Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


James von Brunn, Evolutionist

posted by David Klinghoffer

Now isn’t this fascinating. James von Brunn, the white-supremacist suspect in today’s Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting in which the guard who was shot has now tragically died, describes the relevance of evolution to his sick thinking. He’s obsessed with “genetics.” He writes in his manifesto (emphasis added):

Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God’s children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal. These genocidal ideologies, preached from the American pulpits, taught in American schools, legislated in the halls of Congress (confirming TALMUDIC conviction that goyim are stupid sheep), are expected to produce a single, superintelligent, beautiful, non-White “American” population. Eliminating forever racism, inequality, bigotry and war. As with ALL LIBERAL ideologies, miscegenation is totally inconsistent with Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally deprived mongrels. Throughout history improvident Whites have miscegenated. The “brotherhood” concept is not new (as LIBERALS pretend) nor are the results — which are inevitably disastrous for the White Race — evident today, for example, in the botched populations of Cuba, Mexico, Egypt, India, and the inner cities of contemporary America.

This wacko despises Christianity, too, though not quite as much as he does Judaism. Like Hitler in Mein Kampf, he draws lessons from his interpretation of Darwinism. He’s very big on dangers to the Aryan “gene pool.” The subtitle of his book promies: “A New Hard-Hitting Exposé Of The JEW CONSPIRACY To Destroy The White Gene-Pool.”
Other thoughts in this pseudo-scientific vein:

Our Founding Fathers were Aryans, men of good breeding who understood, empirically, the great differences existing between strains of horses; strains of live-stock; races of men; and between individuals: knowledge confirmed today by the natural sciences of Genetics, Eugenics, and Anthropology. Hitler, as American boobs are beginning to learn, was not all wrong.

Also this:

[T]o the astonishment of the world, Chancellor Adolph Hitler, who emphasized genetics and the homogeneity of the Aryan race, led Germany to an amazing spiritual and economic recovery.

No, he doesn’t cite Darwin by name in the part of his book that’s readable online — the first 6 of 12 chapters. But do you get the general drift? And you want to tell me that ideas don’t have consequences?


Advertisement
Comments read comments(140)
post a comment
The Dissident

posted June 10, 2009 at 6:12 pm


This link should explain what you’re looking for, don’t skip over the other embedded links in the text.



report abuse
 

Nagrom

posted June 10, 2009 at 6:32 pm


Wow… Way to twist a tragic and horrible event to suit your own ends.
Not to defend the white supremacist murderer, but simply talking about genetics and the reproductive exchange of genetic material doesn’t mark someone as an evolutionist.
Plenty of Creation Scientists accept, and use, modern genetics as a means of developing and advancing their own theories. They certainly are not evolutionists.
Your feeble attempt to tie a a horrible event, bound to prompt strong emotional reactions, to your ludicrous cause is extremely petty, and sickening.
This should be an event that brings people together in sorrow and mourning, in solidarity against hate and needless violence. Not an event that is used by small minds to drive greater wedges between people.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 10, 2009 at 6:48 pm


Nagrom, Why is just straight news reporting to say the guy hated Jews but it’s “twisting” a tragic event to suit my own ends when I quote his own explanation of why he hates Jews, which the media so far have declined to do? Give me a break.



report abuse
 

George

posted June 10, 2009 at 6:49 pm


So if Brunn believed in Jesus we’d label him a Christian? And where does evolution enter the equation? He’s racist. Racism predates Darwin. So you can’t pin racism on evolution.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 10, 2009 at 7:00 pm


George, if he were a Christian and attributed his hate to his religion, that would be reported and rightly so. In fact he’s an evolutionist and justifies his hate with talk of “genetics,” but this is not reported. Why not?



report abuse
 

John

posted June 10, 2009 at 7:01 pm


James Von Brun was, unsurprisingly, an active Christian, who believed that he was doing God’s work. To try now to distance yourself from him is perverse, and very definitely unChristian. You should be ashamed. He was acting as he believed Jesus wants, just as you are.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm


David,
Are you really blaming the theory of evolution for today’s events?
I’m not going to cite examples here, but people have used all of our religions and traditions throughout history to justify destructive hate-filled agendas.
That doesn’t make any of those traditions or religions responsible.
I leave room in my life to believe that the set of things I believe in might not be true. That set of beliefs includes evolution, and the same God you worship (although I’m not Jewish). I have faith in what I believe. They define me.
Von Brunn had a set of beliefs as well. Like me, he believed in evolution. He also believed that the color of his skin or his ancestry made him better than anybody different. He then took one of his beliefs and twisted it to fuel a hate that I hope none of us will ever feel. Then he took the sad step of taking action on it.
Tonight, when I pray, I will remember the guard gunned down today. I will also remember and pray for Von Brunn. I’m not sure it will help him or anybody. But, I believe it is what God requires of us and loves for us to do.
But once again, I’m open to the possibility that I could be wrong about all of this, and you could be absolutely right.
Shalom.
what I believe might not be true



report abuse
 

DML

posted June 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm


It is offensive to lump this guy together with evolution. This blog goes way beyond the pale. Its time for Beliefnet to end this blog.



report abuse
 

itsumoai

posted June 10, 2009 at 7:41 pm


I hope that one day you can find the love and peace. I hope that you can release the anger that has built up inside you so much that you feel the need to lash out against others who do not hold your views.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 10, 2009 at 7:47 pm


David, this is really beneath you. It’s like saying, “Dr. Baruch Goldstein, Jew”, and defending this by saying, “Well, he justified shooting up the Muslims at the Cave of the Patriarchs by his Jewish beliefs.” This would, of course, be disingenuous, as such a statement would clearly imply that Jews or those who hold Jewish beliefs are ipso facto Muslim-haters and potential Muslim-killers. But, hey, if the twisted beliefs of one lone maniac are allowed to impugn evolution as a scientific concept, I guess the twisted beliefs of one lone maniac can impugn an entire religion by the same logic, huh?
For that matter, you might as well say, “James von Brunn, Gentile” (we all know the history Gentiles have of killing and oppressing Jews, and I’m sure he bought into some of this ideology) or “James von Brunn, of German extraction (Germans? ‘Nuff said!) or “James von Brunn, gun owner” (because we all know what homicidal freaks most gun owners are, right?) or “James von Brunn, Christian, as commenter John would apparently like us to do (can’t trust them Christians!). Heck, the Spaniards had the racist concept of limpieza de sangre (“purity of blood”) which they used against even converted Jews long before Darwin or evolution or modern eugenics–why not blame them, while you’re at it?
I like reading your stuff, David, because you write thoughtfully, interestingly, and movingly on many contemporary issues, especially those regarding the Jewish faith. It is sad that you are allowing your apparent hatred of evolution and those who support it to distort and taint your considerable talent. Stuff like this post is really far, far beyond the pale.



report abuse
 

Zac

posted June 10, 2009 at 7:53 pm


Unless you are prepared to accept the argument that anti-abortion ideology turns people into terrorists because of the recent murder of Dr. Tiller, then don’t anyone dare attempt to make a link between evolutionary biology and today’s tragedy.
von Brunn’s writings are completely erroneous, he doesn’t even know the first thing about evolutionary science. Breeding within a limited gene pool (within the white race, for example) is DETRIMENTAL to evolutionary development because it LIMITS genetic diversity. Miscegenation is the BEST possible thing for evolution. von Brunn is attempting to legitimize his disgusting racist beliefs by making them appear scientific. It is clear to anyone who really understands how evolution works why he has failed spectacularly.
Moreover, I can’t believe how simplistic the thinking behind David Klinghoffer’s argument is. Just because von Brunn seems to accept evolutionary science doesn’t mean evolution is wrong. I’ll also point out that von Brunn appears to hate Marxism. Does this mean that we should embrace Marxism now, because James von Brunn is against it? Of course not. The logic behind Klinghoffer’s argument is severely flawed.
Klinghoffer appears to be trying to make the argument that evolutionary science turns people into murderous racists, as if before Darwin published his discoveries there was no such thing as racism or anti-Semitism. The fact of the matter is that people have always been racist and violent, often for religious reasons, and I find it disgusting and opportunistic to use today’s tragedy to promote a divisive and anti-scientific dogma. Even if there was a link between evolutionary science and extremist thinking (which there is not), this would not change the fact that evolution is undeniably true, just like how the wicked and evil use of the atomic bomb does not invalidate the science upon which it is based.
I would also like to point out that on von Brunn’s website holywesternempire.org he has proudly posted a letter in which a Navy admiral says that von Brunn “has upheld the basic element of White Christian Civilization.” Wow! I could use this to say that Christianity causes white supremacist ideology but I won’t because whether or not someone is a horrible person is completely separate from their religious beliefs.
This guy von Brunn is a disgusting whack-job who does not even understand evolutionary science, and whether or not he believes in the scientifically attested fact of evolution is irrelevant to the fact that he is a psychotic racist.



report abuse
 

Greg B

posted June 10, 2009 at 7:57 pm


Quick clarification on evolution:
Racists and those promoting eugenics usually misrepresent Evolution in this same close minded fashion.
Inbreeding, interbreeding, and crossbreeding makes no difference in the grand scheme of Evolution. Whatever process works best in a particular environment, works. (Though, data does suggest the more varied the gene pool, the more adaptive and successful a species will be.)
Racists promote breeding in the same race because it fits their preexisting worldview.
It doesn’t mean evolution will inevitably lead to his conclusion… It means racists will take evolution to this conclusion.
Would you not agree that similar thinking could warp religious philosophy to included genocide according to warped doctrine?



report abuse
 

Nate

posted June 10, 2009 at 8:07 pm


Somebody’s been watching too much Kent Hovind.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted June 10, 2009 at 9:27 pm


David Klinghoffer:

Holocaust Memorial Shooting: Don’t Hyperventilate
….
But don’t draw any dramatic conclusions from this.

David Klinghoffer:

No, he doesn’t cite Darwin by name in the part of his book that’s readable online — the first 6 of 12 chapters. But do you get the general drift? And you want to tell me that ideas don’t have consequences?

PZ Myers:

It’s about time the US law enforcement agencies recognized that the real terrorist groups in this country aren’t populated by people with funny arabic names: they’re homegrown, and they’ve got European names like von Brunn and McVeigh and Roeder…and even Terry and O’Reilly.

The only sensible statement of the three is the first one, when David knew that ridiculous conclusions about “right-wingers” and “the religious” would soon be forthcoming.
Let’s see, how firm a conclusion can one make with a set consisting of a single event? None. David knew that, until he realized he could make anti-evolutionistic propaganda out of this incident.
von Brunn on inbreeding:

the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation.

