Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


Darwinist Faithful Indirectly Affirm Darwin-Hitler Link

posted by David Klinghoffer
A surprising if indirect affirmation of the Darwin-Hitler connection has been offered by the Darwinist faithful over at Panda’s Thumb. Yes, you read that right.
The argument made by scholars like Richard Weikart and Benjamin Wiker traces an intellectual genealogy from Darwin through Ernst Haeckel to German biology more generally to German popular culture to the Viennese popular press to Hitler. So Panda’s Thumb, representing among the most pious elements of the Darwinian religion, now triumphantly holds up a book review of H.G. Bronn, Ernst Haeckel, and Origins of German Darwinism, by Sander Gliboff, as proof against the Darwin-Hitler connection. Headline: “Darwin –> Hitler? Naw.”
Except that if you read the post, and the book review it’s based on, disregarding the apologetic bluster, both refine but hardly refute Darwin-Hitler. The book, published by MIT Press and reviewed at PLoS Biology by German biologist Axel Meyer, emphasizes that Haeckel got his Darwinism originally not from the English language translation of On the Origin of Species but from the 1860 German translation by Heinrich Georg Bronn, which introduced Bronn’s own spin on Darwinian theory, even including an additional chapter. Bronn had a view of evolution as a process leading to the perfection of the species, in a subtle contrast to Darwin who wrote of competing “races” as being “favored” rather than “perfected.” Bronn translated Darwin’s “struggle for existence” as a “fight for existence or life,” which apparently Darwin found infelicitous for whatever reason.
It hardly matters. No one arguing for the Darwin-Hitler thesis ever said the Nazis lifted their eugenics program directly and unmediated, like a photocopy, from the pages of the Descent of Man. Nor did anyone sane that I’m aware of ever suggest that confronted with the reality of the Nazi record, Darwin himself would be anything but sickened and appalled. Clearly, there was a process of evolution in ideas going on that transformed Darwinism, enlarging on its implications, at the hands of his German interpreters to the point where Nazi leader Rudolph Hess could declare, “National Socialism is nothing but applied biology.”
Vastly simplified, the Hitler-Darwin thesis says: “Darwin –> Haeckel –> Hitler.” So let’s say we modify that slightly. The thesis then reads: “Darwin –>  Bronn –> Haeckel –>  Hitler.” Who could object? Not Panda’s Thumb, apparently, which speaks of this line of transmission “infect[ing] German biology.” Ah ha, so then sick ideas did corrupt German biology, with deadly consequences. That’s an important admission. The only question is the exact path of genealogical descent.
Benjamin Wiker, target of the Panda’s Thumb post, would hardly deny this either. In his excellent new book The Darwin Myth, Wiker has a chapter on “Darwin and Hitler” that lays out a streamlined version of the thesis. It goes like this.

Darwin wrote in the Descent that, “Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would soon sink into indolence, and the more highly gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted.”
In the same book, Darwin famously foresaw the “extermination” of human “savages.” He continued, “The break [between human beings and apes] will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene, between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” (emphasis added). Darwin saw a ladder of races with Africans and Australians at the bottom and doomed to extermination by “civilized” men. Darwin contemplated this prospect with an attitude not of horror but even, in his own words, with a touch of “hope” for the future.
Haeckel, even if channeling Darwin by way of Bronn, met with approval from Darwin who considered Haeckel “to rank as the first” among those qualified to carry on “our work,” being perhaps even “more capable than myself.” This is the same Haeckel who asked “What good does it do to humanity to maintain artificially and rear the thousands of cripples, deaf-mutes, idiots, etc., who are born every year with an hereditary burden of incurable disease?” 
Echoing this monstrous view, Hitler himself said in 1923, “All of nature is a constant struggle between power and weakness, a constant triumph of the strong over the weak.” Did Hitler mix his “applied biology” with other strains of sentiment? Of course he did, as Wiker himself writes: “[He] did it in an arresting way — in part by draping the brutality in religious terms, identifying the brutal laws of natural selection with the laws of God — but the racial and eugenic core of his thought was hardly novel.” 
Of course, it was the Darwin-derived element in Hitlerism that translated most readily into eugenic policies, not the pseudo-religious one, with it ambiguous invocations of a deity that Hitler apparently equated, if he ever genuinely stopped to think seriously about it, with the laws of nature. This all becomes apparent in Mein Kampf.
The standard Darwinist defense has been to deny all this, seeing Hitler more as a Christian, if anything, than a Darwinist. It’s refreshing to see even the folks at Panda’s Thumb recognizing something closer to the truth.


Advertisement
Comments read comments(93)
post a comment
Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 9:47 pm


David, where in the Mishnah does it say you can repeatedly lie about what other people say?
ambiguous invocations of a deity that Hitler apparently equated, if he ever genuinely stopped to think seriously about it, with the laws of nature…
You have read the following before, and you continue to repeat lies.
Hitler rejecting macroevolution, Mein Kampf, which youclaim to have read:The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.
Hitler declaring that Man is made in God’s image:
Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.
[I]t was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.
The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.
That’s just your lies about Hitler. You also lie about Darwin and you lie about what they said at Panda’s Thumb
If you have truth on your side, David, why do you lie? Why do you CONTINUE to lie when you have been made PUBLICLY AWARE of the truth?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 9:52 pm


More lies from David. Darwin’s “hope for the future” that David claims is based on the extermination of “lower races” comes from this passage:
The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Darwin’s “hope” is that men in the future will stop killing each other.
You are a liar.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm


More lies from David:
This is the same Haeckel who asked “What good does it do to humanity to maintain artificially and rear the thousands of cripples, deaf-mutes, idiots, etc., who are born every year with an hereditary burden of incurable disease?”
So if he said this because he was a Darwinist, then why did creationists say the same thing through the 1960′s, David:
At the present time there are in the United States more than a million people with serious hereditary defects, and to reduce their numbers by even a few thousand would reduce the amount of discomfort and hardship in the future. Unfortunate births are reduced by segregation also but there are not enough institutions to house nearly all the ones who have unfortunate genes. Institutional care is expensive but as compared to total government expenditure it is small.
Sterilization is sometimes employed with the consent of the patient for non-eugenic purposes. An example is a woman who has borne three children by Caesarean section and could not stand another birth. Persons who are on the borderline of normal mentality may be able to marry and care for themselves but would not be good parents. Their children might be normal or might be defective, and at any rate would have poor home discipline. Such persons sometimes are prevailed upon to submit to sterilization, to their own advantage…
…A careful reading of eugenic literature reveals that it may inculcate less respect for human life. In this way it runs counter to democracy, which stresses the worth and rights of the individual. The Bible teaches that life comes from God and that it is wrong to take that which one can not give. Unfortunately there are other programs also which destroy the idea of the sacredness of life. We refer to murder on the screen, war, and the teaching that man originated from, and still is, an animal.
We mention these unfortunate results [i.e. Nazism and “misapplied” sterilization] as dangers only; not as objections to attempting to improve our race by application of known genetics principles.
Dr. George Tinkle, “Heredity. A study in science and the Bible”, published while he was Secretary of the Creation Research Society, along with Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:03 pm


Gabriel, you’re apparently one of those who hold the absurd view that Hitler was some sort of creationist Christian. OK, let’s entertain that ridiculous supposition for a moment as if it were true. How, then, do you make sense of all the things he said and wrote that sound so Darwinian? Let’s say you admit they are there. So then there are competing strains in his views, right? Which strain was actualized as part of a practical program? The Christian fundamentalist one that you imagine? If so, where do you find in Christian Scripture any hint of justification for exterminating “savage” races to advance biological development? Then maybe the Darwinian one? No? Then what do you do with Darwin’s frequent images of biological development through “extermination” and of biological decrepitude when life is not modified by sorting out and elimination of the unfit from the fit? Rather than continue to carp hourly about my views — don’t you have anything else to do with your time? — why not set out in a positive form your own explanation of the data and defend that?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:06 pm


Here’s some more Hitler, David:
Sparta must be regarded as the first Völkisch State. The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more humane than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject, and indeed at any price, and yet takes the life of a hundred thousand healthy children in consequence of birth control or through abortions, in order subsequently to breed a race of degenerates burdened with illnesses.
David, did Darwin have a time machine?



report abuse
 

kevin

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:12 pm


Hitler was a wack job, so whats the point?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:13 pm


Gabriel, you’re apparently one of those who hold the absurd view that Hitler was some sort of creationist Christian.
He explicitly invoked a Creator and Creation, which I have repeatedly quoted to you. You can read, I know.
How, then, do you make sense of all the things he said and wrote that sound so Darwinian?
They sound like a caricature of Darwinism, not Darwinism itself, written by a scientific illiterate.
Then what do you do with Darwin’s frequent images of biological development through “extermination” and of biological decrepitude when life is not modified by sorting out and elimination of the unfit from the fit?
Natural laws are not NORMATIVE laws, David. Natural selection works WHETHER YOU WANT IT TO OR NOT.
Eugenics is not the same thing. It was practiced extensively in ancient times, and advocated by Plato?
Did Darwin invent a time machine, David?
If so, where do you find in Christian Scripture any hint of justification for exterminating “savage” races to advance biological development?
I find in, Christian and Jewish scripture, God commanding the Israelites to exterminate the Canaanites for religious reasons, and so do you, David.
Rather than continue to carp hourly about my views — don’t you have anything else to do with your time? — why not set out in a positive form your own explanation of the data and defend that?
I will not let your lies about science and scientists go unanswered.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:13 pm


A “wack job”? With very particular views. Where did he get them?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:14 pm


