3, 2007 6:58 PM (e)

ok understood,
and let me then point out to you
that the sky seems to be blue
since my favourite colour usually seems to be blue.
unfortunately when my favourite colour
seems to be green (I neeeeed moore weeeeeeed)
the sky seems to be not green but multicolored.
A phaenomenon that
is a clear consequence of the theory of irrational numbers.

Comment #173429

Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on May 3, 2007 9:05 PM (e)

GvlGeologist wrote:

And didn’t PT recently finish a long series of posts about a particular neurosurgeon who denied any connection between medicine and evolution?

Sorry, I guess I Egnored him. So, which sickbeds does he get into? The blonds or the brunettes?

David wrote:

realpc seems to have only black matter

Pity it isn’t dark matter, because it would only interact imperceptibly weakly (gravitation) with other matter. Seems black matter, while obviously very weakly interacting, is more bothersome.

So the Standard Theory of Trolls admits black matter? Interesting, earlier I only saw evidence for a bozonic sector…

Comment #173465

Posted by Vyoma on May 4, 2007 5:20 AM (e)

Rank_f_n_khonsu wrote:

A theory is true or it isn’t. We can’t stamp out the theory of relativity just because we don’t like some of it’s uses, and we can’t stamp out Darwinism just because we don’t like some of its implications.

Good news, dummy. There’s no such theory as “Darwinism,” so there’s no worry about whether it gets stamped out or not.

As I have said here many times before, I believe in some aspects of Darwin’s theory and I disagree with others. My reasons are scientific and logical, not sentimental.

Your reasons are a cross between innate stupidity and brain damage due to drug use.

Of course, PT does the same thing in reverse. You want religion to be a delusion, for emotional reasons.

Tobey is an expert in delusions. How’s that necromancy going, Harry Potter?

Comment #173471

Posted by Jack Krebs on May 4, 2007 7:04 AM (e)

Sorry Vyoma. I unpublished your last comment because the post it was responding was also unpublished because its author, “Dissident,” is banned here under all his/her various incarnations.

Comment #173472

Posted by Vyoma on May 4, 2007 7:06 AM (e)

Jack Krebs wrote:

Sorry Vyoma. I unpublished your last comment…

Not a problem, Jack. Hard to keep track of the trolls without a program!

Comment #173513

Posted by Aaron Pozdol on May 4, 2007 12:24 PM (e)

Heh…did anyone else watch “V”? Science=Nazism has been here since the early 80’s.

Comment #173548

Posted by Jason Spaceman on May 4, 2007 3:20 PM (e)

This has not fazed the Discovery Institute, which is now concentrating on the culture war tactic of associating science (“Darwinism”) with Nazism, eugenics and other cultural evils.

John Derbyshire (at the National Review) recently debated John West and some others at the AEI. According to Derbyshire, John West tried to pull an “reductio ad Hitlerum” on the audience:

(B) John was a bit too free with “reductio ad Hitlerum” arguments, and other kinds of guilt-by-association. (A favorite with I.D.-ers is to yoke Darwin with Marx and Freud—since they were wrong, he must have been too! Yes, this is thin stuff, but it’ll get you out of a corner in debate.)

I warned John in the debate that this could backfire, since an opponent—in this case me—could start telling the audience about some of the people who cleave passionately to Intelligent Design—Islamic fundamentalists, for example. Me: “I’ll trade your Adolf Hitler card for my Osama bin Laden card…”

Comment #173555

Posted by Rockefeller Excellent on May 4, 2007 3:58 PM (e)

The counter-argument needs to be properly framed:

They’re wrong because the link between Darwin and Hitler is eugenics. But eugenics is ARTIFICIAL selection applied to humans and Darwinism is about NATURAL selection. They are completely different things.

Comment #173558

Posted by I HAVE NO RESPECT FOR YOU on May 4, 2007 4:03 PM (e)

They sure are! And Darwin made comparisons to artificial selection all the time.

Who ya kiddin?

Comment #173561

Posted by Rockefeller Excellent on May 4, 2007 4:12 PM (e)

If Darwin compared his theory to Artifical Selection, it means that he couldn’t be responsible for artificial selection, as it predated his theory.

Since eugenics was an application of artificial selection to humans, Darwin isn’t responsible for eugenics because, again, artificial selection predated his theory

Comment #173572

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2007 4:31 PM (e)

He has banned whole library systems out of stupidity.

you had a typo there, here, let me correct it for you:

“He has banned whole library systems of stupidity.”

you just had an extra word in there which made your statement meaningless….and that must have been one small library, even so.

Comment #173577

Posted by Chip Poirot on May 4, 2007 4:57 PM (e)

There is an interesting tidbit that accompanies the Discovery Institute’s campaign equating Darwin with Hitler and that is a sudden discovery of the virtues of Neanderthal as an oppressed marginalized minority.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/neanderthal…

This has got to be one of the most amazing displays of outright misrepresentation. It goes to a level that one would think even the DI would know better not to stoop to.

