Look, ma! I can quote-mine historians too!

Posted 16 April 2008 by Andrea Bottaro

In the absence of evidence or solid logical arguments, Creationists have long resorted to the strategy of quote-mining, the purposeful misrepresentation of scientists' opinions by selective or distorted quotation of their words, to buttress their claims. With the Creationists behind the movie Expelled hard at work to demonstrate that "Darwinism" was a necessary pre-condition for the Holocaust and Hitler's primary inspiration, it was only a matter of time before historians suffered the same fate. Enter David Klinghoffer, the Discovery Institute's hired hit-pen and journalistic hatchet job expert. On the Orwellianly named DI blog Evolution News & Views (their stated motto: "The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site"), Klinghoffer argued yesterday that most historians endorse the view that Darwinism played a pivotal role in Hitler's ideology.

Fortunately, serious historians of the past half century have been freer than media hacks to explore the complexity of Nazism's actual genealogy. One thing that these expert scholars have almost universally agreed on is that Darwinism contributed mightily to Hitlerism. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: "Underlying the Nazis' belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin's idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being." Or just pick up any standard biography of Hitler. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: "The basis of Hitler's political beliefs was a crude Darwinism." What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of the conclusions that followed from Darwin's theory: "Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest." Joachim C. Fest, in Hitler, describes how the Nazi tyrant "extract[ed] the elements of his world view" from various influences including "popular treatments of Darwinism." Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that "crude social-Darwinism" gave Hitler "his entire political 'world-view.'" John Toland's Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, finally, says this of Hitler's "Second Book" (1928), never published in his lifetime: "An essential of Hitler's conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right." You get the idea. [emphases in the text are mine - AB]

Now, if you have been involved in the Creationism-evolution skirmishes for a while, you get a sixth sense for quote mines, something just doesn't look right to you: very short quotes, ellipses, words altered or inserted. Fortunately, I had access to Fest's excellent Hitler biography, so I looked. On page 201, Fest is describing Hitler's voracious but unsophisticated reading habits, and then writes:

Yet he [Hitler] went on extracting the elements of his world view from pseudoscientific secondary works: tracts on race theory, anti-Semitic pamphlets, treatises on the Teutons, on racial mysticism and eugenics, as well as popular treatments of Darwinism and the philosophy of history. JJoachim Fest, Hitler, Harcourt 2002, p. 201

This is what Klinghoffer wants to pass as this historian's equivalent of "contributed mightily": on par with "treatises on the Teutons"! 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. The claim of a direct, causal relationship from Darwinian evolutionary theory to Nazism, reiterated by Ben Stein himself when he said that Darwinism was "necessary" for the Holocaust, is simply a load of historical bollocks, and a cheap exploitation of the deaths of millions at the hands of the Nazis. For factually accurate information about the deep roots of Nazi antisemitism and the various forces that influenced it, the web site of the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC is an excellent resource. Of course, the entire argument in Expelled (a mix of textbook "Reductio ad Hitlerum" and hammy parallels between Nazi persecutions and the alleged censorship of pro-ID scientists in academia) falls apart if Darwin was just one of many sources of Hitler's hodgepodge ideology - they might as well blame the Holocaust on Wagner and the Bayeruth Conspiracy. Perhaps Klinghoffer should have read further down the same page in Fest's book:

In actual fact, knowledge meant nothing to Hitler; he was not acquainted with the pleasure or the struggle that goes with its acquisition; to him it was merely useful, and the "art of corrected reading" of which he spoke was nothing more than the hunt for formulations to borrow and authorities to cite in support of his own preconceptions: "correctly coordinated within the somehow existing picture". Joachim Fest, Hitler, Harcourt 2002, p. 201

Or, perhaps, he has. ****** Added in proof: Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. I wish I could say that is finally the bottom of this intellectual slime pit, but I am afraid it won't be. Let me remind everyone of the words of Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, with respect to a "documentary" by Coral Ridge Ministries making the very same points that Ben Stein, David Klinghoffer and Richard Weikart (who also personally contributed his own historical insights to that documentary) are now arguing for:

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.