Bringing back those great old memories from posts of yore:
David, in his post on Francis Collins: “On the other hand, that life has an evolutionary history including billions of years of change — that is unassailable as science and unobjectionable to me as a Jew.” Please explain to me how this is one whit different from theistic evolution. David, you said on that same post that you’d like to see someone debate Collins or ask him some pointed questions; yet you resolutely avoid all such questions and attempts at debate here. This one, which seems to me a statement of what almost anyone would refer to as theistic evolution, is especially egregious.
Finally, you still have never given a real response to what we’ve been asking you about Maimonides (at your request, I recapped and expanded on this a few threads ago, remember?). We’re still waiting. Also, I’m still waiting to hear you speak to the issues of randomness [I'll modify this since you suggested the West articles, but you haven't answered my critique of them yet] and alien intelligence vis-à-vis the “image of god”.
I know this is getting repetitive, but I think anyone reading this will agree that I’m not using nasty language and that I’m being perfectly polite. Don’t you think the civil thing is at least to acknowledge the questions, even if for some reason you don’t want to answer them? And if you don’t want to answer them, you might at least give us an idea why not.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:16 pm


A “wack job”? With very particular views. Where did he get them?
From many different places. Including Martin Luther and the Bible and ancient Sparta and old Germanic legends of evil Jews, David.
Where did you get the idea it’s okay to lie about what people say?
Where did Hitler get this idea, David?
The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:19 pm


By the way, David, your last post was one minute before mine, so you have to have seen it. Well?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:20 pm


One of Hitler’s sources, David, was Houston Stewart Chamberlain. You must know the name.
He wrote Foundations of the Nineteenth Century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundations_of_the_Nineteenth_Century
Chamberlain’s book focused on the claim that the Teutonic peoples were the heirs to the empires of Greece and Rome, something which Charlemagne and some of his successors also believed. He argued that when the Germanic tribes destroyed the Roman Empire, Jews and other non-Europeans already dominated it. The Germans, therefore, saved Western civilization from Semitic domination. Chamberlain’s thoughts were influenced by the writings of Arthur de Gobineau who had argued the superiority of the “Aryan race”. This term was increasingly being used to describe Caucasian or European peoples, as opposed to Jews, who were conceptualised as “infusing Near Eastern poison into the European body politic”. For Chamberlain the concept of an Aryan race was not simply defined by ethno-linguistic origins. It was also an abstract ideal of a racial elite (see Racism). The Aryan, or ‘noble’ race was always in the process of creation as superior peoples supplanted inferior ones in evolutionary struggles for survival.
Chamberlain (who had graduate training in biology), rejected Darwinism, evolution and social Darwinism and instead emphasized “gestalt” which he said derived from Goethe. Chamberlain said that Darwinism was the most abominable and misguided doctrine of the day.
David, if you have the truth on your side, why do you have to lie?



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 17, 2009 at 10:45 pm


It’s more like this:
Darwin (through heavy distortions) –> Bronn (through more distortions) –> Haeckel –> Hitler (who was willing to use anything to support his views, whether he was being accurate with it or not, or whether the sources from which he scavenged were even coherent together or not).
Think of it like this: Suppose someone translated the Old Testament with expansions and commentary of his own, and highly approved the commands of God to slaughter the Canaanites, with additions of his own commending this practice. Years later, Joe Dictator gets hold of this version of the OT, runs with it, and uses it to justify genocide. Is that the fault of the OT’s authors?
Actually, the OT correctly translated has been used to justify a lot of nastiness, but you get the idea.
In your title, “Darwin faithful” is once again a sneaky, weasely way of equating evolution with ideology or religion, when it is neither.
Haeckel, even if channeling Darwin by way of Bronn, met with approval from Darwin who considered Haeckel “to rank as the first” among those qualified to carry on “our work,” being perhaps even “more capable than myself.”
Call me suspicious, but I’ve seen firsthand how you’ve quoted Maimonides piecemeal and out of context (and you’ve never responded when I’ve pointed that out), so pardon me if I don’t buy this from three disconnected, unsourced quotes, none of which is longer than five words!. You gonna have to do better than that to show that Darwin was the approving paterfamilias to Haekel’s boy wonder!
Speaking of which, I notice that Gabriel is always scrupulous to give context, citations, links, and/or sources when he quotes someone, and usually gives long (sometimes very long!) extracts here. I try to emulate this myself. Why do you never quote any non-DI author at a length of more than a dozen words, and never give citations? I second Gabriel–if the truth is on your side, what’s to be afraid of? Why not source?
I join with Gabriel in pointing out that the Spartans practiced eugenics 2500 years before Darwin. You never seem to have anything to say about that, either; nor do you respond when Gabriel quotes and sources a Christian advocating the same.
No one arguing for the Darwin-Hitler thesis ever said the Nazis lifted their eugenics program directly and unmediated, like a photocopy, from the pages of the Descent of Man. Nor did anyone sane that I’m aware of ever suggest that confronted with the reality of the Nazi record, Darwin himself would be anything but sickened and appalled.
Gee, David, you refute yourself here! And in fact, you do strongly imply all of this when it suits you, only making such disclaimers occasionally to make what you say seem more reasonable.
After all is said and done, though, as several of us again and again have pointed out, even if we were to grant everything you say (and we don’t), it has not a whit to do with whether evolution is true or not! Ditto the heliocentric cosmos–as I’ve pointed out before (something else you haven’t responded to!), some historians of ideas think that this had a profound and in some ways negative effect on the Western psyche, but nobody on that basis denies that it’s true!
And do you ever get tired of promoting books by fellow DI Fellows?
And I remember way back I suggested several books on our side. You’re always telling us, “Read this!” but you don’t seem willing to practice what you preach. God forbid one read something that challenges his beliefs.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 11:09 pm


Which strain was actualized as part of a practical program?
Actualized by Protestants and Catholics, David.
Hitler’s private views on Christianity are open to debate, but what is not open to debate is that the millions of people who carried out his evil deeds were Christians and brought up in Christian cultures.
Hitler’s minions were not exclusively German Nazis. Catholics and Protestants all over Europe carried out his orders. Not only that, there were comic-opera imitations like Oswald Mosley and more deadly imitations like Arrow Cross.
All composed of Christians.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 11:19 pm


In addition you have to understand that eugenics makes a population less genetically healthy, by homogenizing a population and destroying the genetic variation that natural selection acts on.
There is a proverb about this: “hothouse rose”. A passage quoted by Charles Mackay in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds in 1841 regarding cultivated tulips:
“When uncultivated, and in its natural state, it is almost of one colour, has large leaves, and an extraordinarily long stem. When it has been weakened by cultivation, it becomes more agreeable in the eyes of the florist. The petals are then paler, smaller, and more diversified in hue; and the leaves acquire a softer green colour. Thus this masterpiece of culture, the more beautiful it turns, grows so much the weaker, so that, with the greatest skill and most careful attention, it can scarcely be transplanted, or even kept alive.”
David, eugenics sounds like “Darwinism” only to the scientifically ignorant; to which fraternity you belong, as demonstrated by your essay on stripclubs and Darwin, which could serve as a Platonic ideal of biological ignorance.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 17, 2009 at 11:28 pm


Also, David, the Nazis burned Darwin’s books, not mention Haeckel’s:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#blacklist
From General Principles for the Compilation of Blacklists, in Die Bücherverbrennung: zum 10. Mai 1933 by Gerhard Sauder:
1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).
2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.
3. Pacifist literature.
4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).
5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)
and more, of course.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted August 18, 2009 at 2:39 am


Gabriel Hanna, I’ve written about that banned books list, made famous by the Internet: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/02/the_strange_case_of_little_gre.html
More to the point, I’m concerned about you. My advice is that rather than spending your apparently very ample free time monitoring my blog around the clock, ready to cry “Liar liar pants on fire” and unleash your quote collection over and over, you should spend your hours more fruitfully. Get away from sitting in front of that computer, get a little exercise, some fresh air, maybe try to meet a woman, develop a hobby, take up tai chi, I don’t know — interact with live people rather than words on a screen! Reading a book wouldn’t be a bad alternative either.



report abuse
 

Ro

posted August 18, 2009 at 6:49 am


Well David, the thing about blogs is that they’re public. If you state something that people think is false, then they respond as such. Free speech is a two-way thing.
I for one am glad Gabriel posts here, to give the other side of the story for your readers. I think it would be to the benefit of all if you answered their questions too, rather than childishly poke fun at them for taking the time to comment here in a way that you cannot cope with.
Oh yes, I would rather spend my time relaxing outside too – and with the wonders of RSS I don’t even need to be at a computer all the time to keep track of your spurious articles. Google alerts works wonders with the keywords, “hitler”, “klinghoffer”, “pants on fire” and “wack job”.
Ro



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:14 am


Klinghoffer, I’ve tried to show you respect on this board, but your irresponsible ridicule of alcohol abstention, your rather horrifying equation of Hitlerism with prevailing biological thought, and now your rather idiotic ad hominem attacks on those who plainly and rationally refute your egregious errors in research have finally succeeded in alienating me thoroughly. You’re not an interesting commentator with a different point of view. You’re just a bad writer.
And, please, don’t respond with some vacuous screed about how many books you’ve sold. For sales volume, we both know that you can’t compete with Anne Rice’s bad porn.



report abuse
 

John Pieret

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:36 am


Haeckel, even if channeling Darwin by way of Bronn, met with approval from Darwin who considered Haeckel “to rank as the first” among those qualified to carry on “our work,” being perhaps even “more capable than myself.” This is the same Haeckel who asked “What good does it do to humanity to maintain artificially and rear the thousands of cripples, deaf-mutes, idiots, etc., who are born every year with an hereditary burden of incurable disease?”
Apparently, David, the “channeling” must go both was. If Darwin’s appraisal of Haeckel’s work on the science of evolution implies he approved of that quote of Haeckel’s, it was only by foretelling the future. Haeckel’s quote is from 1904, some 22 years after Darwin died. This is a piece with all your “scholarship.”