Anybody who knows the first thing about biological (physical) anthropology and even someone who has read an introductory chapter in some of the more science oriented cultural anthropology texts would immediately shake their heads and exclaim a hearty WTF?

Firstly, anthropologists have spent the better part of three decades debating Neanderthal’s relationship to modern homo sapiens. It’s not like they’ve ignored the issue. Second, even those who argue against the view that Neanderthal’s contributed to modern human DNA have long recognized that Neanderthal had some level of intelligence and complex social organization.

Now the DI is using Neanderthal’s newly discovered marginalized minority status as an “icon of evolution.” Even Wells is not that pathetically, abysmally disengenuous.

It’s not as if I ever doubted these people’s bad faith, I just don’t think I realized how deep that bad faith was till now.

One of the regular contributors to PT ought to do a separate entry about this one.

Comment #173584

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2007 5:52 PM (e)

Anybody who knows the first thing about biological (physical) anthropology and even someone who has read an introductory chapter in some of the more science oriented cultural anthropology texts would immediately shake their heads and exclaim a hearty WTF?

just to confirm, *ahem*:

WTF??!!

Comment #173595

Posted by cpoirot@shawnee.edu on May 4, 2007 7:13 PM (e)

Sir Toejam,

Do you have a point?

Given your history in mischaracterizing and misrepresenting my views, I’m not enthusiastic about engaging you on any level at all.

I think the post speaks for itself.

Do you have a problem with it?

Comment #173596

Posted by Vyoma on May 4, 2007 7:25 PM (e)

Chip Poirot wrote:

This has got to be one of the most amazing displays of outright misrepresentation. It goes to a level that one would think even the DI would know better not to stoop to.

Anybody who knows the first thing about biological (physical) anthropology and even someone who has read an introductory chapter in some of the more science oriented cultural anthropology texts would immediately shake their heads and exclaim a hearty WTF?

I looked at it and came close to a WTF. My wife, an anthropologist, also looked at the DI’s bit and said, “Who says Neanderthal’s weren’t intelligent?” Mind you, my ol’ lady was formerly an assistant to one of the people who was working on Homo floresiensis and got a pretty potent, current education on early man and hominids.

Even the documentaries I’ve seen on the Discovery Channel and the like have said that Neanderthals were quite bright for at least the last seven or eight years.

How do these people manage to reconcile their supposedly religiously-inspired morality with the constant stream of lies they produce? For all of their supposed concerns about the amorality of science, I can’t see that they have the slightest shred of integrity themselves. They’d sell their mothers into brothels if they thought it’d win their “culture war” for them.

Comment #173613

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2007 9:14 PM (e)

Do you have a problem with it?

no, idiot, I was agreeing with you and giving a hearty WTF in response the the DI article.

as to mischaracterizing other’s arguments, you take the cake on that one.

thanks for reminding me.

Comment #173669

Posted by Ron Okimoto on May 5, 2007 8:10 AM (e)

There are obvious reason that the intelligent design creationist scam failed. It was not even good enough for the creationist scam artists that were running the scam and they came up with a replacement scam years before they had to run the bait and switch on Ohio or fail in court in Dover. Insanity is their only defense for coming up with junk like evolution and the Nazis. Any sane person just has to look at who the Nazis are today, or groups like the Militia with their church that claims that mud people can be killed with impunity (mud people are any persons that are not white). These splinter groups from the KKK are not evolutionists. Just think if their arguments held water and were good reasons to argue against the science of biological evolution. What would that mean for their own beliefs?

Comment #173713

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on May 5, 2007 1:46 PM (e)

There’s more from RSR.

Comment #173751

Posted by harold on May 5, 2007 6:57 PM (e)

Rockefeller Excellent and Troll-of-a-Thousand-names -

Darwin did indeed point out that domesticated species are an obvious example of natural variation being acted on by selection.

Humans are “natural”, and there is nothing inherently different about human selection of domestic species, essentially a form of symbiosis, and natural selection by other factors. Of course, selection by human farmers has only been going on for a rather short time (tens of thousands of years at most), and the human tendency is to try to keep a phenotype stable once it achieves certain characteristics.

As is obvious to anyone who is capable of rational thought, Darwin’s personal character is irrelevant to the validity of his scientific work. Darwin happened to be a nice person by almost any standards (and a church goer). Of course, he should be judged relative to his contemporaries. This is, however, irrelevant, and there are many examples of ingenious, creative scientific work done by bad people. It doesn’t make the science less valid.