Darwin on inbreeding:

Darwin’s verdict was clear: “Cross-fertilisation is generally beneficial, and self-fertilisation injurious.” It was “as unmistakably plain that innumerable flowers are adapted for cross-fertilisation, as that the teeth and talons of a carnivorous animal are adapted for catching prey”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/19/charles-darwin

Oh yeah, he was about as good a disciple of Darwin as Hitler was. And I like this source because it not only gives Darwin’s view on inbreeding, but it’s also essentially the modern view.
Which doesn’t change the fact that both Hitler and von Brunn debauched a particular science (the fact that neither mentioned Darwin in their writings doesn’t change that fact) to try to “justify” their unscientific claptrap.
As if that is a new tactic, or confined to “Darwinism.”
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592



report abuse
 

zach

posted June 10, 2009 at 10:47 pm


“And you want to tell me that ideas don’t have consequences?” Of course they do, which is why the idea of deicide was used by so many “good Christians” throughout history to justify the murder, torture, and confiscation of property, of countless Jews.



report abuse
 

Shaun Patrick

posted June 11, 2009 at 1:45 am


let’s be honest, almost certainly all 2000 or so “Gods” are make believe (even though Billions believe only 1999 are fake but 1 is real).
So relax and enjoy life,…. or hand quit trying to link this Brunn maniac to atheism. Want me to link the Tiller Killer to Christianity?



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 11, 2009 at 2:07 am


Shaun, you don’t have to trouble yourself to link Scott Roeder, Tiller’s murderer, with Christianity. Many pro-choice writers and other media figures have done that already. If that’s fair, why is it not fair simply to point out another killer’s evolutionist passions?



report abuse
 

Den

posted June 11, 2009 at 3:21 am


I can’t believe you would have the audacity to link a right wing militant white supremacist with the belief of evolution. I take that back. I can believe you would have the audacity to do so, but it is idiotic. The man was vile and wretched.
As a Christian… and a fervent academic with a bachelor in religious studies, a masters and doctorate in theology… it makes me sick to my stomach that some of my fellow Christians are so entrenched in the ridiculous belief that evolution does not exist.
We can dig deep through the scripture, but nowhere does it out right deny the possibility of evolution. A simple understanding of cultural oral history and the difficulty of getting those stories to paper… and what is lost in translation… and what is just story telling… would go a long way in firmly establishing the message of scripture without getting bogged down by strict interpretation of the English version of the scripture (which in itself had been translated several times over hundreds of years before it was put into English).
Use your God given brain… and look at the adaptive ability of influenza. We come up with a vaccine every year to deal with different strains. Each year, a different strain spreads and grows. Animals are much the same and over thousands of years… animals have adjusted to their environments. To think otherwise… is foolish.



report abuse
 

Em

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:42 am


Darwinism, as any idea/theory, can be corrupted and twisted. Apart from the fact that von Brunn offers a strange concept of this particular facette of science (“species are improved through in-breeding”; which even a layman can assess as being nonsense), I regret reading once again that some Christians rather shun historic and scientific evidence of the world and instead rely completely on a 2000 year old book that may be right about a lot of things but is hardly a guideline for scientific accuracy.



report abuse
 

Raging Bee

posted June 11, 2009 at 10:16 am


So, Mr. Klinghoffer, do you always take the self-justifying excuses of murdering bigots at face value?
And did it ever occur to you that, by using his self-justifyng excuses to support your agenda, you are, in effect, excusing his vile actions?
Recovering the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible: UR DOIN IT WRONG!



report abuse
 

Michael Heath

posted June 11, 2009 at 10:35 am


Scientific theories are descriptive, not prescriptive.
The level of scientific illiteracy in this country continues to astonish me.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 11, 2009 at 10:42 am


If the white Caucasian race would wake up they would see that God is in the process of punishing them for what they have not done over the last 3000 years. If modern day christiandumb would wake up and study the Scriptures(Old Testament) and test what the wolves in preachers clothing preach versus what the Scriptures plainly state they would come to an awakening that would change this planet overnight. God told our ancestors to not mix your seed with the seed of other races and he told them that He would definitely punish them if they did so. Search the Scriptures for the truth and you will discover that the “race of people” behind the perpetration of miscegination, debt and the like of what is going on in the world today are not the Israelites of the Scriptures. These were mainly prophesised in the Book of Hosea.



report abuse
 

James

posted June 11, 2009 at 10:47 am


My heart goes out to the family of the guard.
Apparently, this blog has all his (slightly disturbing) documents:
http://jvb-88.blogspot.com/



report abuse
 

Bob O'Brien

posted June 11, 2009 at 11:09 am


It is a sad commentary when we allow these NUTCASES to run loose when we have indisputable evidence of his intent to do harm to the many people he obviously hates. hen is our Gov’t going to step up and lock these screwballs away where they cannot do harm to others… This old BUZZARD harbored these hateful thoughts throughout most of his life and gladly shared his view w/anyone that would listen to his SICK RHETORIC



report abuse
 

waldteufel

posted June 11, 2009 at 11:10 am


Once again, Klinghoffer shows us that he doesn’t know any more about history than he does about science. Appalling.
Darwin didn’t know anything about genetics; the science had yet to be born. Darwin, much to his social cost, was among the first to understand that all humans are are same species.
Klinghoffer, in this little nonsensical screed, shines as a beacon of Discovery Institute “thinking”; in other words, neo-theocratic babbling.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 11, 2009 at 11:19 am


Ladies & Gentlemen, I didn’t link this guy with evolutionary thinking. He did that himself. I only quoted him. Should the media than scrupulously avoid noting what the suspect himself said about his motivations in hating Jews and others? Also, while many scientists see Darwinian theory as merely descriptive, not prescriptive, some have indeed seen it as both and so clearly does the suspect in this case. This is real life not a seminar in the philosophy of science.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted June 11, 2009 at 11:37 am


He’s obsessed with “genetics.”

Is David going to start in with the evils of genetics and the evil one who started it all, Mendel?
Because, of course, genetics and evolution are not the same thing, although evolutionary studies utilize genetics a great deal. One could say that von Brunn did combine the two in his writings, however. Yes, but he combines a lot of good stuff in with his diseased imaginings.
The stark fact is that artificial selection of animals existed long before Mendel and Darwin, and the reasons for doing so were also invoked for the sake of eugenic practices and genocides long before evolutionary ideas became science. And von Brunn’s rants and practices really have to do with that, he not being content to allow natural selection to occur in humans.
That didn’t keep him from pretending that his ideas accord with science, however, but that’s also true of David and the Discovery Institute. I’ll gladly say that the DI and David have better (if hardly good) motives for misusing science and for trying to redefine it to fit their own purposes than von Brunn did, yet both parties clearly know how to misuse science for their own agendas.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted June 11, 2009 at 12:07 pm


Ladies & Gentlemen, I didn’t link this guy with evolutionary thinking. He did that himself. I only quoted him.

Um, did you write “Darwin’s Tree of Death”? Is this supposed to be unrelated to junk sociology like that?
Von Brunn also linked himself to Jefferson and to Napoleon in his writings. Why didn’t you point out that linkage?
Btw, he didn’t mention Darwin by name, but he did Galton. It does appear that he desired more to link to Galton and his eugenics, not Darwin who considered by did not advocate such a course.
He linked himself to Mendel by implication. Why not blame Mendel for the shooting?

Should the media than scrupulously avoid noting what the suspect himself said about his motivations in hating Jews and others?

Context. Look it up.
Report, indeed. Picking out your favorite science to hate and saying “ideas have consequences” seriously prejudices the issue, while shedding no real light upon his motives and influences.

Also, while many scientists see Darwinian theory as merely descriptive, not prescriptive, some have indeed seen it as both and so clearly does the suspect in this case.

And von Brunn only used twisted evolutionary notions as justification for what he counts as his real motives (reportedly, many of his sort do), the writings of the Elders of Zionism and other rot about the Illuminati. He’s a conspiracy freak, which almost certainly counts for far more than his pathetic misunderstandings of evolution.

This is real life not a seminar in the philosophy of science.

No, this is neither. Real life in this case is a bizarre set of ideas, many flat-out wrong, running around the head of someone who has no capacity for evaluating ideas.
Is his misuse of history an indictment of teaching history, David? Should we learn nothing that has ever been twisted to “support” the idea of some lunatic or monster?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592



report abuse
 

R

posted June 11, 2009 at 12:43 pm


David–tell the truth. You believe that every rainy day is caused by Darwin.



report abuse
 

PStryder

posted June 11, 2009 at 1:45 pm


David, you also didn’t point out all the inaccuracies of this lunatics understanding of evolution. This guy does not have any grasp of the theory of evolution, he has his own twisted ideas on race and genetics, none of which is backed up by evidence.
What you have done is imply, by association with this idiot’s ideas, that evolution is bad and evil and will cause the whole race to fall into a pit of degenerate sin. EXACTLY AS YOU INTENDED TO DO. And I’m calling you on it.
And I’m calling you a hypocrite. Ideas DO have consequences. Ideas like, ‘abortion is murder.’ Ask Dr. Tiller what the consequences of that idea are. Oh wait…you can’t because some crazy believer in an invisible sky wizard killed him!



report abuse
 

Brian

posted June 11, 2009 at 2:10 pm


Using this tragedy to push your views is very sad indeed.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 11, 2009 at 3:39 pm


VonBrunn pretty much outright says that his views are in line with the Nazi distorted eugenics ideology. . .
“Our Founding Fathers were Aryans, men of good breeding who understood, empirically, the great differences existing between strains of horses; strains of live-stock; races of men; and between individuals: knowledge confirmed today by the natural sciences of Genetics, Eugenics, and Anthropology. Hitler, as American boobs are beginning to learn, was not all wrong.”
But hey, why not try to twist what the maniac said to push your agenda, eh? Why not conflate eugenics to equal evolutionary theory?
Your article here is as much a distortion of VonBrunn’s views, as eugenics is a distortion of evolution.



report abuse
 

noreligionnowar

posted June 11, 2009 at 3:51 pm


i only have one thing to say anybody who thinks james von brunn in some kind of hero is simply an idiot and does’nt deserve the time of day.



report abuse
 

The Jared Jammer

posted June 11, 2009 at 3:53 pm


The Holocaust, Columbine, the Finnish school shooter, and now this. Overzealous Darwinists are easily the biggest threat to humanity.