report abuse
 

Stuthehistoryguy

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:43 am


“Klinghoffer, I’ve tried to show you respect on this board, but your irresponsible ridicule of alcohol abstention, your rather horrifying equation of Hitlerism with prevailing biological thought, and now your rather idiotic ad hominem attacks on those who plainly and rationally refute your egregious errors in research have finally succeeded in alienating me thoroughly. You’re not an interesting commentator with a different point of view. You’re just a bad writer.
And, please, don’t respond with some vacuous screed about how many books you’ve sold. For sales volume, we both know that you can’t compete with Anne Rice’s bad porn.”
Not sure why my above comments came though with a “your name”. Then again, it looks like Rabbi Hirschfield had the same problem on his blog. Glad I was able to correct this.



report abuse
 

John Pieret

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:48 am


I’m concerned about you. My advice is that rather than spending your apparently very ample free time monitoring my blog around the clock, ready to cry “Liar liar pants on fire” and unleash your quote collection over and over, you should spend your hours more fruitfully.
Translation from Davidspeak: “I’m tired of being shown to be clueless by Gabriel and I wish you’d stop so I can get on with my propaganda efforts.”
Concern trolling you own blog is, at least, a little original.



report abuse
 

Alan Stillman

posted August 18, 2009 at 8:02 am


David K wrote:
“More to the point, I’m concerned about you. My advice is that rather than spending your apparently very ample free time monitoring my blog around the clock, ready to cry “Liar liar pants on fire” and unleash your quote collection over and over, you should spend your hours more fruitfully. Get away from sitting in front of that computer, get a little exercise, some fresh air, maybe try to meet a woman, develop a hobby, take up tai chi, I don’t know — interact with live people rather than words on a screen! Reading a book wouldn’t be a bad alternative either.”
David K also wrote about how mean and nasty us “DARWINISTS” are. Gabriel is obviously passionate about refuting far fetched theories and spurious claims about the validity of scientific knowledge. and he offers a much better argument than yours – which is of the mentality of “I am made of rubber and you are made of glue…” Devid, if your best arguments come from the second grade, perhaps you shoud give up this blog and go back to school. elementary.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 18, 2009 at 8:06 am


Once more, in his latest response to Gabriel, David slurs someone with whom he disagrees, implying he’s a lonely loser with nothing better to do that post to blogs. This is ugly, reprehensible, and beyond the pale. It is certainly unworthy behavior of a practicing Jew or Christian. In any case, if you’re going to have a blog that allows replies and which is on a controversial topic, then get used to it and quit telling those who disagree what pathetic losers they are. If you can’t deal with it, don’t have such a blog.
I might point out that you know nothing about Gabriel’s personal life, or that of anyone else here, so you have no basis to make such accusations anyway.
I do note two interesting things at the link you posted. One, you say, “Normally, I think it’s best for friends of ID to avoid a defensive posture and generally let critics say what they want without our always feeling obliged to respond.” In other words, keep asserting without even trying to give proof. On this blog you’ve gone on and on about wanting “dialogue” and such, but I guess this shows your true colors, huh?
This tactic reminds me of a quote:
“[I]n the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility…and thus in the primitive simplicity of their [the masses'] minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”
You can Google for the source of this.
The other interesting thing is something I notice in a lot of articles on the Evolution News and Views site (such as the West articles you sent me)–a long bit of irrelevancy with the actual topic being dismissed with a hand wave in a single paragraph. The Nazis burned Darwin’s books, but hey! That was one Nazi organ, so it doesn’t count! Now there’s some heavy intellectual argumentation!
You know, I have complemented you in the past on some of your writing. When you speak of personal issues, you write movingly and gracefully. The Judaism vs. Judaism thread a few posts back was really quite good. This is why I tend to restrain the rhetoric in responding to your evolution posts. Then, you turn around and make cracks like this or the one awhile back where you more or less said that your opponents here are unemployed losers. You even have the gall to link to an essay in which you essentially say you don’t need to give proof or responses, but just let your opponents rave on, after saying here that you want dialogue. Frankly, these are the tactics of a propagandist hack. I had given you credit for maybe not being the hack as well as the sensitive writer, but I see I was apparently wrong.
I think that we are not the ones that need to look at ourselves, David. From some of your posts, it is apparent that you have thought carefully about your faith and understand nuance. When talking about evolution, though, any thought, nuance, or sensitivity goes out the window, and you’re willing to call those who disagree with you (both in the aggregate and personally) any nasty name you can (Hiler! Nazi! Manson! Loser!), directly or by implication, to misquote and distort as much as needed to make your “points”, and to do all you can to avoid answering legitimate questions making any kind of real argument. Is this really, truly in line with your values? Does your faith condone such tactics? Is this how you want to live your life?
This pretty much clinches for me that you’re not going to make any real attempts to answer my questions, and frankly, I do have better things to do, but I think I’ll still keep posting them. Who knows? If nothing else, it will show others the vacuity of any claims to dialogue that go repeatedly and publicly unanswered.



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted August 18, 2009 at 11:48 am


In David’s black and white world, it’s all Darwin–>Hitler, or none, and he absurdly drones on and on, trying to bore his own strawman to death. Well, I’m sure he’s read this by Andrea Bottaro:

Once again, no one is arguing that Darwinian ideas did not play a role in Hitler’s philosophical outlook. The tunnel-vision propaganda of Creationists however would want you to believe that, had Darwin not existed, the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened, never mind that anti-semitic genocide existed long before Darwin, and that — regardless of Hitler’s personal ideological sources — he motivated hundreds of thousands of “willing executioners”, and drove millions more to culpable acquiescence, using overwhelmingly nationalistic and Christian religious rhetoric, without which he would have just been a lunatic fringe politicians screaming in Munich’s Bierhalles.
talkreason.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?article=/articles/look-ma.cfm

So what’s David’s point? That honest science supports the Nazis?
After all, no one with a decent amount of knowledge and honesty is going to deny evolution (you know, the science, not the bizarre caricatures of it that IDists propose, when they’re not outright creationists). We’re to believe that Hitler was supported by actual science?
Of course that’s not his point, as he doesn’t care in the least about honest science, honest dialog, or honest posts. David’s always attacking the strawman of what Darwin wrote, unable to address, or even to learn, what science actually says. And he ignores the host of factors (religion in particular) that gave rise to Hitler, in order to attack what he so unreasonably hates, biological science.
Nonetheless, he doesn’t mind aiding and abetting actual anti-Semites by suggesting that the science that is supported by evidence was in fact responsible for Hitler, thereby giving them exactly the dishonest smokescreen of respectability that they don’t deserve, and that honest science could never provide.
The reprehensible garbage that Hitler used to his advantage is what he wants to imply are the conclusions of scientists. His mindless rubbishing of actual science doesn’t cover up that appallingly dishonest agreement with Jew-haters. It shouldn’t be forgotten, however, that he’s rummaging around the anti-Semites’ pile of lies and half-truths, all in order to support what is intellectually the equal of Mein Kampf, ID.
Morally, ID may not be as low as Nazism and anti-Semitism–yet. Which direction is David headed with it, though?
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted August 18, 2009 at 11:57 am


One correction. I wrote:

David’s always attacking the strawman of what Darwin wrote, unable to address, or even to learn, what science actually says.

I meant:

David’s always attacking the strawman of what Darwin wrote, unable to address, and unwilling even to learn, what science actually says.

I don’t know that being unwilling to learn about what he so ignorantly attacks is actually better than being unable to do so, but I’m sure he could actually quit being a poseur.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p



report abuse
 

Glen Davidson

posted August 18, 2009 at 12:18 pm


More to the point, I’m concerned about you. My advice is that rather than spending your apparently very ample free time monitoring my blog around the clock, ready to cry “Liar liar pants on fire” and unleash your quote collection over and over, you should spend your hours more fruitfully. Get away from sitting in front of that computer, get a little exercise, some fresh air, maybe try to meet a woman, develop a hobby, take up tai chi, I don’t know — interact with live people rather than words on a screen! Reading a book wouldn’t be a bad alternative either.

More to the point, you’re only concerned about being called on your dishonest line written for the Dominionist-affiliated Dishonesty Institute.
Trouble with you, David, is that you either don’t understand, or don’t care about, the honesty that underlies actual science (including evolution, of course), or treating your opponents properly. Because, as anyone who knows about ID can recognize, IDists and the DI have always lied about honest scientists–they have to, because they can never get ID accepted as science by presenting evidence (IDists dither over whether or not science has to be changed for ID to be science), and have to tell their suckers that they’ve been kept out because of conspiracy-prejudice-lies-commitment to atheism, etc.
Those of us who want nothing more than an honest environment in which to discuss evidence, logic, models, and science at large, are deeply offended by this hatred of truth and honesty. I know that you have no connection to, or sympathy for, the kind of honest discussion of science that is life and breath to many of us, and you merely oppose it as the enemy.
What exactly drives Gabriel, I don’t know. It’s obvious to those of us on the side of the angels (they still are for honesty, aren’t they?) that Gabriel is indeed driven in part by the defamation of science and scientists that IDists and the DI have never refrained from using in their single-minded purpose of winning. Of course a DI fellow has been both selected and propagandized to be insensitive to all claims from honesty and truth, and simply returns to unmerited and unevidenced dissembling charges when his constant and repetitive defamatory outrages are labeled as such.
IOW, no one is fooled by David on the side that actually cares about telling the truth, the science side.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
P.S. The guy I quoted in a post above, Andrea Bottaro is, or at least was, a contributor to Panda’s Thumb. While the quote is not from that forum, it does indicate that there’s nothing new about people there agreeing that Darwinian ideas were utilized by Hitler and the rest of the Nazis, the mindless exclusion of more important factors by David and his fellow mendacious ones in order to focus on a misuse of science being what Bottaro and the rest of us oppose.