Eugenics was an inhumane and unethical social policy. In practice, it was as remarkable for its scientific vacuity as for its savage disregard for human dignity. It can, I suppose, be viewed as a grossly incompetent and unethical attempt to apply agricultural selection to humans.

Unlike Darwin, computer pioneer William Shockley tragically degenerated into racism and belated support for eugenics late in life. It should be remembered that Shockley may have suffered from traumatic brain damage or mental illness when he developed these views, and that, like a few other arrogant physical scientists, he seems to have lacked the discipline to actually learn any real biology. It doesn’t make his real scientific work any less valid, though.

Arguing endlessly that bad people have originated, accepted or developed evolution, so therefore it must be wrong, is irrational. In the first place, it’s extremely easy to find examples of bad people originating, accepting or developing valid science. The Nazis had bad biologists and medical researchers, if they could be said to have any, but they had good physicists. In the second place, in the case of the theory evolution, virtually all of the proferred claims of endorsement or inspiration by bad people prove to be factually incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley

Comment #173763

Posted by B. Spitzer on May 5, 2007 8:29 PM (e)

This is only marginally on-topic, but Amazon.com just sent me a heads-up e-mail about a new book, “Creation and the Courts: Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom” by Norman Geisler. It’s on-topic because, if you visit Amazon and peruse the few sample pages that are available, you’ll quickly find that it’s trying to sell the same Darwin = racism = Hitler = eugenics fabrication that the DI is currently peddling. One of the co-authors is Duane Gish, so perhaps it’s not surprising that this new book deals in misrepresentation.

I wrote a review based on the few sample pages. It hasn’t appeared yet (maybe Amazon doesn’t allow reviews based on only the samples?). Perhaps other PT denizens would like to help give this book a hearty welcome to the reality-based world with their own reviews.

B. Spitzer

Here is the link.

Comment #174195

Posted by Ron Okimoto on May 8, 2007 7:14 AM (e)

Frank wrote:

To all of you reading this, I’m curious, when and how did you realize that?

In reference to “science” being just a cover for the ID scam.

I knew that their “scientific” arguments were bogus for years. I’d seen Philip Johnson give his speel in Michigan around 1994. Like most other people on the science side of the issue I just pointed out how they were misrepresenting science and the evidence. I didn’t start calling ID a scam until they ran the bait and switch scam on the Ohio creationist rubes in 2002. The Ohio rubes had obviously bought into the ID junk, and it turned out that even the ID advocates didn’t have enough faith in their “science” to put up anything worth teaching. The ID scam artists had sold the creationist rubes on ID, but what did the the rubes end up with? Not only did the replacement scam that Meyer gave to the Ohio rubes not mention ID had ever existed, but the Ohio rubes demonstrated why they were willing to take a replacement scam from the same guys that they knew had lied to them about ID, by putting creationist web links as additional teaching material, and taking dishonest junk right out of Wells’ scam book without checking it out. They removed that junk from the lesson plan, but why did it get in there to begin with? Even the replacement scam wasn’t interested in teaching the science, and just demonstrated their religious motivations.

It wasn’t hard to start calling ID a dishonest scam after that because that is what it was. It was just part of a bait and switch scam where the scam artists didn’t have any intention of teaching anything about ID and were more interested in pushing their political agenda. Meyer had written up an essay on the legal ramifications of the “teach the controversy” replacement scam back in 1999, years before they had to use it in Ohio. These guys knew ID was cooked that long ago. Why did the Discovery Institute work so hard to keep the Grantburg WI school board from teaching ID? Why didn’t they support teaching ID in Dover? Why are they now pushing “critical analysis,” (the new name for teach the controversy) a replacement scam that can’t even mention that creationism or ID ever existed? Aren’t they the same dishonest perps that ran the ID scam for years? One obvious conclusion is that ID never amounted to what they needed to have anything worth teaching. Not only that, but you can conclude that they knew this years ago, before they started ISCID and ARN. All ID was to them was smoke to make their replacement scam look legit. If ID couldn’t be mentioned among the controversies, what controversies were they talking about teaching?

Even if you claim that they may have had honest convictions that they were onto something and that even as they prepared to run the bait and switch there was a chance that they wouldn’t have to use it, why support such dishonest incompetents? Well, they had to use the bait and switch scam, and ID still hasn’t amounted to jack or they wouldn’t be pushing the replacement scam. So what is there to support about ID?

The sad thing is that all the ID scam artists like Meyer are using ID for at the moment is as smoke to fool the creationist rubes into thinking that there is something that creationists believe that is worthwhile to critically analyze. That is all ID is at the moment. The new scam is just an obfuscation scam to try and keep the students as ignorant of the real science as they can. It doesn’t even mention ID or anything else that the creationist want to teach.

My guess is that even the ID proponents admit that ID was just a political scam. They might want it to be more, but it never became more, and is even less today.