report abuse
 

b_sharp

posted June 11, 2009 at 4:29 pm


Jared Jammer: What is a Darwinist?
Anyone who accepts the ToE as a valid and well tested theory? An atheist who accepts the ToE? Or just atheists? Anyone outside your belief system?
Please, describe your straw man for all to see.



report abuse
 

James Kidder

posted June 11, 2009 at 4:35 pm


It is so nice to know that Godwin’s Law still holds sway.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 11, 2009 at 5:08 pm


I am always amazed how few of the people who cite Darwin as a source for their views, or as someone to condemn, have actually read his books.
Darwin was first and foremost an intelligent observer. People who read his first book about his experiences during the voyage of the Beagle will be amazed by the curiousity and intuitive brilliance of his mind. Knowing his ideas about natural selection would be disputed by scientists and the church of his day, he took great pains to relate his theories to the simplest of concepts; one chapter details what every farmer knew at the time, that stock can be improved by careful breeding for specific attributes. He did not, however, suggest that those principles could or should be applied to change the human race.
Don’t blaim Charlie – he was just a simple scientist reporting what he saw. Blame the kooks and lunatics who pirated his views to promote their ow political or religious agendas.



report abuse
 

Ted Herrlich

posted June 11, 2009 at 5:13 pm


No Klinghoffer, von Brunn is a Racist! He is a Terrorist! He is a Murderer! Calling him an Evolutionist is nothing but you bending over and kissing the feet of your Masters over at the Discovery Institute (DI) and using this tragedy as propaganda for your Intelligent Design marketing scheme.
You fail to understand the Theory of Evolution — which makes NO judgment about racial superiority or any other the other crap that drove von Brunn. Your failure is understandable, after all the DI is pulling your strings. But in reality you should be ashamed of yourself! I know you won’t be, there is no shame for one such as you in spinning such comments like this, but you should be ashamed nonetheless.
Ted Herrlich
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 11, 2009 at 5:21 pm


Ted, you write: “You fail to understand the Theory of Evolution — which makes NO judgment about racial superiority.” I’m glad you think that but it’s not the view of Darwin himself or countless other evolutionary scientists right up to the Holocaust. Evolution-based racism and eugenics were considered very mainstream science till people took note of the worst that applied Darwinism can do.



report abuse
 

Ted Herrlich

posted June 11, 2009 at 5:31 pm


David, you are incorrect. What you are talking about is Social Darwinism. Now aside from the name, what is it’s connection to Charles Darwin? His cousin was part of it. So what? Are oyu responsible for your relatives actions?
Yes, people have misapplied parts of evolutionary theory. But does that make them an Evolutionist? Maybe a Malthusist would be a better term.
Try something different and read “On Origin . . .” for comprehension rather than quote-mining. Darwin was not a racist and someone claiming the Theory of Evolution drove von Brunn is a propoganda at best, a lie at worst.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 11, 2009 at 5:43 pm


Ted, you need to read a biography of Darwin. Inform yourself, please. Here’s a link to Desmond and Moore’s bio. See the paragraph on the linked page that begins “What of Darwin’s own latter day prejudices?”
http://books.google.com/books?id=A31Izksd2I0C&pg=PR21&dq=%22what+of+darwin%27s+own+latter-day+prejudices%3F%22



report abuse
 

snex

posted June 11, 2009 at 6:11 pm


But this is only microevolution, which even creationists accept. Von Brunn doesn’t mention anything about apes being related to humans, or transitional fossils.



report abuse
 

Cappy

posted June 11, 2009 at 6:15 pm


It is clear that neither You, David, nor von Brunn understand much about evolution. Just for one simple example, his statement about inbreeding. Inbreeding narrows they available gene pool for a population and leads to the expression of detrimental recessive genes. To benefit the health and vigor of a species you should mix genes from more wider varieties to introduce novel genes that, if beneficial, will persist and improve the breed or if not, will be selected against and be removed from the population. What persists and carries on will be better that the stock you began with. The best thing for humanity would be to put a long stick in the gene pool and stir vigorously!



report abuse
 

Mel N

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:00 pm


Ideas do have consequences. Especially using superstitious beliefs to set people against each other. Not long ago witches were being burned in the US. While most of us have overcome that ridiculous belief, certain third world villages still have outbreaks of stupidity.
I also get the general drift that you are clumsily lining up for us. Trying to blame that racist crazy old man’s actions (you pick which one I’m talking about) on Darwin or the theory of evolution doesn’t hold true in any form. For the same reason why you can’t hold religion %100 accountable for all the misery it has brought. It’s the person and his or her actions that count. People can take the best of intentions and twist it all around like a politician or a attorney. It’s a detestable human trait.



report abuse
 

Jordan

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm


Blaming the actions of neo Nazis on evolution makes about as much sense as blaming them on Christianity. Don’t forget the Nazis oft-repeated refrain “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”). It was written on their belt buckles.
No doubt about it — the Nazis twisted whatever theory and ideology they could in order to justify their actions. It’s a shame to see fellow Christians fall into the same misunderstanding.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:09 pm


This is a quote from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf:
“What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility.”
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words
Yep. In Adolf Hitler’s own words, the Holocaust was necessary “…so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe”. Ouch!



report abuse
 

Dabodius

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:11 pm


” Like Hitler in Mein Kampf, he draws lessons from his interpretation of Darwinism.”
That impeaches those lessons and his interpretation, not the evolution of species as a well-confirmed scientific explanation. Hitler (and for all I know Brunn) believed the earth is round — can you spite Hitler by claiming it’s flat?



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:21 pm


Regarding Hitler on “the creator,” Your Name might better have cited the famous sentence at the end of Vol. 1, Ch. 2, where Hitler invokes the “Almighty Creator…I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” But read the *immediately preceding sentence* where he clearly identifies this “creator” with “Eternal Nature,” not God in any recognizable sense.



report abuse
 

thurgood

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:22 pm


David, remember the man who shot dead two congregants at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville? The police found the following books at his home when they searched it…
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage
Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by Sean Hannity
The O’Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life by Bill O’Reilly.
Ideas do have consequences…



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:24 pm


Interesting, Thurgood. You’re helping me make my point. Can you give me a link to a reliable news story on that?



report abuse
 

Allan

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:32 pm


What do Charles Darwin’s discoveries in the Galapagos Islands have to do with James Vonn Brunn’s thinking? I don’t see any connection whatsoever. If you are arguing that everyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution is obsessed with eugenics and ethnic supremacy, that is patently fallacious. The same argument could be made about any ethno-centric oriented religion (of which all are, by nature, as they are created by cultures). I really think that your implication that Darwin’s theory of evolution led to, presto, James Vonn Brunn, is, uh, well, wrong. Big time.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:32 pm


I own a copy of Mein Kampf. I have read it many times. Most people don’t get through it; it’s turgid and confused and hateful.
Mein Kampf is available online in its entirety, here:
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
If Klinghoffer had really read it with any other purpose than trying to score points on Darwin, he would have noted the following passages:

…it was the hand of the goddess of eternal justice and inexorable retribution which caused Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the most mortal enemy of Austrian-Germanism, to fall by the bullets which he himself had helped to mold….
How thankful I am today to the Providence which sent me to that school! In it I could no longer sabotage the subjects I did not like. It educated me quickly and thoroughly.
…what then seemed to be the harshness of Fate, I praise today as wisdom and Providence. While the Goddess of Suffering took me in her arms, often threatening to crush me, my will to resistance grew, and in the end this will was victorious….
…For when a people is not willing or able to fight for its existence- Providence in its eternal justice has decreed that people’s end.

This is just the first three chapters. He is always going on about Goddess of this, Providence that, Jesus Christ t’other.
Sounds just like Richard Dawkins, doesn’t it?
“Pagan” or maybe “Deist” might be a word you could use to describe what passed in Hitler for religion, but “any stick to beat Jews with” is a better description. But he explicitly references a Creator God who shares his nutty and racist beliefs, and never references Charles Darwin.
Of course Klinghoffer says it’s not “the real God”. Then why can’t we say Hitler doesn’t know anything about “the real Darwin”?
Klinghoffer seems quite bright; but the most charitable thing that could be said for this Darwin – Hitler nonsense is that Klinghoffer decieves others by first deceiving himself.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:44 pm


The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.
Here we have Hitler EXPLICITLY denying that one species ever evolves into another. Tigers can get meaner, smarter, or faster, but can never evolve into something that is no longer a tiger.
Sounds like creationists their “kinds”, doesn’t it, Klinghoffer?
This is from Chapter XI, Nation and Race, which you claim to have read.
Hitler was no Darwinist.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:49 pm


That such a mentality may be possible cannot be denied in a world where hundreds and thousands accept the principle of celibacy from their own choice, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an ecclesiastical precept. Why should it not be possible to induce people to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply told that they ought to put an end to this truly original sin of racial corruption which is steadily being passed on from one generation to another. And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image.
Volume 2, Chapter 2
Klinghoffer, wither you have not read this book, or you have misrepresented its contents.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 11, 2009 at 7:59 pm


Gabriel Hanna, we’ve already discussed what Hitler means by an Almighty Creator. Saying a fox is a fox says nothing about the origin of species, obviously. Please read Richard Weikart’s book and then get back to me about this.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 11, 2009 at 8:05 pm


Klinghoffer, you are simply asserting that what Hitler means by “God” isn’t what normal people mean by “God”. That’s just special pleading. You offer no evidence. Thomas Jefferson and Voltaire used the word in a similar way.
Secondly, Hitler says “the tiger is always a tiger”. He also says that species can only change their characteristics by degrees. That is an explicit denial of Darwinian evolution.
If you don’t know that, then you know less about Darwinism than Hitler did.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 11, 2009 at 8:10 pm


Gabriel, if you’re going to challenge me you should first read what I’ve written, then try. I wrote below in this very same comments box:
Regarding Hitler on “the creator,” Your Name might better have cited the famous sentence at the end of Vol. 1, Ch. 2, where Hitler invokes the “Almighty Creator…I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” But read the *immediately preceding sentence* where he clearly identifies this “creator” with “Eternal Nature,” not God in any recognizable sense.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 11, 2009 at 8:11 pm


Hitler also said Man is created in God’s image. How can you just wave that away?
Hitler thinks Providence made man and other animals after their own kind. They can improve themselves, or degrade themselves, but one cannot become another.
Darwinian evolution says that any pair of species are descended from a common ancestral species, not the same as either. Do you really not know that? If so, you are not qualified to say who is and is not a Darwinist. If you really do know that, then you are trying to deceive people.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 11, 2009 at 8:16 pm