report abuse
 

Daniel Mann

posted August 18, 2009 at 4:57 pm


Although there isn’t a necessary connection between Darwinism and eugenics and genocide, there seems to be a logical one for at least two reasons:
1. As society rejects theism in favor of naturalism (Darwinism), it also rejects any basis for moral absolutes. As such, morals no longer constitute an independent reality to be discovered. Instead, they must be arbitrarily created. This opens the door to the creation of any number of moralities—social Darwinism, hedonism, enlightened selfism, utilitarianism—none of which have an adequate rational basis. As philosopher David Hume had pointed out, it isn’t logically possible to go from what “is” to what “ought to be.” Therefore, how can we contemplate standing up against evil if we refuse to recognize that such a thing even exists?
Consequently, atheist Arthur Leff, Duke School of Law, writes,
“The so-called death of God wasn’t just His funeral, but was the elimination of any coherent ethical or legal system…As it stands now, everything is up for grabs…Napalming babies is bad, starving the poor wicked, buying and selling people is depraved—but, ‘Sez who?’ God help us.”
2. Within this moral vacuum, the Darwinist understands that natural selection is the guiding and mothering force that has sired us forth from the slim, and we are its grandest “achievement.” It is therefore understandable that genomic progress would become our highest goal. (And historically, it often has!) For many, this means helping natural selection along with some of our own eugenic, genocidal manipulations.
Although this course will not always be taken, there is nothing within naturalism that argues persuasively against it.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 6:13 pm


I welcome David’s potshot. He’s shown his true colors, hasn’t he?
Can’t argue the science, because he’s ignorant, and the other DI fellows are too busy selling books to do any science. Can’t win in court, because the Discovery Institute can’t help talking out of both sides of its mouth about whether ID is science or religion. Can’t quote people honestly, and continually has to lie about science, scientists, and history.
And finally has to resort to name-calling when his lies are exposed.
I’m not interested in changing David’s mind; but I am interested in exposing his tactics to those who are seeking the truth.
And he exposes himself as well.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 6:23 pm


Daniel Mann:
As society rejects theism in favor of naturalism (Darwinism), it also rejects any basis for moral absolutes.
Science has nothing to say about morals. There is nothing in “Darwinism” that says what one SHOULD do. It only says, given such and such conditions we expect such and such effects, like any scientific theory does.
This opens the door to the creation of any number of moralities—social Darwinism, hedonism, enlightened selfism, utilitarianism
All of which pre-existed “Darwinism”. Did Darwin have a time machine?
As philosopher David Hume had pointed out, it isn’t logically possible to go from what “is” to what “ought to be.”
Which is why “Darwinism” can’t be a basis for morality any more than Newtonian or quantum mechanics.
Therefore, how can we contemplate standing up against evil if we refuse to recognize that such a thing even exists?
There are no papers in the scientific literature on the existence of evil. There are scientists who choose to express themselves on this, but they are deriving it from science–read the David Hume quote again.
Within this moral vacuum, the Darwinist understands that natural selection is the guiding and mothering force that has sired us forth from the slim, and we are its grandest “achievement.” It is therefore understandable that genomic progress would become our highest goal.
“Darwinists” deny that evolution has a purpose or makes progress. This is the ID criticism, right–”undirected randomness can’t make blah blah blah”. Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either “Darwinism” has a purpose, or it doesn’t. Pick one argument and stick to it.
For many, this means helping natural selection along with some of our own eugenic, genocidal manipulations.
“Darwinists” like the Spartans, the Romans, “creation scientists” such as George Tinkle…
Eugenics is as old as humanity; and so is genocide.
Even if “Darwinism” made it easier for some people to accept these things–and I do not agree it does–that would be the fault of people who are trying to turn “is” into “ought”, and it still could not make “Darwinism” false.
The laws of chemistry let you commit arson. The laws of physics let you build artillery and nuclear weapons, if you are so inclined. This does not make them false.
The solution to dangerous knowledge is wisdom, not ignorance.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 6:24 pm


This sentence should read:
“There are scientists who choose to express themselves on this, but they are NOT deriving it from science–read the David Hume quote again.”



report abuse
 

kernestm

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:15 pm


Gabriel Hanna
August 17, 2009 10:13 PM
Gabriel, you’re apparently one of those who hold the absurd view that Hitler was some sort of creationist Christian.
He explicitly invoked a Creator and Creation, which I have repeatedly quoted to you. You can read, I know.
Kernestm:
Hitler had a good cunning press advisor. He got Hitler youth to pray to him as god, and twisted the teaching of the churches away from God to his imagined god, of evolution. When he claimed the power of god it was not God, but his version of god, more like satan, who was a murderer from the beginning. He never worshiped the Christian God, but used god to make the population feel that he did, and you have still swallowed the bait, and presumably would follow Hitler, since he believed evolution, as you foolishly do. He had the power to threaten the church leaders to change their teaching, or remove them, permanently, which he did often.
He also followed the precepts of evolution and murdered the deformed, weak, those who opposed him. When he had twisted the moral attitudes of the public to worshipping his concept of the god of Germany, and the aims of evolution, and the breading of the pure race, Hitler could openly murder millions, in the name of evolution, supposedly cleaning up the human race, millions of others besides Jews.
At the same time in the USA many thousands were murdered or sterilised based on eugenics, which is the outcome of evolution.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:27 pm


kernestm:When he claimed the power of god it was not God, but his version of god, more like satan, who was a murderer from the beginning.
Way to read Hitler’s mind. Whatever Hitler’s religious convictions really were, they may well have been evil, but he believed in a Creator Who made Man in His image. He was raised a Catholic, and never renounced his Catholicism.
since he believed evolution, as you foolishly do..
Hitler explicitly rejected macroevolution in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. I have shown you the passage multiple times, and you continue to lie.
the fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.
This is not “Darwinism”. He believed in microevolution bnut not macroevolution, and in a God who created humans specially.
JUST LIKE YOU.
He also followed the precepts of evolution and murdered the deformed, weak, those who opposed him.
Why did the Spartans do it? Did they have time machines, or did Darwin have one?
At the same time in the USA many thousands were murdered or sterilised based on eugenics, which is the outcome of evolution.
The why did creationists like George Tinkle endorse it? I quoted that too, and you have seen it more than once, but you continue to lie:
…A careful reading of eugenic literature reveals that it may inculcate less respect for human life. In this way it runs counter to democracy, which stresses the worth and rights of the individual. The Bible teaches that life comes from God and that it is wrong to take that which one can not give. Unfortunately there are other programs also which destroy the idea of the sacredness of life. We refer to murder on the screen, war, and the teaching that man originated from, and still is, an animal.
We mention these unfortunate results [i.e. Nazism and “misapplied” sterilization] as dangers only; not as objections to attempting to improve our race by application of known genetics principles.
Dr. George Tinkle, “Heredity. A study in science and the Bible”, published while he was Secretary of the Creation Research Society, along with Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts.
kernestm, if you have the truth on your side, why do you tell lies?