93 Comments

Tim Tesar · 16 April 2008

Are you sure the Ben Stein image is not copyrighted?

Tim Tesar · 16 April 2008

I think there is a more fundamental issue here. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory that, like all scientific theories, simply endeavors to describe and explain the way the world IS. Anyone who thinks that a scientific theory (evolution included) necessarily implies that people should behave in a particular way or implies anything about the way the world SHOULD be, does not understand what science is all about.

Also, when some particular scientist expresses his opinion about the way the world OUGHT to be, that does not in any way imply that that is what science says.

jeh · 16 April 2008

Science, history, ... and theology. Quote-mining is their standard mode of "scholarship." I constantly saw the latter when I studied theology at and IF-friendly institution of higher learning.

Context, we need no stinkin' context.

raven · 16 April 2008

There are a lot of evolutionary biologists in Israel itself, at Haifa, Tev Aviv, Hebrew, Ben Gurion among others. They aren't Darwinists plotting the next Holocaust. Just normal scientists doing normal science. They even have their own journal, The Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution. Doesn't look like Jewish scientists buy the Darwindidit story either.

The Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution is dedicated to publishing high quality original research and review papers that advance our knowledge and understanding of the function, diversity, abundance, distribution, and evolution of organisms at all levels of biological organization as they interact with their biotic and abiotic environments. (Click to read our mission statement.) Editors-in-Chief Blaustein, Leon University of Haifa, Israel **** Kotler, Burt P. Ben-Gurion University, Israel **** Subject Editors from Israel Abramsky, Zvika Ben Gurion University, Israel **** Carmel, Yohay Technion, Haifa, Israel **** Dayan, Tamar Tel Aviv University, Israel **** Genin, Amatzia Hebrew University, Interuniversity Institute, Eilat, Israel **** Ilan, Micha Tel Aviv University, Israel **** Izhaki,Ido University of Haifa>, Oranim, Israel **** Kark, Salit Hebrew University, Israel **** Krasnov, Boris Ben Gurion University, Israel **** Motro, Uzi Hebrew University, Israel **** Ovadia, Ofer Ben Gurion University, Israel **** Stone, Lewi Tel Aviv University, Israel **** Yom-Tov, Yoram Tel Aviv University, Israel **** Yuval, Boaz Hebrew University, Israel **** Ziv, Yaron Ben Gurion University, Israel ****

Sorry for the intrusion raven, I edited out the personal e-mail addresses just in case. People can follow the link if they wish. - AB

Andrea Bottaro · 16 April 2008

Tim Tesar: Are you sure the Ben Stein image is not copyrighted?

I am sure midwifetoad, the AtBC poster whom made the pic, originally created it from scratch in his/her super-secret graphic design lair, using a team of mediocre character actors/comedians and ex-nixonian-speech-writers as experts. But if I get a polite note to prettyplease take it down, and on advice from counsel, I may comply.

DavidK · 16 April 2008

From the DI site on Klinghoffer's response:

"The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution."

Misreporting of the evolution issue...? ...accurately...? What liars these creationists are.

Chad · 16 April 2008

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate something more then just a misquoted historian, a lie from a creationist, or a baseless ascertion.

Where is the evidence?!

Andrea Bottaro · 16 April 2008

Chad: I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate something more then just a misquoted historian, a lie from a creationist, or a baseless ascertion. Where is the evidence?!

Are you asking for evidence that darwinian theory was not necessary for the Holocaust (or not more necessary than nationalism, Christianity, anti-Marxism, capitalist economic theories, etc)? What would that look like? The real question is: can creationists muster anything more than misquotations, lies and baseless assertions?

Naked Bunny with a Whip · 16 April 2008

*sighs*

Yep, there it is. Outrage fatigue. And it's only Wednesday afternoon.

raven · 16 April 2008

The real question is: can creationists muster anything more than misquotations, lies and baseless assertions?