David, I did read what you wrote. It is a mischaracterizartion of a book I have read many times and know well. There is no point in trying to tell me what Hitler really meant when it contradicts the plain words of the text.
What does ANYBODY really mean by God? Are we going to have that discussion, or are we going to say Hitler was a Darwinist?
Hitler believes in a Providence that shapes historical events. He believes man is made in God’s image. He believes species are immutable.
He says these things explicitly in passages I, and others, quoted to you.
Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?
In my own field (physics) I have to deal with this kind of nonsense all the time–people who believe in free energy or don’t believe in quantum or Newtonian mechanics–and they always misrepresent what my field is about, and argue with straw men. This is why people like Richard Dawkins get so choleric about it.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 11, 2009 at 8:32 pm


Gabriel, how about this. Let’s both read Richard Weikart’s new book when it comes out next month and get back to each other then: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Ethic-Pursuit-Evolutionary-Progress/dp/0230618073/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3
Also here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/reexamining_the_darwinhitler_l.html
Weikart is the expert on Darwin-Hitler.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 11, 2009 at 8:41 pm


From a speech in Munich, 1922:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized 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. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in 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 myself 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…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
David, there is no point in referring me to an expert on “Darwin-Hitler”. I know a lot about Darwinism, as the term is understood by biologists and scientists, not the weird straw-man version you’re talking about. I have read Origin of Species, and I can tell you that Darwin himself is not a Darwinist as we understand the term today (just as Jesus wasn’t a Catholic). I am very familiar with the views of Hitler, as he expressed them in speech and writing and in private to people like Albert Speer.
It’s not clear what, if anything, Hitler really believed in, other than himself. For one, he was a liar and propagandist. For two, he wasn’t that bright. For three, he was entirely self-educated, and while that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it is easy for an autodidact to become a crackpot, because he doesn’t know where to go to get a comprehensive overview of a subject. All he knew of philosophy or science he learned from Sunday supplements in newspapers and the like, and any library books he read in his Vienna period, and distorted views of his weird crackpot friends.
I would never try to make the case that because Hitler said he believes in Christ that he is a Christian, as most people use the word, or that Christianity leads to Hitler.
But that case is far more plausible than that Hitler knew anything about Darwinism, other than the name.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted June 11, 2009 at 9:10 pm


Let’s try another tack here–assume, for the sake of argument, that Hitler really did read and understand Origin of Species and fully believed in evolution by natural selection.
Still wouldn’t make him a Nazi. Darwinism, like all science, is descriptive, not normative.
I’m in physics, right? So in my dictatorship everyone has to obey the laws of gravitation and thermodynamics or the penalty is death.
That’s silly. You can’t DISOBEY a natural laws even if you want to.
That’s the difference between eugenics and Darwinism. If Darwinism really fits its “survival of the fittest” caricature, eugenicists don’t have a leg to stand on. Their concern is that “unfit” people are outbreeding the “fit” people. But according to Darwinism, the people successfully breeding are the fittest BY DEFINITION.
It would be like trying to say that cave fish are unfit because they have no eyes. Their environment FAVORED eyelessness, so they lost their eyes. It takes energy to make eyes, which they could better use for something else, so they would be LESS FIT if they weren’t blind.
Eugenicists like Hitler don’t use the Darwinian version of fitness. They have their own standard that they made up and they want to breed people to it.
That’s not science, that’s policy. This is why Richard Dawkins is Darwinist AND a tiresome polemicist for the welfare state. This is why he said, in “The Extended Phenotype”, that even if you could prove that some people are genetically stupider than others, to treat them as less equal under the law would be “illogical and wicked”.
It’s the difference between NATURAL law and NORMATIVE law.
So even if I did agree that Hitler was familiar with Darwin and agreed with what he had to say, you could blame Hitler on Darwin.
You might as well say that quantum physicists are to blame for Kim Jong Il. Just because we figured out that people could build nuclear weapons doesn’t mean we think they should, or that we necessarily encourage them to do so.



report abuse
 

Jordan

posted June 11, 2009 at 9:42 pm


Good on you for setting the record straight, Gabriel. The Anti-Defamation League recently commented on a related matter:
“The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.
Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.”
On behalf of Christians everywhere, I apologize for the regrettable and ill-informed remarks made by David Klinghoffer here.



report abuse
 

thurgood

posted June 11, 2009 at 9:52 pm


David, the research should be easy. Adkisson’s vile deed was all over the news about 10 months ago. Unless of course your reading is limited. Richard Weikart must be the expert on Darwin-Hitler, because he is the only scholar who spends time making up that connection! Evolution is the theory underlying biology and that’s settled science. It doesn’t show a pretty world but then we didn’t need Darwin to show us that. The fear of not having enough to eat, and the fear of being eaten is something we begin to see in most animal life around us pretty early in life.
Interesting, so you too think that this right-wing nuttery is dangerous?



report abuse
 

Jordan

posted June 11, 2009 at 10:22 pm


And then, of course, I realize after my last post that Klinghoffer is an Orthodox Jew. My mistake, and I apologize! I hope you’ll do the same.



report abuse
 

DK

posted June 11, 2009 at 10:25 pm


David Klinghoffer
You are one pathetic creationist. You really drag down your own religion with your insane, illogical anti-science drivel. I would feel sorry for you but I can’t because you consciously know what you’re doing by discrediting people and disgracing those whom you pretend to speak for. Pathetic indeed you are.
DK



report abuse
 

Jung

posted June 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm


Evolutionist? Is that like a gravityist or mathist?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted June 12, 2009 at 12:15 am


thurgood: David, remember the man who shot dead two congregants at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville? The police found the following books at his home when they searched it…
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage; Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by Sean Hannity; The O’Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life by Bill O’Reilly. Ideas do have consequences…

David: Interesting, Thurgood. You’re helping me make my point. Can you give me a link to a reliable news story on that?
Here and here is documentation on the shooting.
I think perhaps you’re missing thurgood’s point, David. Yes, ideas have consequences–all three of us agree on that. The issue is causation (does an idea cause a particular consequence, or is it merely correlated with it?) and necessity (does idea X by its nature entail consequence Y, or is Y merely one of many consequences that may or may not derive from X?).
For example: Is anti-Semitism correlated with Christianity? Of course, sadly. Is it caused by Christianity? Even more sadly, it has been so in the past, and for some fringe groups still is today. Now for the kicker: Is anti-Semitism an intrinsic and necessary outcome of Christianity? Another way of putting it: Is anti-Semitism intrinsic to Christianity? Yet another way to ask it: Must Christianity always entail anti-Semitism? No matter how you phrase it, I think the answer is emphatically no. If I thought anti-Semitism was intrinsic to Christianity, I wouldn’t be a Christian, since I would see that as invalidating the faith as anything a civilized person could believe in. On the other hand, if I denied the history of anti-Semitism in Christianity, I’d be a liar.
Now some do appear to think, based on statements they’ve made in the past (Daniel Goldhagen and Leon Wieseltier come to mind) that anti-Semitism in some sense is intrinsic to Christianity. I understand that you, David, do not share this belief, on which I commend you.
Now, the analogy. The church shooter obviously considered himself conservative and (in his own twisted mind, at least) saw the statements of Hannity, Savage, O’Reilly as supporting his views. This much is not in doubt. There is a correlation here, no doubt. But does anyone think that these books (which I do believe to be hate-filled tripe, honestly) caused Adkisson to do what he did? Even if one were to answer this question “yes”, is it then fair to impugn the entire conservative movement based on the acts of one sick man and the writings of a few people who may not be representative of conservatism in general? Do you, as a conservative yourself, feel that this man’s actions invalidate your conservatism? Does the anti-Semitism of some Christians invalidate Christianity?
So why does the action of a lone freako and beliefs that some scientists over the years may have espoused invalidate evolution? Why is evolution in the broad picture any more at fault here than conservatism in the broad picture is for the Tennessee shooting? Why can you absolve Christianity in general for anti-Semitism, but cannot do the same for evolution vis-à-vis this nut von Brunn?
Jung: High five! ;)



report abuse
 

mikev6

posted June 12, 2009 at 2:37 am


I thought David’s gratuitous use of the Columbine anniversary to push
his anti-evolution message was morally repugnant – this “contribution”
to the discussion sets a new low. Now that we’ve prostituted the victims of Columbine and the Holocaust shooting, who’s next? Rwanda? Darfur?
Another attempt in the Discovery Institute’s program to hide the
scientific weakness of their position by linking evolution to every negative event possible to influence popular opinion.



report abuse
 

Bill Witherly

posted June 12, 2009 at 3:18 am


The press has given this Brunn affair more coverage than they did the mass murder of 1,300 civilians in the Gaza Strip. One might wonder why this is so. Hmmmm.



report abuse
 

Mats

posted June 12, 2009 at 3:45 am


Right on the spot, Dave.
Darwinists (and atheists in general) can’t understand why their belief systems seems to create so much suffering, so it’s important for us to us to tell them.
Once you relegate humans to the same level as animals, anything goes. Don’t be surprised. It is no coincidence that the politicals systems that have killed more people in such short period have been evolutionized, secularized, anti-Judeo-Christian systems.
Once man is left with the power to define who is human and who is not, guess what will happen?
Face the consequences of you religious belief, atheists/evolutionists, and don’t try to puch people who act according to your beliefs as “kooks” and “nuts”.
Perhaps they are kooks, but the theory of evolution helped in his “kookism”.
Beliefs have consequences.



report abuse
 

Wayne Robinson

posted June 12, 2009 at 7:10 am


I am an atheist, and I accept evolution as true. I find it comforting to realise that there is less genetic difference between a blue-eyed blond Swede and a curly haired dark skinned Papuan-New Guinean highlander (separated by perhaps 40,000 years and 20,000 kilometres) than between two common chimpanzees living a few hundred kilometres apart (the external difference between two humans depends on very few genes). Differences in economic success of nations depends more on location and the resources of the countries than on the innate qualities of the populations.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 12, 2009 at 8:57 am


The quote from Herr von Brunn just shows that he, like Hitler, like Charles Lindberg, like virtually every theist, misunderstands evolution by natural selection (EBNS). Von Brunn is advocating human selection (wakie, wakie!) This has nothing to do with natural selection. Von Brunn, I’d wager, knows nothing of EBNS beyond a simplistic sound-bite: The survival of the fittest. He obviously doesn’t understand genetics or in/out-breeding. He is simply a mis-guided nutter. He did what he did because he’s a racist scumbag. (And let’s see, what factor does he use to identify those Jews he hates? …)
Although Darwin’s views on race have no bearing on the truth of his formulation the theoretical description of EBNS, he held the prejudice of his time and class while at the same time being an ardent abolitionist and he was disgusted by how the European colonizers treated the people of Asia, Africa, S. America and elsewhere.
Note that von Brunn advocated for a “Holy Western Empire.” Hmm, what could that “Holy” refer to?