report abuse
 

kernestm

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:38 pm


A quote from a more scientific researched article on Hitler:
Darwinism underpinned the most basic features of Nazi theory and practice. While Darwinism is not the sole explanation for National Socialism, it is nonetheless an essential one. The Nazis strongly believed they were acting on behalf of evolutionary ‘science’, reason and progress. They saw themselves as progressive people, who in their impatience merely wished to hasten evolution’s laggard pace by giving a helping hand to its guiding principle, ‘survival of the fittest’.
This article is focused on the evolutionary roots of the Nazi legal system. It explains why the Nazi legal system cannot be isolated from the Darwinian viewpoints of Nazi Germany’s juridical elite. During the period in question, most German judges and lawyers were legal positivists who supported a legal system that rejected any idea of a higher law overseeing the state. Instead, evolutionary thinking, as it had been developed since Darwin, made the Nazi state the means by which ‘evolution’ would be advanced; by tweaking its ‘survival of the fittest’ mechanism to add to its propulsion.
Nazism and Darwinism
Since Charles Darwin (1809-1882) believed that numans evolved from animals by means of a blind process of natural selection, three chapters of his The Descent of Man are devoted to the theory that the mental and moral faculties of human beings originate from the same fount as that of animals. Deeply fallacious and racist as they are, these arguments made a profound impact upon social-science disciplines such as psychology, anthropology and law. According to law professor Phillip E. Johnson:
‘Because Darwin was determined to establish human continuity with animals, he frequently wrote of “savages and lower races” as intermediate between animals and civilized people. Thanks to Darwin’s acceptance of the idea of hierarchy among human societies … the spread and endurance of a racist form of social Darwinism owes more to Charles Darwin than to Herbert Spencer.’1
Neo-atheists sometimes try to suggest that the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) was a religious person. Although Hitler grew up a nominal Roman Catholic, he rejected from an early age Catholic teaching, regarding Christianity as a religion fit only for slaves.2 According to the late British biologist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), at one time a leading evolutionist in Great Britain, the German Fuhrer was an ardent ‘evolutionist … that consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’3
Darwinism underpinned the most distinctive and essential features of National Socialism. Indeed, Nazism would not have existed without Darwinism. While Darwinism is not the only explanation for Nazism, it is nonetheless an essential one. The Nazis believed they were progressives who were advancing ‘evolution’ by conferring on the blind forces of nature the perfect sight of the Aryan, the better for its guiding principle of’survival of the fittest’ to see where to go. There is very much a correlation between the Darwinian worldview of the Nazis and the policies they implemented. This is a worldview in which race occupies a central role, and the struggle for survival is the sine qua non of life.4
While it is true that Hitler sometimes referred to ‘God’ or ‘Providence’ in political writings and speeches, he was not appealing to the Christian deity. Rather, he equated ‘natural law’ with the ‘survival of the fittest’, and God with ‘the unknown, or Nature, or whatever name one chooses’.5 For Hitler, the two basic dynamics of life were hunger (which promoted self-preservation) and love (which preserved the species).6 He argued that the natural conditions in which these two instincts are satisfied are limited, such that organisms have to struggle for space and resources. It is out of this primordial struggle that Hitler saw ‘evolution’ taking place through the mechanism of ‘survival of the fittest’.
Hitler drew from a bountiful fund of social-Darwinist thought to construct his racist philosophy.8 In one of his tirades, on the ‘virtues’ of vegetarianism, he contended that ‘the monkeys, our ancestors of prehistoric times, are strictly vegetarian’.9 In October 1941, he said: ‘There have been human beings, in the baboon category, for at least three hundred thousand years. There is less distance between the man-ape and the ordinary modern man than there is between the ordinary modern man and a man like Schopenhauer.’9 As for educating Africans to become lawyers and teachers, he rejected it as impracticable, saying it was ‘a criminal lunacy … to keep on drilling a born half-ape until people think they have made a lawyer out of him … For this is training exactly like of a poodle.’
Nazism and religion
Hitler believed that the ramparts of religious belief had been overrun by the swift rush of science. He saw evolutionary ‘science’ as a vital element in the task of discrediting Christianity.” Thus, according to historian Richard Evans, ‘the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition.’12 In a conversation which took place just one year after the Nazi seizure of power, in 1933, Hitler stated (also noting how liberal churchians could be ‘useful idiots’):
‘The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future-certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch, and annihilating it in Germany … But for our people it is decisive whether to acknowledge the Jewish Christ-creed with its effeminate pity-ethics, or a strong, heroic belief in God in Nature, God in our own people, in our destiny, in our own blood … Leave the hair­splitting to others. Whether it’s the Old Testament or the New, or simply the sayings of Jesus … it’s all the same old Jewish swindle. It will not make us free. A German Church, a German Christianity, is a distortion. One is either a German or a Christian. You cannot be both. You can throw the epileptic Paul out-others have done so before us. You can make Christ into a noble human being, and deny his role as a saviour. People have been doing it for centuries. I believe there are such Christians to-day in England and America … We need free men who feel and know that God is in themselves.’
Hitler was of the opinion that ‘the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity’.14 He ordered the Germans to stop celebrating Christmas, and forced children from the Hitler Youth to recite a daily prayer to him for all their ‘blessings’ (figure 1). Not surprisingly, he blamed the Jews for having invented Christianity,15 thus requiring as a remedy that Germans be ‘immunised against this disease’.16 According to US Justice Robert Jackson (1892-1954), the chief prosecutor at the main Nuremberg Trial, the Nazis carried out ‘a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches’.17 Hitler had indeed also created a final solution for the ‘problem’ of Christianity, again invoking liberal theologians as useful idiots:



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:38 pm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
The basic ideals of eugenics can be found from the beginnings of humanity. Tribes such as the Fans, aboriginal tribes and ancient Prussian tribes all carried out policies reminiscent of eugenics.[35] The philosophy was most famously expounded by Plato, who believed human reproduction should be monitored and controlled by the state. However, Plato understood this form of government control would not be readily accepted, and proposed the truth be concealed from the public via a fixed lottery. Mates, in Plato’s Republic, would be chosen by a “marriage number” in which the quality of the individual would be quantitatively analyzed, and persons of high numbers would be allowed to procreate with other persons of high numbers. In theory, this would lead to predictable results and the improvement of the human race. However, Plato acknowledged the failure of the “marriage number” since “gold soul” persons could still produce “bronze soul” children. This might have been one of the earliest attempts to mathematically analyze genetic inheritance, which was not perfected until the development of Mendelian genetics and the mapping of the human genome. Other ancient civilizations, such as Rome, Athens, and Sparta, practiced infanticide through exposure as a form of phenotypic selection. In Sparta, newborns were inspected by the city’s elders, who decided the fate of the infant. If the child was deemed incapable of living, it was usually exposed in the Apothetae near the Taygetus mountain. It was more common for boys than girls to be killed this way in Sparta. Trials for babies included bathing them in wine and exposing them to the elements. To Sparta, this would ensure only the strongest survived and procreated. Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first “Völkisch State,” and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta due to its primitive form of eugenics practice of selective infanticide policy which was applied on deformed children though the Nazis believed the children were killed outright and not exposed.
The Twelve Tables of Roman Law, established early in the formation of the Roman Republic, stated in the fourth table that deformed children must be put to death. In addition, patriarchs in Roman society were given the right to “discard” infants at their discretion. This was often done by drowning undesired newborns in the Tiber River. The practice of open infanticide in the ancient world did not subside until the Christianization of the Roman empire.
Since Darwin apparently invented time travel, he must have been a greater genius than anyone thought.
Or maybe all you “Darwin=Hitler” lot are a bunch of liars. That is far more likely.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:43 pm


kernestm: I see you’ve decided to keep lying.
What about Hitler’s own public speeches?
My feeling 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 against the Jewish poison.
Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
As a Christian I have no duty to allow 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. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.
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 today this poor people are plundered and exploited.

Don’t you get it, kernestm? Hitler was a liar. He said whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted, based on what he thought he could get out of them.
You have no idea what Hitler really believed.
But we know what he didn’t believe in: Darwinism. He didn’t even mention Darwin’s name in Mein Kampf and the Nazis banned Darwin and Haeckel’s books.
You know these things, and you say the opposite, so you are ALSO a liar.
If religious people think they have a license to lie, then I’m glad I’m not one.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:47 pm


kernestm: So what religion were all the French, Germans, Belgians, Dutch, Romanians, Italians, Poles, Slavs, and Hungarians who rounded up Jews for the Fuehrer and put his eugenics into practice.
Christians, genius.
Whatever Hitler may have believed in private, his followers were Christians.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 7:54 pm


More from Hitler’s speeches to his Christian followers. I can post hundreds if necessary:
We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls…. We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people. Passau, 27 October 1928
We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk…. This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection….May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk. 1 Feb. 1933
Except the Lord built the house they labour in vain…. The truth of that text was proved if one looks at the house of which the foundations were laid in 1918 and which since then has been in building…. The world will not help, the people must help itself. Its own strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use; that in it and through it we may wage the battle of our life…. The others in the past years have not had the blessing of the Almighty– of Him Who in the last resort, whatever man may do, holds in His hands the final decision. Lord God, let us never hesitate or play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us…. We are all proud that through God’s powerful aid we have become once more true Germans. March 1933
We want honestly to earn the resurrection of our people through our industry, our perseverance, our will. We ask not of the Almighty ‘Lord, make us free’!– we want to be active, to work, to agree together as brothers, to strive in rivalry with one another to bring about the hour when we can come before Him and when we may ask of Him: ‘Lord, Thou seest that we have transformed ourselves, the German people is not longer the people of dishonour, of shame, of war within itself, of faintheartedness and little faith: no, Lord, the German people has become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrifices.’ ‘Lord, we will not let Thee go: bless now our fight for our freedom; the fight we wage for our German people and Fatherland.’ May Day 1933
National Socialism has always affirmed that it is determined to take the Christian Churches under the protection of the State…. The decisive factor which can justify the existence alike of Church and State is the maintenance of men’s spiritual and bodily health, for it that health were destroyed it would mean the end of the State and also the end of the Church…. It is my sincere hope that thereby for Germany, too, through free agreement there has been produced a final clarification of spheres in the functions of the State and of one Church. 22 July 1933
We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. 24 Oct. 1933
Hitler pretended to be Christian before his Christian followers, kernestm. You can’t blame atheism or “Darwinism” for Nazis without being a liar.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted August 18, 2009 at 9:01 pm


It’s not enough to fire off volleys of Internet-gathered quotes. You also have to *think* about the words and about the history in which they are embedded. No one believes Hitler was sincere all the time. There’s a respectable historical view that he was a complete mountebank. The fact remains that the basis of eugenic logic is set forth in Darwin’s work, not in the Bible. So which set of ideas — Christian or Darwinist — was put on as a disguise to fool the simple and which represents the heart of the matter?



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 9:11 pm


the basis of eugenic logic is set forth in Darwin’s work..
Did the Spartans have a time machine, David?
Yes or no question.
Did the Spartans practice eugenics, David?
Yes or no question.
The answer to both questions is, AS YOU KNOW, “yes”.
Which means your statement about eugenics and Darwin is a LIE, David; AND KNOWN TO YOU TO BE A LIE.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 9:13 pm


Oops. “The answer to both questions is, AS YOU KNOW, “yes”.
No, the Spartans did not in fact have time machines.
Let me rephrase that.
David, you KNOW that the Spartans DID practice eugenics and DID NOT have access to Darwin’s theory.
Therfore, YOU ARE LYING when you say one is responsible for the other.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 9:18 pm


Who taught the Spartans eugenics, David?
Who taught the Romans eugenics, David?
Who taught Plato eugenics, David?
Please a) produce Darwin’s time machine, b) produce plato’s time machine, or c) cease to argue that Darwin is responsible for a practice that preexisted him.
Until you choose a, b, or c, you continue to be a liar.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 9:24 pm