No they can't. The Holocaust happened 63 years ago and was one of the most dramatic events of the 20th century. The obvious question was why? and historians and survivors have been asking that for 63 years. If Darwindidit, we would have known 2 generations ago. Most historians place the blame on a blend of German culture and German variety Xianity. It is in wikipedia among other places. Ironically the USA has a strong evolutionist component. Roughly 40% of the population and 99% of the relevant intelligentsia. Much of the work on the modern Theory of evolution was done and is done here. Seen any death camps lately in North America. Anyone rounding up the Jews? Anyone even hinting that we should do that. Outside of the Xian Identity wingnuts. NO!!! In fact, at least some evolutionary biologists are Jewish. The USA is one of the few places where Jews have assimilated and we also support Israel with billions of USD every year. The Expelleds are simply using an atrocity to try and further their own ideological crusade. It won't work but it might boomerang on them.

MattusMaximus · 16 April 2008

raven: The Expelleds are simply using an atrocity to try and further their own ideological crusade. It won't work but it might boomerang on them.

Well, it will "work" in the sense that it will help the true-believing creationists dig in their heels and insist upon keeping children in schools ignorant of not only modern science but (now, apparently) accurate history as well. I would certainly hope to see some groups like the Anti-Defamation League or other Jewish groups making some noise about this movie. Has anyone seen any reaction from these groups?

ShavenYak · 16 April 2008

To whatever extent the Holocaust was aided by On The Origin of Species, it was also aided by On the Jews and Their Lies. If the Expelled crew want to pin it on Darwin, they need to be pinning it on Luther as well.

raven · 16 April 2008

I would certainly hope to see some groups like the Anti-Defamation League or other Jewish groups making some noise about this movie. Has anyone seen any reaction from these groups?

Good question. When Coral Ridge's From Darwin to Hitler came out, the ADL had some harsh words in 2006. As to what they will say this time, who knows? Seems like the Holocaust was so long ago that no one even cares why it happened anymore. But it makes a nice political football. "Here, you hold it." "No, it is your turn to be blamed."

adl.org: ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler New York, NY, August 22, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, "Darwin's Deadly Legacy." After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy's project, Dr. Collins said he is "absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and inflammatory," he told ADL. ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement:"This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis. "It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of 'Christian Supremacists' who seek to "reclaim America for Christ" and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law." The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book "Evolution's Fatal Fruit: How Darwin's Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions." A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program "features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin's theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler's ovens."

raven · 16 April 2008

Well, it will “work” in the sense that it will help the true-believing creationists dig in their heels and insist upon keeping children in schools ignorant of not only modern science but (now, apparently) accurate history as well.

Yes, Evolution is now a threefer. You get to pretend that objective reality doesn't exist, science is evil, and it can be used to rewrite history. The creos don't need another propaganda film to embrace Voluntary Ignorance and keep their kids stupid. They will anyway. It is a matter of time until someone figures out that Darwinists nailed Jesus to the cross.

gary · 16 April 2008

Well. the Creos have finally convinced me. I now realize that science is too dangerous to teach. I think we should round up all science teachers and retrain them to teach something safer. Maybe art or economics.

Reginald · 16 April 2008

Tim Tesar: Are you sure the Ben Stein image is not copyrighted?

Parody is protected, especially in a non-profit setting.

Stanton · 16 April 2008

raven: It is a matter of time until someone figures out that Darwinists nailed Jesus to the cross.