report abuse
 

DK

posted June 12, 2009 at 9:43 am


If James von Brunn’s reason for his killing of the guard is linked to evolution as the prime cause, then I submit people like David Klinghoffer are no different. They have a warped perspective of the world, they see it in their own image to the exclusion of all else. They filter out anything and everything that conflicts with their perspective and will do everything possible, even kill, to convey their message. This is no different than any other despotic person, e.g., Pol Pot, Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, et. al, who were not evolutionists in any way, shape or form (despite what people like Klinghoffer try to say), but instead each acted on their egotistical, childish image of self-importance and the need to shape the world around them to their own narrow image. Obviously Klinghoffer is oblivious to the fact that he’s exhibiting the same reasoning that these despots do/did for the righteousness of their own “holy crusade” against everyone and everything that doesn’t agree with THEIR world view. He just can’t lift himself out of his own little mudpuddle to see the world beyond his blinders.



report abuse
 

Thomas Tutt

posted June 12, 2009 at 10:04 am


I am a Christian and a believer in science, including evolutionary biology. I find it very misleading to try to rope this nutcase in with people who understand science. What he’s talking about isn’t anything that any legitimate scientist would call evolutionary biology. I would also point out that many white supremacists follow a creationist belief system, one in which darker-skinned races were part of a separate creation. Would it be fair to rope those in with mainstream creationists?



report abuse
 

Ted Herrlich

posted June 12, 2009 at 10:40 am


In response to some of the comments made about his foolish propaganda, Klinghoffer offers this ‘explanation’:
“Ladies & Gentlemen, I didn’t link this guy with evolutionary thinking. He did that himself. I only quoted him. Should the media than scrupulously avoid noting what the suspect himself said about his motivations in hating Jews and others? Also, while many scientists see Darwinian theory as merely descriptive, not prescriptive, some have indeed seen it as both and so clearly does the suspect in this case. This is real life not a seminar in the philosophy of science.”
No Klinghoffer, you did more than just quote him. You are the one claiming that he is an Evolutionist. You are the one who want people who read your foolish post that von Brunn is some sort of genius with a firm grasp of science and evolution. You are the one who want to make people think scientists are Nazi’s in sheep’s clothing. You are the one making these connections. Where the rest of us see a sick human being, a racist, a violent murderer and terrorist, you use his meandering words to justify your own agenda.
So according to Klinghoffer a racist supremacist with no understanding of evolutionary theory and who randomly and without comprehension uses a few words and concepts lifted from biology makes him an Evolutionist? No Klinghoffer, you did MUCH more than quote him, you put your own spin and label on his words. von Brunn didn’t link himself to evolutionary thinking, it took your lack of intellectual honesty to try and make that connection.



report abuse
 

Raging Bee

posted June 12, 2009 at 11:04 am


Darwinists (and atheists in general) can’t understand why their belief systems seems to create so much suffering, so it’s important for us to us to tell them.
Yeah, because as all right-thijking folks know, suffering didn’t exist before Darwin published his book.
Hello and goodbye, Mats. I see you’re just as stupid here as you are on Panda’s Thumb.



report abuse
 

John Kwok

posted June 12, 2009 at 11:23 am


David Klinghoffer is a meshuggeh Orthodox Jew who thinks Kwok is an ‘obsessed Darwin lover’ and thinks Hitler was ‘inspired’ by Darwin, when it’s well known that Hitler, himself, was really a Xian creationist (Unfortunately I have to acknowledge David as a fellow alumnus of Brown University. Incidentally, for some “enlightened” comments about our alma mater, then you should read here:
http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/…_._1893.html
).



report abuse
 

Nat Jackson

posted June 12, 2009 at 11:40 am


This article is totally off the mark, and anyone with a knowledge of Hitler’s beliefs (not to mention evolutionary biology) would notice it. The author seems to have done little research aside from watching Ben Stein’s godawful documentary, Expelled. Hitler hated what you call “Darwinism” and ordered it burned alongside Jewish literature because Darwin thought all humans evolved from the same ancestors. Evolution was an idea in mainstream science before Darwin’s time, Darwin was simply the first person who argued for a specific mechanism that could account for unguided selection (natural selection) and amassed a large body of evidence for his argument.
Contrary to your ridiculous assertions, Hitler actually wrote that the Aryan race was a special creation by God, and that God intended the Aryans to rule over the subhuman races.



report abuse
 

Lewis

posted June 12, 2009 at 11:46 am


So who wants to bet that Scott Roeder, murderer of George Tiller, was a committed Christian and a creationist? Would that mean we can reject Christian creationism too?
Or, “I don’t quite follow your logic, Cleric”.
By the way, Hitler was a non-smoking teetotaler.



report abuse
 

Q

posted June 12, 2009 at 12:06 pm


I see Klinghoffer is not interested in distinguishing a lunatic’s erroneous interpretation of a scientific theory with what the scientific theory actually states (e.g. hybrid vigor).
Perhaps we should shut down this website given one consistent “idea” presented in scripture is the slaughter of children, e.g. drowning of innumerable infants/toddlers in the flood, the willingness to murder Issac, the slaughter of Amalekite infants/toddlers, the child-eating shebear curse of Elisha, and the death of God’s own (who was actually Himself of course).
Klinghoffer’s thinking here, unrestrained by burdens of rational process, is unquestionable and so I suspect he’ll be taking the necessary steps to target and expose the much more pervasive and dangerous idea of Abrahamic religions before some individual susceptible to these “ideas” acts upon their natural and logical prescription, i.e. the continuation of God’s divine work in the killing of defenseless children.



report abuse
 

Jeff Williams

posted June 12, 2009 at 12:11 pm


What? How does one make the leap from white supremecist eugenics to evolution or Darwinism? How does one make that leap logically?



report abuse
 

Jango Davis

posted June 12, 2009 at 12:30 pm


Klinghoffer is making a logical falalcy and proves he knows little of Darwin’s actual writings on Evolution. Darwin never extrapolated his ideas to racial or social contexts. That has only been done by people looking to justify their own prejudices.
The premise of Klinghoffer’s logic, if you want to call it that, is that an idea is invalid if it is misinterpeted. That being so, Christianity is right at the top of the list.
But Klinghofer is right…ideas do have consequences, and considering the murder, war, and crimes against humanity because of evangelical christianity, then Klinghofer would agree that Christianity is among the most dangerous and evil ideas thrust upon the world.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 12, 2009 at 12:34 pm


“David Klinghoffer is a meshuggeh Orthodox Jew…”
John, Orthodox Judaism has nothing to do with Klinghoffer’s shilling for anti-science Christian fundamentalists, and its an insult to Judaism to appear to be saying so. Scientific creationism is viewed with at least suspicion by most Orthodox Jews, if they know of it at all. He gets no respect at Yeshiva U with his distortions of biology.



report abuse
 

Mike

posted June 12, 2009 at 12:41 pm


I’m curious about what’s involved with being a fellow of the Discovery Institute. Are there obligations? Do you have to have an ongoing project? Do you get a stipend?



report abuse
 

Alchemist

posted June 12, 2009 at 12:48 pm


As is typical of the non-scientists and non-historians who attempt to appear intelligent on matters totally outside their ken, a quick survey of Hitler’s ideology demonstrates that his philosophy was quite in line with Creationist/ID thinking (for, as Kenneth Miller has succinctly demonstrated in “Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul”, ID, like Creationism, cannot substantiate any of its claims, and all the Discovery Institute’s “scientists” declined to appear at the Dover Trial. But, I digress). Here is a direct quotation from Hitler:
“Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.” –Adolph Hitler, “Mein Kampf,” Vol. II, Ch. 1.
Those last lines certainly sound like a committed evolutionist? Seems I’ve heard this tripe before — usually in the mouths of marginally capable Christianists who didn’t get a proper education in their homeschooling.
Or, take this original German statement from Hitler:
‘Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.”–Adolph Hitler, Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier, 25 February 1942
Since your German may be rusty, he stated:
“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” –Hitler’s “Table Talk”
In short, you should note that you were incorrect in your equating of Hitler’s notions with Darwinian theory. It isn’t true, and you are spreading a falsehood (violating one of the 10 big ones, isn’t it?). Oh, but then again, many Creationists do that routinely via quote mining and misrepresentation. Obviously, the Devil doesn’t have a monopoly on fraud when it comes to Creationism, though.



report abuse
 

Thieh

posted June 12, 2009 at 1:13 pm


You picked on one topic of science from the event, and it’s evolution. Not guns (reaction kinetics/chemistry/mechanics), not neuroscience, not psychiatry. Evolution. And it’s not even used correctly. Please stop setting up straw men before you manage to learn and grasp the concepts properly. Thank you.



report abuse
 

Alchemist

posted June 12, 2009 at 1:15 pm


Richard Weikart, funded by the Discovery Institute, is hardly a reliable source. Indeed, the book you’ve recommended is reviewed thusly:
“Unlike the claims regarding Haeckel’s embryology, Weikart’s claims regarding a lineage from Darwin to Hitler via Haeckel have been examined by historians of science and indeed have generally been found lacking. Numerous reviews have accused Weikart of selectively viewing his rich primary material, ignoring political, social, psychological, and economic factors that may have played key roles in the post-Darwinian development of Nazi eugenics and racism. Since there is no clear and unique line from Darwinian naturalism to Nazi atrocities, useful causal relationships are difficult to infer; thus, as Robert J. Richards observes, ‘it can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis’.”
“Does Science Education Need the History of Science”. Isis. 2008, 99: 322–330. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/588690.