Clearly Charles Darwin’s works have the power to travel through all time and space, David:
…exposure of newborns was widely practiced in ancient Greece. In Greece the decision to expose a child was typically the father’s, although in Sparta the decision was made by a group of elders. Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby.
In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to death by exposure. The Twelve Tables of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed.
Marco Polo, the famed explorer, saw newborns exposed in Manzi. China’s society promoted gendercide. Philosopher Han Fei Tzu, a member of the ruling aristocracy of the 3rd century BCE, who developed a school of law, wrote: “As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death.” Among the Hakka people, and in Yunnan, Anhwei, Szechwan, Jiangxi and Fukien a method of killing the baby was to put her into a bucket of cold water, which was called “baby water”.
Since feudal Japan the common slang for infanticide was “mabiki” which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden. A typical method in Japan was smothering through wet paper on the baby’s mouth and nose. Mabiki persisted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Tapirapé indigenous people of Brazil allowed no more than three children per woman. Furthermore, no more than two had to be of the same sex. If the rule was broken infanticide was practiced.[72] The people in the Bororo tribe killed all the newborns that did not appear healthy enough. Infanticide is also documented in the case of the Korubo people in the Amazon.



report abuse
 

GORD WHITE

posted August 18, 2009 at 9:55 pm


I like Dr. David Berlinski’s comment on the question of Darwin’s influence on Adolf Hitler and the Nazi philosophy. He said (paraphrase)…. “Darwinism was a sufficient support for his mad dance through Europe but not a necessary one” In-other-words, individuals and communities and nations of people will make use of that which is convenient and available to support an “a priori” position.
Perhaps scientists may be guilty of this too; notwithstanding a particular paradigm with respect to the origin of life.
Gorden White P.Ag.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted August 18, 2009 at 10:00 pm


Gabriel, eugenics doesn’t mean simply killing children or other vulnerable people because you don’t want them around. It means killing or otherwise keeping them from having children in order to positively impact future generations through social genetic engineering. I don’t see that in your vaunted Spartan example.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 10:06 pm


Clearly Charles Darwin’s works have the power to travel through all time and space, David:
…exposure of newborns was widely practiced in ancient Greece. In Greece the decision to expose a child was typically the father’s, although in Sparta the decision was made by a group of elders. Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby.
In some periods of Roman history it was traditional for a newborn to be brought to the pater familias, the family patriarch, who would then decide whether the child was to be kept and raised, or left to death by exposure. The Twelve Tables of Roman law obliged him to put to death a child that was visibly deformed.
Marco Polo, the famed explorer, saw newborns exposed in Manzi. China’s society promoted gendercide. Philosopher Han Fei Tzu, a member of the ruling aristocracy of the 3rd century BCE, who developed a school of law, wrote: “As to children, a father and mother when they produce a boy congratulate one another, but when they produce a girl they put it to death.” Among the Hakka people, and in Yunnan, Anhwei, Szechwan, Jiangxi and Fukien a method of killing the baby was to put her into a bucket of cold water, which was called “baby water”.
Since feudal Japan the common slang for infanticide was “mabiki” which means to pull plants from an overcrowded garden. A typical method in Japan was smothering through wet paper on the baby’s mouth and nose. Mabiki persisted in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Tapirapé indigenous people of Brazil allowed no more than three children per woman. Furthermore, no more than two had to be of the same sex. If the rule was broken infanticide was practiced.[72] The people in the Bororo tribe killed all the newborns that did not appear healthy enough. Infanticide is also documented in the case of the Korubo people in the Amazon.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 10:07 pm


David:Gabriel, eugenics doesn’t mean simply killing children or other vulnerable people because you don’t want them around. It means killing or otherwise keeping them from having children in order to positively impact future generations through social genetic engineering. I don’t see that in your vaunted Spartan example.
You’re just splitting hairs now. Plato advocated exactly what you are describing, David. Stock breeders have done it for centuries.
Plato’s eugenics (from the Republic). Did he learn this from Darwin, David?
…the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.
Had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small…
The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.
…But to the knowledge of human fecundity and sterility all the wisdom and education of your rulers will not attain; the laws which regulate them will not be discovered by an intelligence which is alloyed with sense, but will escape them, and they will bring children into the world when they ought not. Now that which is of divine birth has a period which is contained in a perfect number…this number represents a geometrical figure which has control over the good and evil of births. For when your guardians are ignorant of the law of births, and unite bride and bridegroom out of season, the children will not be goodly or fortunate. And though only the best of them will be appointed by their predecessors, still they will be unworthy to hold their fathers’ places, and when they come into power as guardians, they will soon be found to fall in taking care of us, the Muses, first by under-valuing music; which neglect will soon extend to gymnastic; and hence the young men of your State will be less cultivated. In the succeeding generation rulers will be appointed who have lost the guardian power of testing the metal of your different races, which, like Hesiod’s, are of gold and silver and brass and iron. And so iron will be mingled with silver, and brass with gold, and hence there will arise dissimilarity and inequality and irregularity, which always and in all places are causes of hatred and war. This the Muses affirm to be the stock from which discord has sprung, wherever arising; and this is their answer to us.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted August 18, 2009 at 10:15 pm


OK, that’s more relevant. I’ve said myself already that “Darwinian” ideas can be traced back to antiquity. But it wasn’t Plato that German biologists were mad for, or Lucretius. It was Darwin. At the same time, “Darwinism” designates a stream of thought that extends back before the historical Darwin was born. I know you prefer to do your research by Google search, Gabriel, but it would repay the effort to sit down and read Weikart’s “From Darwin to Hitler” and “Moral Darwinism.” However, it’s not my job to educate you against your will. Enough.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 10:20 pm


know you prefer to do your research by Google search, Gabriel, but it would repay the effort to sit down and read Weikart’s “From Darwin to Hitler” and “Moral Darwinism.”
In other words, you can’t refute the assertion. I’ve read Plato so I know where to find what I want in it. Should I tear the pages out and mail them to you? Would that be acceptable?
Meanwhile, your livelihood depends on you selling those books, David. Well, I’m not going to buy a copy of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, because it is full of lies.
And I won’t buy DI fellows’s books either, for the same reason.
Why should I pay you to lie about science and scientists? I get that for free, here.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 10:24 pm


But it wasn’t Plato that German biologists were mad for, or Lucretius. It was Darwin.
Move those goalposts, David. Hitler got his eugenic ideas from many sources, including people who rejected Darwinism like Houston Stewart Chamberlain.
Nobody needs Darwinism to get the idea of eugenics. Any culture that practices stock breeding can figure it out.
So why don’t you quit lying? You want to argue science, maybe you and the other DI fellows can start doing some. But you’re not allowed to make up your own history and distort quotes.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 10:29 pm


At the same time, “Darwinism” designates a stream of thought that extends back before the historical Darwin was born.
In other words, you have a license to call anything you don’t like “Darwinism: whether Darwin had anything to do with it or not.
Change the name to something that isn’t a deliberate lie. You want to argue against eugenics, materialism, naturalism, or whatever, fine, but call things by their right names and stop deceiving people.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 18, 2009 at 11:01 pm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease
Three approaches have been used to prevent or reduce the incidence of Tay-Sachs disease in the Ashkenazi Jewish population:
* Prenatal diagnosis. If both parents are identified as carriers, prenatal genetic testing can determine whether the fetus has inherited a defective copy of the gene from both parents. For couples who are willing to terminate the pregnancy, this eliminates the risk of Tay-Sachs, but abortion raises ethical issues for many families. Chorionic villus sampling (CVS), which can be performed after the 10th week of gestation, is the most common form of prenatal diagnosis. Both CVS and amniocentesis present developmental risks to the fetus that have to be balanced with the possible benefits, especially in cases where the carrier status of only one parent is known.
* Mate selection. In Orthodox Jewish circles, the organization Dor Yeshorim carries out an anonymous screening program so that couples who are likely to conceive a child with Tay-Sachs or another genetic disorder can avoid marriage. Nomi Stone of Dartmouth College describes this approach. “Orthodox Jewish high school students are given blood tests to determine if they have the Tay-Sachs gene. Instead of receiving direct results as to their carrier status, each person is given a six-digit identification number. Couples can call a hotline, if both are carriers, they will be deemed ‘incompatible.’ Individuals are not told they are carriers directly to avoid any possibility of stigmatization or discrimination. If the information were released, carriers could potentially become unmarriageable within the community.” Anonymous testing eliminates the stigma of carriership while decreasing the rate of homozygosity in this population. Stone notes that this approach, while effective within a confined population such as Hasidic or Orthodox Jews, may not be effective in the general population.
* Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. By retrieving the mother’s eggs for in vitro fertilization and conceiving a child outside the womb, it is possible to test the embryo prior to implantation. Only healthy embryos are selected for transfer into the mother’s womb. In addition to Tay-Sachs disease, PGD has been used to prevent cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Huntington’s disease, and other genetic disorders. However this method is expensive. It requires invasive medical technologies, and is beyond the financial means of many couples.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 19, 2009 at 1:36 am


In chapter 1 of volumn 2, Hitler seemd to be taking a untilitarian approach top religion,and even God’s existance.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 19, 2009 at 1:45 am


Accordibng to this:
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/endC.htm
Hitler did plan on destroying the church in Germany.
And Hitler did seemt o use God and Nature interchangibly in “Mein Kampf.” Sounds more like Pantheism than traditional Christianity.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 19, 2009 at 1:49 am


And when Hitler wrote “the fox is always a fox” he was talking about how animals don’t interbreed, so races shouldn’t either. And animals are true to their natures, so the master race should be, too, and not show mercy.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 19, 2009 at 7:01 am


In chapetr 4 of Volumn 2 he discusses how it was the invention of tools that allowed humans to evolve above animals. Sounds like fairly convetional evolutionary theory.