They've already tried... One Henry Morris alleges that the various nefarious scientists and philosophers of the 19th Century were trying to revive the "pagan philosophies" of the Greek Atomists, who, in turn, the ideological descendants of the Babylonian priesthood trained by the legendary King Nimrod of Babylon, who, in turn, was taught by none other than the Devil, himself. (p 193 of Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism)

Susannah · 16 April 2008

In actual fact, knowledge meant nothing to Hitler; he was not acquainted with the pleasure or the struggle that goes with its acquisition; to him it was merely useful, and the “art of corrected reading” of which he spoke was nothing more than the hunt for formulations to borrow and authorities to cite in support of his own preconceptions: “correctly coordinated within the somehow existing picture”. Joachim Fest, Hitler, Harcourt 2002, p. 201

So Hitler was a quote-miner, too.

jeh · 16 April 2008

the ideological descendants of the Babylonian priesthood trained by the legendary King Nimrod of Babylon, who, in turn, was taught by none other than the Devil, himself

I saw that in a Christian graphic novel years ago--now I know the source. Interesting.

rimpal · 16 April 2008

So Hitler was a quote-miner, too.

How low can you get, quote mining about quote miner!

MattusMaximus · 16 April 2008

Just a point of note folks. If you're looking to link on a blog in order to get the NCSE Expelled Exposed website a higher Google ranking, you should heed this advice...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3623336&postcount=10

Bottom Line:

Do not use "Expelled Exposed" as your anchor text! (The anchor text is the visible text in a link). We need to get it moved higher in the Google rankings for when people search for the the movie. That means searches that have "expelled" in them but not "exposed".

So, for example, like this: Expelled :)

Back to your regularly scheduled thread...

eric · 16 April 2008

Hmmm...

ID proponent premise #1: Darwinism leads to atrocities like the Holocaust.

ID proponent premise #2: Darwinism isn't science, its just another religion

ID conclusion: Religion leads to atrocity.

QED

MarkB · 16 April 2008

Ok, always happy to trade Hitler quotes, try this one from Tolland p213 from the chapter "Hitlers Secret Book" quoting Mein Kampf:

"Therefore, I am now convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator by fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

raven · 16 April 2008

I'll see your Hitler quote and raise you.

Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order: "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."

Andrea Bottaro · 16 April 2008

Those quotes are certainly significant, but all they signify is that, once again, Hitler was just adept at picking and choosing whatever suited his purposes. He could talk about natural selection and "survival of the fittest", and ban books on real evolutionary biology with the next breath. He could fill his mouth with appeals to God the Creator and imagine himself fulfilling some Divine Mission, while accusing Christianity of being the religion of the weak and plotting for the State to take over the Church.

The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Paul Flocken · 16 April 2008

Reginald:
Tim Tesar: Are you sure the Ben Stein image is not copyrighted?
Parody is protected, especially in a non-profit setting.

Linkies: Parody,The copyright issues of parody.

raven · 16 April 2008

Those quotes are certainly significant, but all they signify is that, once again, Hitler was just adept at picking and choosing whatever suited his purposes.

It is a matter of emphasis. How many times did he babble on about god and Jesus and Xianity versus Darwin. Way more of the former. It is also important to note that Hitler had millions of willing helpers. Without them, he would have been just another loon; sitting in a bar, ranting and raving, and waiting for the internet to be invented so he could reach an audience of dozens. ~~Like Dembski, Meyers, or Behe.~~

Shebardigan · 16 April 2008

Hitler was also an accomplished mimic, and occasionally enjoyed entertaining children by producing all the sounds of a locomotive entering a Bahnhof, or of a complete WWI artillery barrage with subsequent ground assault.

I'm sure that proves something profoundly anti-scientific.

Chris Noble · 16 April 2008

Yet he [Hitler] went on extracting the elements of his world view from pseudoscientific secondary works: tracts on race theory, anti-Semitic pamphlets, treatises on the Teutons, on racial mysticism and eugenics, as well as popular treatments of Darwinism and the philosophy of history. JJoachim Fest, Hitler, Harcourt 2002, p. 201

Does this mean that modern physics leads inexorably to new age mysticism and quantum-healing because some fruitcakes get their inspiration from "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters" and "The Tao of Physics"?

Mark Farmer · 16 April 2008

To quote Peter Olafsson "... the validity of a scientific theory does not hinge upon how it has been interpreted by German dictators."

A search of a .pdf version of Mein Kampf
www.greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf
reveals the use of the word "Christian" 32 times.
Use of the word "Darwin"? Zero.