report abuse
 

JimboK

posted June 12, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Ted Herrlich

posted June 12, 2009 at 3:42 pm


Alchemist, one of the DI’s pet scientists did testify, Michael Behe, Biochemist Lehigh University and Senior Fellow at the DI. The problem is he did more for the plaintiffs than for the defense, even though he was called as a defense witness. He admitted that in order for ID to be considered science you would have to expand the definition of science to one that would apply equally to Astrology. He admitted that neither he, nor anyone he knew, was doing any scientifically viable work to support his idea of irreducible complexity. He admitted that he had not kept up on the literature for his supposed examples of irreducible complexity, and when faced with over 50 peer reviewed articles he said that it still wouldn’t be enough.
No wonder Bill Dembski chickened out of testifying. Where was Klinghoffer in all this? I guess he didn’t want to try and make the Nazi connection under oath. Never saw someone laughed out of court before.
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com



report abuse
 

Carolus

posted June 12, 2009 at 4:10 pm


Werll then. I guess you showed those evil evilutionists.
Sigh.
Imprimus: Hitler may have been a lousy Christian, but he apparently was a Christian and his Reich was a Christian Reich. Get your history straight. Remember that the Nazis persecuted atheists, too (and in fact, Hitler railed against atheism often).
Secundus: von Brunn, whatever he may have been, was a wack, a loon, a raving maniac. His beliefs were about as science-based as, well, apparently, yours. Though hopefully your delusions are of a kinder, gentler nature than his …
Look, if your beliefs prevent you from acting like von Brunn, please keep on believing. But, at least, quit trying to rewrite history and stop conflating science with anything you find abhorrent.
Don’t you find the teeniest bit of hypocracy in your scorn for science whilst posting said scorn on the internet?



report abuse
 

JYHUME

posted June 12, 2009 at 4:29 pm


Perhaps Klinghoffer is right that “ideas have consequences.” In this case, the most that can be said is that violently deranged, cherry-picked, self-serving misunderstandings of otherwise serious and complex scientific issues CAN KILL!!
A bit like the nuclear-armed warmongers in “Dr. Strangelove.” Did that film imply that nuclear physics does not provide an accurate description of the world, because some morons would use it to blow each other up?
What lessons can be learned from this? Um, well, maybe that violently deranged people are scary, but nothing more.
Mr. Klinghoffer, unfortunately your thesis is ridiculous. To continue pursuing this thesis may make you a bit ridiculous, too.



report abuse
 

Neil Wronkoski

posted June 12, 2009 at 6:08 pm


This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read.



report abuse
 

Thundrclees

posted June 12, 2009 at 8:34 pm


Very briefly
Carolus:
Hitler probably wasn’t a Christian. He mocked Christianity in private, and in fact apparently planned to exterminate Christianity after he won WWII. See…
http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml for more details.
Not to mention that a lot of really bad people (Mao Tsetung, Stalin, etc.) semm to like Darwin. Hmmm.
————————
Ted Herrlich:
For Pete’s sake! That’s just plain false. See:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/michael_behe_speaks_in_kansas.html
And need I remind you, Judge Jones essentially copied his court ruling on the Dover case nearly 90% verbatim from a statement on ID by the ACLU? See:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4300
———————–
JYHUME
WTF!? Perhaps you should have listened to Darwin himself, who said, on the first page of his Descent of Man that:
“The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct?”
“We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals.”
———————-
Neil Wronkoski
Nah, I’vce read dumber.



report abuse
 

David

posted June 12, 2009 at 9:11 pm


examiner.com has an interesting look at von Brunn’s cyberfootprint…the information he leaves behind on the internet. It includes some things I haven’t seen elsewhere, like his arrest for beating up a sheriff in Maryland, or his claim to have been a captain of a PT boat. There’s also a sort of movie-starish publicity photo of him from the 1960′s.
Article is at: http://tinyurl.com/l95xhe



report abuse
 

Nat Jackson

posted June 12, 2009 at 10:44 pm


To whoever said Stalin liked Darwin: you sir, are wrong. Learn to use “the google”.



report abuse
 

JYHUME

posted June 12, 2009 at 11:07 pm


Thunderclees:
WTF!? Perhaps you should think about what Mr. Klinghoffer is trying to say before “WTF-ing” someone else. His implied thesis (consistent with the mission of the Discovery Institute) is an attempt to show some sort of guilt-by-association, i.e.:
Some lunatic did a bad thing.
Said lunatic had some unhinged notions about evolution.
Therefore, evolution should not be believed.
(or any of a number of variations on that theme)
Your quoting of Darwin seems a tad irrelevant. Darwin’s major point in Descent of Man was descriptive (that humans have evolved and are the product, like all organisms, of natural forces), not prescriptive (that we should run around killing each other?).
But so-called “Darwinism,” and particularly “Social Darwinism,” is by no means the same thing as the modern scientific understanding of evolution. Darwin had a few kooky ideas, to be sure. Klinghoffer, and the DI, frequently attempt to conflate the two by reaching back for 19th century quotes made by individual scientists who undoubtedly had their own individual quirks. They use these quotes to say, “See, even Darwin said something goofy once, therefore all of evolutionary science is bad and must be thrown out!”
So, perhaps you could explain how James von Psycho’s ranting accurately reflects the modern understanding of evolution and genetics? Humans, being social animals, tend to frown upon rampaging psychopaths trying to kill other people. How was it in his genetic self-interest to walk out that day and get himself killed or imprisoned? Perhaps this incident actually shows his own lack of genetic fitness, since killing was the only tool left in his bag. This is of course speculation, but being out-competed and sensing his own lack of skills, von Brunn may have lashed out in an animalistic fit of anger and frustration. I have a hard time seeing this as an act of genetic superiority, nor was it necessitated by any accurate understanding of evolution theory.
So wtf?



report abuse
 

John Kwok

posted June 13, 2009 at 12:08 am


@ Your Name,
Thanks for your comment.
In reply to David’s self-indulgent exercise in self-adulation that was published in the January/February 2008 issue of the Brown Alumni Magazine, I was fortunate to have had this letter published in the following issue:
“In their book Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, philosopher of science Barbara Forrest and biologist Paul Gross expose the crypto-fascist agenda of David Klinghoffer’s Discovery Institute. Klinghoffer’s inane rant on his own political evolution is just another example of Discovery Institute propaganda.”
“The Discovery Institute zealously embraces fascist practices against its critics, ranging from promoting lies, omissions, and gross distortions of scientific research to ad hominem attacks on such prominent critics as Brown biology professor Ken Miller to, finally, even censorship.”
“If there is any redeeming virtue in Klinghoffer’s essay, it is his concluding observation, emphasizing the value of a good education like Brown’s that is ‘grounded in independent thought.’ It is an observation that his Discovery Institute peers would reject, as they most likely view Brown as yet another bastion of secular-humanist liberalism. It’s also an observation that Klinghoffer himself doesn’t follow, judging from the title of his forthcoming book, How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative. Religiously devout scientists like eminent ecologist Mike Rosenzweig and, of course, Ken Miller, demonstrate the philosophical and religious fallacies that comprise Klinghoffer’s inane thinking through their commitment to separating their superb scientific research from their devout religious faith. Did Klinghoffer truly learn the value of a Brown education? Judging by his essay, the answer, regrettably, must be no.”
P. S. You can read Klinghoffer’s original essay here:
http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/january/february_2008/how_brown_turned_me_into_a_right_wing_religious_conservative_._._._1893.html



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 13, 2009 at 1:31 am


This guy was a lunatic. He had beliefs {b1, b2, b3, b4, …, bN}. Some beliefs were more or less correct and some were bat**** crazy. Let’s say {x1, x2, x3, …, xM} were rational and {y1, y2, y3, …, yP} were irrational.
x1 = evolution is fact
y1 = eugenics is awesome
y2 = racism is the way to go
y3 = political conservativism rocks
y4 = Obama is not the legitimate President because he was secretly born in Kenya and later became a Muslim citizen of Indonesia
So because this guy was crazy, we should say political conservatism is nuts, too. And because Hitler was Catholic, we should also say “bad ideas like religion have consequences.”
Thank you David Klinghoffer for teaching us nonsense.



report abuse
 

Adriana Lima

posted June 13, 2009 at 4:07 am


“He’s obsessed with “genetics.”
Why the scare quotes around the word genetics, like it’s a quack science?
Whenever you’re ready to join the 21st century, we’ll be happy to have you. Personally I am more alarmed by you and your rejection of science than von Brunn’s grasp of the obvious and what is the best available science.
Jewish people, who comprise a race (J, J2, J3 haplogroups, to be very specific) strongly discourage “intermarriage”, which is to say “polluting” the Jew gene pool, and nobody has a problem with that. Black actors and athletes are strongly “encouraged” by black activists to “keep it in the family” and not date or marry white women, and nobody has a problem with that. Remember, Obama’s father’s parents famously sent a letter to his mother’s parents saying they did not want their bloodlines, and I quote, “sullied” by a white woman, nobody freaked out over that.
So what is the problem with von Brunn’s beliefs on this matter, which are the exact same as currently practiced by blacks, Jews, and probably every other group? Why single whites out for something every other group does?
The question is rhetorical. You do it to be politically correct and that is reprehensible. Paradoxically, you are holding whites to a far, far higher standard than other groups, judging whites by one impossibly high set of rules while using a laxer set of rules for other, presumably lesser, groups, which is, well, white supremacist. Fact: you are a white supremacist, David Klinghoffer.
It takes some doing to come off as a bigger jerk and idiot than von Brunn, fella, but against all odds you somehow managed, congratulations.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 13, 2009 at 7:21 am


This is not surprising to me. I have had many debates with people who were very prejudiced against some other race, and they invariably have claimed their own races was somehow better than the race they were speaking against, and in every single case credited Evolution as the reason for this.
Remember, it was Galton, Darwin’s cousin, who promoted the idea of Eugenics, the ‘science’ that spread around the world and caused the murder or steralization of millions of people in the name of ‘improving’ humanity. It was not until the world saw the horror of Nazi Germany during and following WWII that Eugenics fell out of favor. It did not go away, of course, it simply was not discussed under that name in polite society any longer. Margaret Sanger took the ideas of Eugenics and started Planned Parenthood with the purpose of decreasing the population of non-white races and the poor here in the united states.
Come and discuss this, and ANY origins related issues, at Talk About Origins; http://www.tao.invisionzone.com



report abuse
 

Terry Trainor

posted June 13, 2009 at 7:24 am


This is not surprising to me. I have had many debates with people who were very prejudiced against some other race, and they invariably have claimed their own races was somehow better than the race they were speaking against, and in every single case credited Evolution as the reason for this.
Remember, it was Galton, Darwin’s cousin, who promoted the idea of Eugenics, the ‘science’ that spread around the world and caused the murder or steralization of millions of people in the name of ‘improving’ humanity. It was not until the world saw the horror of Nazi Germany during and following WWII that Eugenics fell out of favor. It did not go away, of course, it simply was not discussed under that name in polite society any longer. Margaret Sanger took the ideas of Eugenics and started Planned Parenthood with the purpose of decreasing the population of non-white races and the poor here in the united states.
Come and discuss this, and ANY origins related issues, at Talk About Origins; http://www.tao.invisionzone.com