report abuse
 

Turmarion

posted August 19, 2009 at 8:36 am


David: OK, that’s more relevant.
As usual, backing off when confronted with actual evidence. Just like when you said that Epicurus advocated masturbation, then when I and others called you on that, you say, “Oh, gee, I meant Lucretius, but he was an Epicurean, all the same thing, you know.” Yeah–real intellectual honesty here.
I’ve said myself already that “Darwinian” ideas can be traced back to antiquity…At the same time, “Darwinism” designates a stream of thought that extends back before the historical Darwin was born.
That’s like defining Judaism as Christianity because the stream of Christian thought extends back through Judaism. Or defining both as Canaanite paganism since the name of the head of the Canaanite pantheon was El, which is also one of the designations of the Judeo-Christian God.
But it wasn’t Plato that German biologists were mad for, or Lucretius. It was Darwin.
That’s not the point. What you seem to be saying whenever you bring up Hitler and eugenics is that if it hadn’t been for Darwin, then Nazism, the Holocaust, eugenics, etc. would not have happened. Is this a fair statement of your view?
What we’re trying to say is that had Darwin never existed, the cultural milieu was such that all these nasty things would have happened anyway–they’d just have used someone else to justify it. Heck, maybe then they would have appealed to Plato or Lucretius.
Now if you think that if Darwin hadn’t existed that eugenics and Nazism and such wouldn’t have happened, then I think you’re demonstrably wrong. However, if you concede that it would have happened anyway, then that undercuts your argument that Drawin and evolution were responsible for all this. What do you say?
I know you prefer to do your research by Google search
Gee, David, I’ve been asking you questions again and again, and you won’t answer them at all. The closest you’ve ever come is sending me links to articles at Evolution News and Views, which, hmmm, isn’t a heck of a lot different from doing a Google search. When I actually read the articles you referenced and gave my considered opinion of them, your response was crickets.
[B]ut it would repay the effort to sit down and read Weikart’s “From Darwin to Hitler” and “Moral Darwinism.”
Just as it repay the effort to get a copy of The Guide for the Perplexed and actually read more than one sentence of the relevant chapter so you could respond when I point out how you’ve quoted it out of context to make it seem to say the opposite of what it says, right, David? You never have answered that, either. And have you actually read anything by Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Richard Dawkins, or even Charles Darwin? I don’t mean quote mining or synopses, I mean actually reading the books. Unless the answer to this is “yes” (and any kind of intellectual integrity involves the willingness to read the works of those with whom you disagree so you can at least understand them, if not agree), then I think you have no place to criticize anyone else’s study habits. You ought to worry about your own education.
Anyway, it’s sad that someone seems to have to make post after post in a row to get you to respond, and when you do it’s always snark or a refusal to engage the actual arguments. I’m still waiting, but I’m not holding my breath.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted August 19, 2009 at 10:57 am


Am I missing something here? I don’t subscribe to Beliefnet’s Daily Jewish Wisdom to get an ongoing screed against evolution. About a month ago, I asked myself the question, is that all this guy writes about? Each day, I get to read Brad Hirschfield’s column and “Darwin was wrong.” I want to read different views and ideas on Judaism. I get it, David, you don’t believe Darwin was correct. Fine. I’ve heard this for months. Move on to something else or let somebody else have your space.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 19, 2009 at 11:34 am


Nazi race policy clearly and undoubtedly adopted Darwinism as the basis for it’s ideology. Yes they added a a somewhat mystical dimension to it (or should we say it evolved a mystical dimension) but that doesn’t change the fact that Darwinian thinking was at the root of Nazi evil.



report abuse
 

Bill

posted August 19, 2009 at 11:37 am


Your Name…..
And when Hitler wrote “the fox is always a fox” he was talking about how animals don’t interbreed, so races shouldn’t either.
That’s a very good point. Unfortunately it seems to be too nuanced for the Asperger’s crowd around here to comprehend.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 19, 2009 at 11:48 am


In chapter 1 of volumn 2, Hitler seemd to be taking a untilitarian approach top religion,and even God’s existance.
First, I notice that you can’t support what Hitler said with direct quotes. Second, utilitarianism and the question of God’s existence have nothing to do with evolution and predate Darwin.
And Hitler did seemt o use God and Nature interchangibly in “Mein Kampf.” Sounds more like Pantheism than traditional Christianity.
And when Hitler talked about Jesus-as he did on hundreds of occasions when he was speaking publicly–he was talking about what? For example:
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. And when Hitler wrote “the fox is always a fox” he was talking about how animals don’t interbreed, so races shouldn’t either. And animals are true to their natures, so the master race should be, too, and not show mercy.
There’s no point in lying about what Hitler said when it’s so easy to quote:
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 Hitler is denying that macroevolution can happen. “Darwinists” say that pandas were carnivores and are now vegetarians–according to Hitler this can never happen.
In chapetr 4 of Volumn 2 he discusses how it was the invention of tools that allowed humans to evolve above animals. Sounds like fairly convetional evolutionary theory.
To someone who doesn’t know anything about conventional evolutionary theory it might. No doubt the Raelians’ beliefs sound like conventional physics to people who don’t know any physics. That’s how they sucker you-they say something that sounds kind of like science to people who don’t know any, and that’s what David does to you.
Evolution doesn’t have anything evolving “above” anything, which you would know if you’d ever studied it, instead of reading bogus quotes about it.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 19, 2009 at 11:55 am


Bill:Nazi race policy clearly and undoubtedly adopted Darwinism as the basis for it’s ideology. Yes they added a a somewhat mystical dimension to it (or should we say it evolved a mystical dimension) but that doesn’t change the fact that Darwinian thinking was at the root of Nazi evil.
This is a lie, Bill.
Eugenics goes back to ancient times-practiced by Spartans and endorsed by Plato, and is a simple application of stock breeding principles to humans. No knowledge of evolution is required.
Jew-hate and Jew-killing were endemic among Christians over fifteen hundred years, as was the notion of superior and inferior races. This idea is found the Bible.
Aggressive warfare and genocide have all been practiced all through human history and everywhere humans live.
None of these are implied by Darwin’s theories, and none are advocated by biologists who accept Darwin.
That’s a very good point. Unfortunately it seems to be too nuanced for the Asperger’s crowd around here to comprehend.
No, it’s just false, as READING THE BOOK would tell you.



report abuse
 

terrie

posted August 19, 2009 at 3:44 pm


As a man thinks so is he…



report abuse
 

kernestm

posted August 19, 2009 at 7:17 pm


Quotes from Gabriel:
You have read the following before, and you continue to repeat lies.
why do you lie? Why do you CONTINUE to lie when you have been made PUBLICLY AWARE of the truth?
You are a liar.
Where did you get the idea it’s okay to lie about what people say?
if you have the truth on your side, why do you have to lie?
That is out of just a few posts.
kernestm’s comments:
Dear Gabriel,
Along with evolution you were taught humanism, it is all through the school curriculum, and one of its tenants is that what is true for you may not be true for others. We all have our own truths, according to humanism, which is the “spiritual?” aspect of evolution, they both stand or fall together, since they both say there is no God.
Calling people liars just because their “truth” is different to your scientifically unsupportable claims of “truth” does not help to educate anyone, just makes the divide un-crossable. Because you automatically call any opposition a lie, we don’t want to associate with your version of truth, you make it too abhorrent to consider becoming like you seem to be on the web. Perhaps you are getting stressed out, so take a break from debating, and concentrate on your work in the three Labs you have access to. We are telling the truth as we see it, so perhaps you should consider our views more thoroughly.
I know that God is there, and contactable, that He told the truth when He said that He created the earth and all life, and only a few thousand years ago, as He deliberately left an historical record of names and ages. The decay of the earths magnetic field, and carbon14 in diamonds seems to support a young age also.
Then I look at the complexity of the simplest replicating life form and find tremendous complexity. It must have an enormous amount of complex instructions in the DNA, it must have “promoters” to open the DNA at the right place for reading the instructions for each protein or data requirement to be transcribed. It must have a copying mechanism, a folding mechanism, and then a “kinesin” to transport the protein to where it is required. If you have done research into the cell mechanism you may have seen how they carry the protein along a track to its destination. There are videos of it, made up as best as can be done, since it is so small, it has taken a lot of research to piece it all together. The cell is highly organised, with the same code used for storage and reading, but why would chance set up any coherent coding system? How could it evolve unless it was all in the first replicating life?
Taking an honest scientific look at each of the above, I cannot conceive that any one of them could come about from unguided chemical reactions in even 10 billion years of chemicals shuffling about, sifting, sorting and reacting etc, particularly since chemicals usually react the wrong way, make rubbish and break down any complex living type of chemistry. I honestly cannot see any possibility of evolution being even a reasonable assumption about the past.
There is no possibility of evolution being true. So take a proper look at the evidence you claim, trace it back past assumptions that hopeful people have made, and consider carefully the actual original evidence, and also research the complexity of the minimum replicating cell.
Calm down and stop being so unpleasant to debate with, it should be a polite exchange of ideas so we all find the truth.



report abuse
 

Dennis

posted August 19, 2009 at 7:31 pm


Darwinism is not the cause of wars! Study world history! By this fuzzy logic, should we therefore blame G-d for serial killing, genicide, and torture, since He himself engaged in those actions– according to scripture?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 19, 2009 at 7:34 pm


It is not that a fox WILL never breed with another animal, a fox cannot breed cross-species. That the different races can interbreed proves humans are a single species. Among Hitler’s many shortcomings, add biology to the list. Nowhere in the geologic record is there proof of Macro-evolution, only micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is NOT responsible for turning apes into people.