Tim Tesar · 16 April 2008

Many thanks to Andrea for giving me a good laugh and to Reginald and Paul for straightening me out on the copyright issue.

Andrea Bottaro · 16 April 2008

raven: It is a matter of emphasis. How many times did he babble on about god and Jesus and Xianity versus Darwin. Way more of the former. It is also important to note that Hitler had millions of willing helpers. Without them, he would have been just another loon; sitting in a bar, ranting and raving, and waiting for the internet to be invented so he could reach an audience of dozens. ~~Like Dembski, Meyers, or Behe.~~

The latter comment informs the former. Hitler quite likely ranted about religion more often than evolutionary biology because religion helped him recruit many more "willing executioners" than evolutionary theory (although the latter of course helped too in some specific cases, like physicians). In general "Onward Christian Soldiers!" has been a more effective rallying cry for the masses than "Onward ye Darwinists!". To paraphrase Weinberg, Hitler may have gotten some of his evil ideas from his warped understanding of evolution, but to get the Germans to put those evil ideas into deadly effect, that took his warped understanding of religion.

Bob Calder · 16 April 2008

My URL link goes to a post on my blog that has what I have found on what the movie and ID folks use as well as a very good source on what we know Hitler said and thought.

Of course you can't prove a negative but I haven't seen anything in Hitler's words that reflects his inclusion of Natural Selection.

He would reject Darwin on the basis of his science not being volk science for one thing. His pet scientists who were engaged in eugenics would not be eager to tell the boss about their connections to the scientists of other countries who were bent on sterilizing retarded people.

Finally, Hitler was goal-oriented as only an obsessive madman can be. Ben Stein and crew argue that there was a rational argument for the awful things that happened by making claims that the theory of natural selection was involved. An obsessive madman is probably not going to be really strong on critical thinking or consistent logic.

MelM · 16 April 2008

Who was the science adviser on this film?

BTW, don't forget NCSE's new "EXPELLED Exposed" site: Expelled

John Britschgi · 16 April 2008

I think the best answer to Ben Stein and co. was made back in the 70's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

"It is said that science will dehumanize people and turn them into numbers. That is false, tragically false. Look for yourself. This is the concentration camp and crematorium at Auschwitz. This is where people were turned into numbers. Into this pond were flushed the ashes of some four million people. And that was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave."
-Jacob Bronowski, The Ascent of Man

rog · 16 April 2008

John Britschgi,

Thank you. I agree.

rog

MelM · 16 April 2008

If Hitler himself had written "The Origin of Species", it wouldn't make the Theory of Evolution false and Genisis true; Hitler is a red herring in this conflict.

Evolution is a natural science theory; in no way is it a prescriptive moral theory or a politcal theory. But, collectivist totalitarian politics are lethal and collectivist eugenics just makes it worse. Hitler hated just about everything coming from the Enlightenment-- and that included individualism.

The eugenics nuts weren't using natural selection and all the Nazis thought of was "breed the best and shoot the rest" with their own preposterous ideas about what was best. Keep basic individual rights in mind and there won't be any problem with crackpots trying to make a master race.

Stanton · 16 April 2008

MelM: If Hitler himself had written "The Origin of Species", it wouldn't make the Theory of Evolution false and Genisis true; Hitler is a red herring in this conflict. Evolution is a natural science theory; in no way is it a prescriptive moral theory or a politcal theory. But, collectivist totalitarian politics are lethal and collectivist eugenics just makes it worse. Hitler hated just about everything coming from the Enlightenment-- and that included individualism. The eugenics nuts weren't using natural selection and all the Nazis thought of was "breed the best and shoot the rest" with their own preposterous ideas about what was best. Keep basic individual rights in mind and there won't be any problem with crackpots trying to make a master race.