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 13, 2009 at 10:53 am


Thunderclees:
You are incorrect in claiming Judge Jones plagiarized (note that he is a political conservative and regular church attendee, too). As Ed Brayton points out on his blog, “the findings of fact regarding whether ID is science or not, [a] fake “study” only found that the judge agreed with many of the findings proposed by the plaintiffs and used them either verbatim or slightly reworded. What [the]“study” leaves out is that the judge did not accept nearly half of the proposed findings; that alone means he exercised independent judgment on the validity of each finding of fact distinct from the others” (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/01/luskin_flogs_a_dead_horse.php).
If you do some research, judges commonly and often extensively cite precedent cases in their rulings. If he had done so, why haven’t the DI ilk appealed the ruling? If there are substantive errors in a trial (e.g., flimsy evidence, improper witness testimony, etc.) the defense can appeal. Why haven’t they. Simple: they had no grounds to appeal. ID is religion, not science.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted June 13, 2009 at 11:20 am


Adriana Lima wrote: Jewish people, who comprise a race (J, J2, J3 haplogroups, to be very specific) strongly discourage “intermarriage”, which is to say “polluting” the Jew gene pool, and nobody has a problem with that.
Jews are not a race, any more than Italians are a race. The Jewish people, originally a part of the semetic group which includes Arabs, are defined more by religious affiliation than race. That the Jews are not a proselytizing religion now lends the idea that we are insular. But how do you square that away with Jews who look like Hindus, Ethiopians, and other ‘racial’ types. Intermarriage has always occurred. Conversion to other faiths has always been a factor, whether for marriage or for the faith alone.
Polluting the Jewish gene pool is patent nonsense, promoted by idiots, and believed by conspiracy theorists in need of laying blame away from their own doorstep for mixing with others.
Maybe white supremacists will start killing their own mixers to stop the mixing gene from their weaker-willed members from promulgating and spreading further.
Ah, the fantasy…



report abuse
 

dr winger

posted June 13, 2009 at 1:40 pm


There’s no need to try to piece together his agenda. He’s a Nazi. It’s not hidden or strange. Have people forgotten what Nazism is?



report abuse
 

Citizen Z

posted June 13, 2009 at 2:45 pm


Gabriel, how about this. Let’s both read Richard Weikart’s new book when it comes out next month and get back to each other then: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Ethic-Pursuit-Evolutionary-Progress/dp/0230618073/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3
Also here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/reexamining_the_darwinhitler_l.html
Weikart is the expert on Darwin-Hitler.

So not only can you not defend your statement, but in support you try to use a book you haven’t even read?



report abuse
 

Science Avenger

posted June 13, 2009 at 3:45 pm


Thanks Klinghoffer, for further discrediting your little pseudoscientific cabal over there at the [no] Discovery [not really an] Institute. Every goofy, illogical article like this makes it clear to that many more people that you guys don’t give a rat’s posterior about history, science, or anything else, except in the service of your attempts to discredit Darwin and by extension (you hope) evolution. You are as transparent as a pane of glass.



report abuse
 

What's Good for the Goose

posted June 13, 2009 at 7:47 pm


David has merely hoisted the Left on its own petard by using its own tactics and the way it always tries to shut down debate, but coming at that task from a different angle. And all you outraged commenters fell for it. Hilarious.
Darwinism is important to eugenics and the killing and exploitation that resulted from it. That is a fact. It doesn’t change the science of Darwinism, but it is a result of how that science was used or aBUSED culturally, politically, and socially.



report abuse
 

Science Avenger

posted June 13, 2009 at 8:57 pm


That would be a fine argument Goose if you made it clear whether you approve or disapprove of said tactics. Is David correct, in your view, to argue as he does, and therefore “the Left” (whatever that is) is correct to do so as well? Or does David deserve the same condemnation you seem to feel “the Left” deserves? Those who use politically loaded language as you do have a well-earned reputation for excusing their political allies while condemning their opponents for exactly the same behavior. Personally I find this sort of non sequitorious character assassination abominable regardless of who is doing it. Do you concur?
And BTW, eugenics, or selective breeding, was known long long before Darwin came along, so your contention that the latter was important to the former is dubious at best.



report abuse
 

Dustin

posted June 13, 2009 at 10:15 pm


James Von Brunn was not an atheist or a scientist and his understanding of evolutionary theory would be laughable if it weren’t for the tragic circumstances. I managed to pull his website and book from google cache before it was removed and have found that he viewed evolution in the rudimentary sense “survival of the fittest” manner that was used throughout the 18th and 19th centuries to justify racism and crime. In fact, his words could have come straight from Herbert Spencer’s mouth. This is not how the science of evolution demonstrates our social or physical relationships. If you read his book, “tob shebbe goyim harog,” you’ll find he spends much more time discussing how jews and jesus hated each other and how the jews were not god’s chosen but the real chosen were christians than he ever spoke of evolution [which he got totally wrong, anyway].



report abuse
 

Jeffry

posted June 14, 2009 at 2:40 pm


That paragraph from the manifesto of James really does seem to speak for itself. :/



report abuse
 

Dustin

posted June 14, 2009 at 6:28 pm


Jeffrey,
You have cherry picked a paragraph that perfectly demonstrates his ignorance of the actual science of evolution. You have also ignored pages of text where he attempts to prove Jesus wasn’t a Jew. Here is an example –
“The word ‘JEW’ does NOT appear in any
early translations of the HOLY BIBLE (The Latin Vulgate,
Rheims/Douai, King James, et al). Therefore, because the
word ‘JEW’ was not used until 1775, it is WRONG to call
Biblical patriarchs JEWS. They were not. They were
HEBREWS. Jesus Christ WAS NOT A JEW. He was a rabbi
(teacher) who worshipped the Mosaic Law and despised the
Pharisaical Oral Law (Talmud)…
THE HOLY BIBLE informs us that Moses, a Hebrew
(or was he Egyptian?), climbed Mt. Sinai (c. 1300 B.C.) to
confer with Yahweh, who gave him THE LAW (The Ten
Commandments) which Moses wrote down on two stone
tablets (there was no Hebraic alphabet in those days so the
writing may have been cuneiform, hieroglyphic, Chinese, or
whatever). Traditionally, Moses also wrote the TORAH
(Pentateuch). Centuries later Pharisees claimed that God
orally interpreted THE LAW given Moses. The Pharisees
claimed that Yahweh’s oral interpretation was identical with
their oral interpretation. Thus, the PHARISEES’ ORAL
LAW and THE TORAH are recognized as THE HOLY
WORD. The Pharisees’ ORAL LAW, called Pharisaism,
which Jesus despised as the ‘Synagogue of Satan,’ was even-
tually written down and became the TALMUD (500 A.D.)”
“KILL THE BEST GENTILES!” or “Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog!”
James Von Brunn
The reality is that he was grasping at straws, any straws, be they secular or religious that would justify his hatred. It seems to me that you are trying to deface the science of evolution rather than explaining that his version of evolution is ridiculous and doesn’t resemble the science, in any way.
Our social actions are dependent upon multiple factors that include genetics, environment and culture. Not to mention that evolution suggests diversity in genetics improves our fitness rather than Von Brunn’s claims that they pollute our genetics.
As mentioned earlier, look up the history of social darwinism and then research modern evolution including social evolution.



report abuse
 

What's Good for the Goose

posted June 14, 2009 at 10:07 pm


Science Avenger: There is a difference between making a satirical point and making an argument in earnest. I think one standard should apply to all. David’s point was satirical.
As to eugenics: The pseudo science was founded, and the term coined, by Frances Galton. Galton was Darwin’s cousin, who explicitly stated he was influenced by Darwin’s ideas. Read Edwin Black’s brilliant War Against the Weak for details.
Rationalists shouldn’t try to revise history to suit their ideology. It is unseemly.



report abuse
 

Ted Herrlich

posted June 14, 2009 at 10:52 pm


I am not sure who wrote this comment, but I totally disagree with you.
“Ted Herrlich:
For Pete’s sake! That’s just plain false. See:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/michael_behe_speaks_in_kansas.html
And need I remind you, Judge Jones essentially copied his court ruling on the Dover case nearly 90% verbatim from a statement on ID by the ACLU? See:
http://www.discovery.org/a/4300
Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit like this before? The Judge writing his decision based on the arguments of the winning side is a pretty typical activity. When you take a side, using their words is perfectly reasonable. All judges do it.
While you may disagree, I think he added plenty of his own words. He even predicted your pals over at the Discovery Institute reaction. While they claim he is an activist judge, he was most certainly not presiding over an activist court. His judgment, regardless of your whine about the source of the words he used, was dead on based on the merits of the case. Several of the defendants LIED under oath. Their expert witnesses did not support the contention that ID is science and belongs in the science classroom in any form.
I believe you can see the results of the Dover trail in subsequent changes to the tactics of the Discovery institute. Suddenly they ‘appeared’ to lose interest in bringing ID into the classroom and just try to teach the ‘Strengths and Weaknesses’ of Evolution as a back-door way to get it into the classroom. Look at all the ‘help’ they were in Texas this past year. Got news for them, even if they stumble across an actual weakness in evolution, it still doesn’t make ID a scientific concept. Funny how DI mouthpiece Casey Luskin was applauding the selection of Judge Jones, a Conservative Republican, appointed by a Republican President. The defendants simply forgot to present a case.
Oh, by the way, I sign my name, my email, and even my own blog to my posts. Do you have a reason to hide?
ted
tedhohio@gmail.com
You can say what you want about his write-up, you certainly haven’t addressed the substance. In other words you haven’t presented your case either. So enjoy those semantic word games.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted June 14, 2009 at 11:54 pm


I have to say, Ted H. indeed gets a Gold Star (“Highly Approved”) for using his real name.



report abuse
 

Todd Greene

posted June 15, 2009 at 5:34 am


Brunn’s ideas do have consequences: We don’t pay any attention to irrational ramblings of idiots like James von Brunn.
It’s certainly true that people pushing political agendas can latch onto certain ideas from their cultural milieu and create a pseudoscientific facade to make their beliefs seem more reasonable. Heck, a lot of Christians used the Bible to justify racism too.