report abuse
 

Gabriel Hanna

posted August 19, 2009 at 8:02 pm


Along with evolution you were taught humanism, it is all through the school curriculum, and one of its tenants is that what is true for you may not be true for others.
Speak for yourself, kernestm. I was not taught this and I do not believe it. There is one real Universe, whether or not everyone chooses to believe in it. This argument might work on a Raelian or postmodernist, but a physical scientist or an engineer will just laugh.
The decay of the earths magnetic field, and carbon14 in diamonds seems to support a young age also.
Nonsense. Why can we see stars more than 6000 light years away? Why do nuclear plants work if the decay laws are wrong? Where are all the trilobites and why are they never mixed in with dinosaurs and modern mammals?
Young earth creationism is too bogus to bother with. You might as well believe the earth is flat.
The cell is highly organised, with the same code used for storage and reading, but why would chance set up any coherent coding system?
Because CHANCE ISN’T RESPONSIBLE, genius. YOU are the one who says evolution is CHANCE. BIOLOGISTS do not. You are arguing with your own ignorance, not modern science. You don’t even know what the science IS–because you decided long ago you never needed to bother to learn anything but what you already believe.
I cannot conceive that any one of them could come about from unguided chemical reactions in even 10 billion years of chemicals shuffling about, sifting, sorting and reacting etc, particularly since chemicals usually react the wrong way, make rubbish and break down any complex living type of chemistry. I honestly cannot see any possibility of evolution being even a reasonable assumption about the past.
This is horse laugh material. YOU don’t understand it, therefore no one can. That is all you are saying. If you’re too stupid to figure it out, leave it to experts then. Your stupidity is not evidence. You don’t understand quantum mechanics either, but it makes your computer work.
Calm down and stop being so unpleasant to debate with, it should be a polite exchange of ideas so we all find the truth.
Quit lying about science and history. In fact, go learn some. THEN, and ONLY then, will YOU be worth debating.
The only reason I respond to you at all is so that everyone knows that what you say is bogus.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 19, 2009 at 9:47 pm


Gabriel:
Where in the quote about foxes does it say that Hitler was denying macroevolution. He was talking about behavior. And the whole paragraph was tlaking about how animals don’t interbreed.
And as far as wherthe Hitler got the details of human evolution right, he still believed in it.
And when Hitler parisd christianity publicly, he may have been doing what politicians do best, which is lying to get votes.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 19, 2009 at 9:52 pm


According to this:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/festjc/chap10.htm
Martin Bormann sadi that what the Nazi’s meant by God was Nature.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 19, 2009 at 9:55 pm


Accroding to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany
Christianity was declining in Germany during the Nazi years.



report abuse
 

Dave Luckett

posted August 22, 2009 at 5:50 am


So, to sum up:
Hitler cannot be demonstrated to have ever referred to Darwin’s works, and his very rare, very vague, references to biology only serve to demonstrate that he used any material at all that might be twisted to serve his purposes. He did this with Christianity, too, of course, only far more often and far more specifically.
There is no evidence that Hitler, or any leading Nazi, ever read Darwin. It is possible that some Nazis might have read a bad translation that included a gratuitous distortion of Darwin’s ideas. Darwin’s works, however, were condemned by the Nazis and his books proscribed and burned.
On closer inspection, Darwin’s words do not support the interpretation that he hoped for “extermination” of any species, human or animal. He feared and deplored the extermination of the anthropoid apes, and of what he thought of as the less-developed peoples of mankind, and with reason, these being events that he saw happening in his own time. But he hoped for improvement in his own culture. He specifically and roundly condemned the idea that disabled or handicapped people should be ‘culled’, or that the poor or other disadvantaged people should not be helped. He eloquently argued for the contrary.
The idea of culling the imperfect, the inferior or the unwanted, the construction of other humans as alien, and the glorification of war, are vile curses that arise from nothing more than human evil; but they are as old as humanity, and there is no way that they can be blamed on Darwin.
In fact, there is nothing specific about Hitler’s thought that owes anything to Darwin at all. Your thesis is dead wrong.



report abuse
 

Ben

posted August 22, 2009 at 10:52 am


The “exact path of genealogical descent” is a very important question. Let’s say I was to write a new translation of the Bible; I just add, remove, or change some words and add a new chapter here or there whenever I felt it was needed. For example, I might insert a new verse after Matthew 10:36 to clarify Jesus’ desire for us to murder our families. Would you then blame Jesus and the Bible if someone then murdered their families after reading my translation? Of course not.
But guess what? People throughout history (including Hitler) did not need my translation to find Biblical justification for all sorts of horrid acts such as witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, slavery, genocide, and Apartheid. I assume you might argue that the Bible doesn’t really support these things; the perpetrators just twisted its passages to say what they want. Why are Christians so incapable of extending that same courtesy to anything else? A proper understanding of evolution would clearly show that each of these acts are detrimental to the human race.
Page 6 of The Counter-Creationism Handbook says it best: “Hitler’s views were a perversion of both religion and biology.”



report abuse
 

Raging Bee

posted September 2, 2009 at 9:56 am


It hardly matters…
Then why did you write a post about it?



report abuse
 

Mark

posted September 2, 2009 at 2:20 pm


I think the answer comes immediately afterwards. I’m sure you kept reading after that point, right?



report abuse
 

Unapologetic Catholic

posted September 2, 2009 at 2:55 pm


I saw the words following “it hardly matters.” I saw the untruth. Answer? No, there was no answer.



report abuse
 

Cory Tennessetti

posted October 2, 2009 at 4:04 pm


No, it didn’t come directly from Darwin, but his name was mentioned! Wow. That critical thinking gem is nothing but a particularly fine example of the type of closed eye babble these guys do so well. As Twain said “How empty is theory in the presence of fact!”



report abuse
 

Mark

posted October 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm


Cory Tennessetti, if you read Weikart’s book or heard his lecture online, you would’ve realized that you knocked down a straw man.
Which part of “No one arguing for the Darwin-Hitler thesis ever said the Nazis lifted their eugenics program directly and unmediated, like a photocopy, from the pages of the Descent of Man.” did you fail to see?



report abuse
 

tinyfrog

posted October 21, 2009 at 12:51 am


Um – Darwin’s AND Hackel’s books were banned in Nazi Germany. Nice attempt to establish a link, though.



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted October 21, 2009 at 8:03 am


Tinyfrog, go spend some time on youtube and look for nazi propaganda videos — if you don’t think you can “establish a link” yourself, I’ll eat my hat.



report abuse
 

John

posted November 19, 2009 at 4:58 pm


Reinhard Heydrich cited “natural selection” as the reason to turn the Nazi forced labor program of Jews into an extermination program: Wannsee, January 20, 1942, quoted in William Shirer’s “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” 1960. Books by Robert Payne and John Koster quote the same text. The German film “Wannsee” also quotes Heydrich verbatim. John Toland, Gertrude Himmerfarb, Hannah Arendt also mention Hitler’s Darwinism. Hitler was NOT a Christian — he was a neo-pagan or atheist as it suited his purpose. Protests by Christians derailed his euthanasia program against the “unfit.” The link between Darwin and Hitler is direct. PS: Neither Darwin nor Haeckel appears on most Nazi book-burning lists. Most books listed to be burned were by Jews, Slavs, Marxists, or German “Aryan” anti-Nazis like Erich Maria Remarque and Heinrich Mann. Neo-Darwinism was cited in many Nazi propaganda films under that name. Darwin was the single most important intellectual progenitor of the Holocaust, more important than any ethnic German except Hitler and his thugs in prompting mass murder. Darwin’s writings also led to of Stalin’s mass murders of stubborn resisters as classes — Ukrainian landowners, Polish gentry, Russian Christian and Jewish believers as well. This is a fact.



report abuse
 

Eric

posted January 24, 2010 at 5:03 pm


“Neither Darwin nor Haeckel appears on most Nazi book-burning lists”
#6 on Germany’s 1935 burned books list:
“Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism”
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted January 25, 2010 at 12:08 am


Thanks for the info. I can’t tell whether you refuted John, or you simply gave the rare counterexample which he would’ve acknowledged.



report abuse
 

Anthony

posted July 2, 2010 at 2:12 pm


Note the “primitive” Darwinism – surely meant to exclude the enlightened Darwinism of Bronn/Haeckel. This confirms everything.
Besides, the idea of evolution – survival of the fittest – is so close to Hitler’s ideas of purging that it hardly matters whether there be a cause and effect between them or both share the same cause – which is essentially the rejection of God’s love and the love of one’s neighbour.



report abuse
 

derwood

posted July 7, 2010 at 12:55 pm



Hitler was NOT a Christian — he was a neo-pagan or atheist as it suited his purpose. Protests by Christians derailed his euthanasia program against the “unfit.” The link between Darwin and Hitler is direct”
“Cory Tennessetti, if you read Weikart’s book or heard his lecture online, you would’ve realized that you knocked down a straw man.
Which part of “No one arguing for the Darwin-Hitler thesis ever said the Nazis lifted their eugenics program directly and unmediated, like a photocopy, from the pages of the Descent of Man.” did you fail to see?”
I do so enjoy reading the laughable confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and pure fantsy displayed by so many anti-evolution extremists. If ‘Darwinism’ influenced Hitler, therefore, evolution is wrong/bad/etc., then why cannot the same argument be made for Christianity? The rebuttal is that he was not a TROOO Christian, therefore, one cannot condemn Christianity because Hitler made many references to God and the Lord and such as justification for his ‘work’. If that is so, why cannot the same rebuttal apply for the ‘Darwinist’ – Hitler was not a true Darwinist, therefore, evolution is unscathed?
Why? Because the anti-evolutionist employs blatantly obvious double standards and insists – maybe even bvelieves – that the same defense cannot be used for both ‘ideologies,’ because their preferred position is so special to them.



report abuse
 

????????, ???????

posted February 12, 2012 at 7:50 am

???????? ??????? ????????????? ????? ??????? ???????

posted February 12, 2012 at 2:05 pm

????, ?????????, ?????????????, ???????????????

posted February 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm

????, ?????, ???????????????

posted February 22, 2012 at 7:21 am

làm đẹp với mật ong và sữa chua

posted March 8, 2014 at 4:51 am


Hello mates, its fantastic piece of writing about tutoringand fully explained, keep it up all the
time.



report abuse
 

Pingback: The Greatest Crisis Facing America: The Democrat Party Represents The WRONG 90 Percent | Start Thinking Right

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.