report abuse
 

SLPage

posted June 15, 2009 at 4:44 pm


“James von Brunn, Evolutionist”
David Klinghoffer, Minister of Propaganda



report abuse
 

SLPage

posted June 15, 2009 at 4:51 pm


Klinghoffer oozes:
“Evolution-based racism and eugenics were considered very mainstream science till people took note of the worst that applied Darwinism can do.”
Tell us, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow – what do you suppose racism was based on before people started twisting Darwin’s theory for their own purposes?
Surely, so gifted a scholar as yourself does not really believe that there was no racism prior to Darwin? I wonder what it was that, say, Southern Christians used to justify their owning of slaves prior to Darwin’s book being published. Why, one neednly look at the KKK’s website to see what it was – and still is (for they do not accept evolution).



report abuse
 

Alchemist

posted June 15, 2009 at 8:42 pm


Goose stated, “As to eugenics: The pseudo science was founded, and the term coined, by Frances Galton. Galton was Darwin’s cousin, who explicitly stated he was influenced by Darwin’s ideas.”
You employ an argumentative fallacy: guilt by association
What Darwin’s half-cousin claimed has no bearing on what Darwin discovered. I’m certain Darwin controlled his relative’s every thought and implementation, too. Don’t we all have such powers? He never supported or condoned his cousin’s ideas ever.
How many Christian ministers supported segregation and slavery — before, during, and after Darwin? Therefore, Christ must have supported slavery, right?



report abuse
 

What's Good for the Goose

posted June 15, 2009 at 11:25 pm


Alchemist: Weak, and beside the point, if true, and contrary to your assertion. But back to the point: David was being satirical. So many in this thread threw conniptions. He nailed you all big time.



report abuse
 

Alchemist

posted June 16, 2009 at 8:32 am


Goose:
Vague response: what is weak and how would that be “oontrary to your assertion”? The assertion that a person cannot absolutely control what other people think? That’s like saying Einstein is responsible for excesses in moral or cultural relativism because he delineated the theory of relativity.
You employed a logical fallacy and now try to dodge the charge with what amounts to a “tu quoque”.
David is a member of an anti-scientific pseud-organization that would put Western thought somewhere in the medieval period. Ergo, his statement is seen, rightly, as slur against reputable scientists who have spent lifetimes demonstrating the validity of their ideas.
Ah, I see Goose, that you come in, throw a few words about, declare victory and march off smugly satisified that you’ve proven something. If you cannot win, just lob a slogan or two, then run away. Well, perhaps you might succeed at selling snake oil with such trickery, but your nonscientific endeavors will only fool those uneducated or brainwashed enough to believe your chicanery.



report abuse
 

RuperttheBear

posted June 17, 2009 at 11:30 am


This is the stupidest thing I have seen in a long, long time.
S t u p i d.
It doesn’t warrant a reply other than derision. Against stupidity even the gods struggle in vain.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted June 17, 2009 at 2:50 pm


“the species are improved through in-breeding”…
This guy has an understanding of genetics that’s akin to me saying – “Yahweh loves it when you sin, since you can’t get into heaven unless you’ve been forgiven a whole bunch first”…
If I go do something crazy are you going to try and blame the church because I used the words ‘sin’ & ‘heaven’?
You sir, are a loony!



report abuse
 

RuperttheBear

posted June 20, 2009 at 10:27 am


The best thing about this post is the author’s continued engagement through comment replies. Clearly an apologist for the intellectual bankruptcy called “intelligent design” (have you read the Kitzmiller opinion? Well, then, now you know–intelligent design is a ridiculous farce), he tries to extend his puff piece of idiocy, rife with category errors and rhetorical posturing, all the while projecting a sneeringly adolescent petulance that borders on the shrill.
Which brings to mind the research that shows self-identified conservatives general resistance to change, their acceptance of inequality, the tendency they have to feel victimized and jealous, an inability to accept nuance and ambiguity, etc.
I’m guessing you always wanted to be one of the cool kids, never were, never got over it, and have found refuge in a set of beliefs that protect you from your own inadequacies, which you likely assert are nonexistent whilst they continue to cause you shame and insecurity.
Well, sucks to be you, hombre.



report abuse
 

Stanley Steamer

posted June 22, 2009 at 10:58 am


This piece makes about as much sense as somebody blaming the murders committed by Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, and Paul Hill on fundamentalist creationism.



report abuse
 

Ted Herrlich

posted June 22, 2009 at 2:55 pm


A gold star . . . no comment.
Let’s get back tot he subject at hand. I have read several bios that suggest Darwin might have been racist. Most pass it off as him being a man of his times. Many ideas of the day would seem quite racist against more modern times, but even then I think they leave out one of the driving factors of Darwin’s work.
Here, look at this. It’s a quote form the movie Expelled: where Ben Stein tries to connect Darwin to the Nazi’s.
” With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
Actually this would be be better described as a ‘quote-mine’. What little Bennie did was select a few sentences and string them together to deliberately change the meaning of what Darwin was trying to get across. See for yourself, here is the original quote from Darwin:
” With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”
Read the quote, the real quote in context, not Stein’s quote-mined version. What you see is not racism, it is in fact the opposite.
I have also read James Moore and Adrian Desmond work which clearly shows that Darwin’s scientific work was partly motivated by the naturalist’s passionate opposition to racism.
Klinghoffer, Stein, and even Ken Ham (AIG and Creation Museum infamy) all have been trying to paint Darwin as a racist not because he was a racist, but because they want him to be. It makes it easier to attack a theory if you convince folks that it supports something as heinous as racism and eugenics. Yet have any of them pointed out which part of The Theory of Evolution are racist? No, of course not. They bring in Social Darwinism, which is not the Theory of Evolution. Or they attack Darwin personally. It’s tough to defend yourself when you’ve been dead for a long time.
Let’s draw an interesting parallel. Klinghoffer, and his contemporaries over at the Discovery institute, see design in nature because they wish to see design in nature. This is a very human bias (teleological bias) that many of us share. In ‘seeing’ design, they postulate an ‘Intelligence’ behind it. They try and get people to accept their message, but it is soundly rejected. So they change tactics. Among the tactics of ‘Teach the Controversy’, ‘Academic Freedom’, and ‘Strengths and Weaknesses’ is an very personal attack on Darwin. They see racism because they want to see racism. Yet it is their own words that betray them, especially when they have to twist Darwin’s words to make it mean what they wish it to mean.
Pretty ingenious if you ask me.
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com



report abuse
 

Ted Herrlich

posted June 22, 2009 at 3:07 pm


A couple of lines dropped off, not sure if I hit a size limit or what . .here it is:
Pretty ingenious if you ask me. Rather than do the work to prove your point of view is science, create all kinds of reasons why no one will listen to you, attack the man behind the basics of the real science, and simply try and slip in the back door through legal and political means. Ingenious, maybe, but also ingenuous. Wouldn’t doing the science be easier?



report abuse
 

AC

posted July 5, 2009 at 12:01 pm


Nothing “liberal” about the creep, so I guess the right doesn’t want to be associated with one of their own:
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/06/von-brunn-and-reagan-aide-todd-blodgett.html
- AC



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted July 5, 2009 at 12:13 pm


I guess the right doesn’t want to be associated with one of their own:
Yeah, right. Because Rush and Hannity go on about Jews and the Holocaust ALL THE TIME.
If you were talking about the guy who murdered the abortionist, I could see where you were coming from. But it is Republicans who are invariably accused of being too cozy with Israel.
Anti-Semitism is just as much at home on the far Left as on the far Right.



report abuse
 

Mike McCants

posted July 24, 2009 at 11:53 pm


The link I followed to this post described you as “odious”.
Your opinion here seems to fit that description.



report abuse
 

Caroline

posted July 29, 2009 at 8:18 pm


are you actually suggesting that darwinism lead this man to kill? Give me a break. Science has determined that race cannot be biologically classified. Maybe if this man had been educated, he’d have known that there aren’t any “mongrel” or “superior” races of mankind. Sheesh!



report abuse
 

Erik

posted September 15, 2009 at 12:12 am


“And you want to tell me that ideas don’t have consequences?”
when i read that i had to choke back the vomit… So let me understand this right…now you are the moral authority/thought police? that is the typical leftist subversive camp that brun is describing. Perhaps you’ve been a jewish agent for so long that it just comes naturaly? I guess promising you eternity if u stick your pooty hole up to the sky and further capitulate by carrying someone else’s torch to your people detriment works. Quit humping your gutter religion and think for once.



report abuse
 

Mergatroid

posted September 15, 2009 at 4:37 am


“I guess promising you eternity if u stick your pooty hole up to the sky and further capitulate by carrying someone else’s torch to your people detriment works. ”
Five bucks for anyone who can diagram that sentence.



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted October 22, 2009 at 7:55 am


The last two posts were awesome, each in its own unique way.



report abuse
 

Roger

posted January 12, 2010 at 4:06 pm


That piece of trash James von Brunn died last week. Too bad. Would have been better for him to continue living in prison a few more years. He got off easy. Only did seven months for the killing of the Holocaust Museum guard. Again, too bad. But he likely foresaw this outcome. Had he been younger and been looking at years in prison he would not have had the guts to do what he did. He knew that in our criminal justice system an old man gets off easy. Too bad about that, too.



report abuse
 

William Bjornson

posted March 7, 2010 at 6:19 pm


In studying human natural history, one’s study and reading must range from particle physics to book binding, from the perianal gland (function unknown and, not surprisingly, little studied) to ‘extreme’ religions such as zionism and its companion white supremacy. In so doing, one comes across scholars in all disciplines who have devoted their lives to expanding their own knowledge in their chosen areas. For whatever reason that Mr. von Brunn became enamored of such an unjustifiable premise as ‘white supremacy’ (much more extant evidence for ‘yellow supremacy’) is lost in his early developmental history. What can be said about Mr. von Brunn, in fact, is that he was a talented artist and, after wiping off the religious slant of his writing, a thorough and devoted historian. Clearly he lived his work and, like all humans with motivation rooted in group competition, behaved accordingly. Despite the current political incorrectness of his views, his narrative containing the parts quoted above make interesting and surprising reading when checked against other ‘authoritative’ sources. I’m sure the 86 year old human brain can become a strange environment for any personality and do not look forward to experiencing it personally which may become a moot point should I continue making posts such as this. Even so, again, wiping off the covering of religion, his work is thorough and, apparently, absolutely consistent with the generally accepted historical record. Mr. von Brunn’s only ‘crime’, short of the almost certainly dementia related attack, is to belong to a reviled religion. In balance, we must gauge his action on the same scale as Iraq or the Gaza Slaughter. Are these tragedies any different in spirit?



report abuse
 

Pingback: Colorado Shooter James Holmes & Darwin | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Pingback: Darwin, Evolution, & the Boston Bombing | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.