What people like Mathis and Stein fail to understand is that the negative eugenics programs practiced by the Nazis is actually bad for the species, from the standpoint of an evolutionary biologist, in that by destroying all those members of the population who fail to appeal to the leader(s)' sense of aesthetics, and sparing those who do, a "bottleneck event" is created, where the population is made genetically uniform (and genetic diversity is lost as a result). And experience has shown us that few species rarely, if ever, survive bottleneck events, as not only do the deleterious effects of inbreeding crop up very shortly, but the species now does not adapt as quickly to changes in the environment or ecosystem, as well. The only two species I know of that have survived a bottleneck event and made a full recovery are the elephant seal, and the cheetah, though, the cheetah survived one bottleneck event during the last ice age, and it doesn't look like it's faring too well because of the current bottleneck event brought about by human activities.

Mad Scientist · 16 April 2008

Bob Calder said: “Of course you can’t prove a negative but I haven’t seen anything in Hitler’s words that reflects his inclusion of Natural Selection,”

I’m wondering if there are disparaging comments on Darwin and natural selection in the Nazi literature or in the German popular literature during Hitler’s time. The theory of natural selection, being a British product, might have been viewed as suspect, lacking Aryan purity. I vaguely recall my father, who grew up in Nazi Germany, having told me that “Which came first, the chicken or the age” was a popular folk argument against the theory of evolution at the time.

Science Avenger · 16 April 2008

I wonder how much blame David Klinghoffer gives the Beatles for the Charles Manson cult's "Helter Skelter" murders. I'm sure there's a connection to their unauthorized use of "Imagine" somewhere in there.

midwifetoad · 16 April 2008

Tim Tesar: Are you sure the Ben Stein image is not copyrighted?

Interesting question. I made the buckle parody. I don't know the legal status of the image, except that owners of images can take steps to prevent hot linking or copying them to local drives. I think any effort to work around such protections would clearly violate fair use, as would any commercial use. If parody use of images is inherently illegal, we are all in big trouble.

MelM · 16 April 2008

Stanton,

Good point! And, who knows but that some of those not considered "the best" could, in some ways, actually be the best but without anybody knowing.

Anyway, I've got 4 books about the eugenics movement on my buy-list. Reading the book descriptions is telling me already that I'm in for some very ugly stuff. Hitler may have been the worst but he wasn't alone by a long shot and he didn't invent eugenics either. He had heros and even financial help from outside. It's really quite shocking.

Mad Scientist · 16 April 2008

Ooops! It looks like I have age on my face.

Nigel D · 17 April 2008

An obsessive madman is probably not going to be really strong on critical thinking or consistent logic.
— Bob Calder

Who, Stein or Hitler? Or both? :-)

Nigel D · 17 April 2008

I recall reading or hearing somewhere that Hitler was a great admirer of the British Empire, and that he hoped to model the Third Reich on it. Does that mean that the British Empire was responsible for the holocaust? (Hint: no).

TomS · 17 April 2008

Once again, no one is arguing that Darwinian ideas did not play a role in Hitler’s philosophical outlook.

I am not particularly knowledgeable about this, but I haven't found anything that would say that Darwinian ideas played any role in his outlook. Can anyone find something to back this up? I've seen a few things which indicate that some of the Nazis repudiated "darwinian" ideas. I would count as "darwinian" anything that the creationists themselves do not accept. "Micro"evolution, evolution within "kinds", the creationists insist on telling us that they accept. I understand that the early 20th century has been called "the eclipse of darwinism" because specifically darwinian ideas about natural selection were not generally accepted in the scientific community. Does anyone have a reference where Hitler referred to Darwin, by name, favorably? Or to any of the concepts that Darwin advanced which have not been accepted by the creationists, themselves?

John Kwok · 17 April 2008

Hi all,

Alas I have to claim this delusional Disco Tute narcissist as a fellow alumnus of our prominent Ivy League alma mater. Back in January he had a rather insipid, quite inane essay about his religious and political "evolution" published in our alumni magazine:

http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/january/february_2008/how_brown_turned_me_into_a_right_wing_religious_conservative_._._._1893.html

I had the unfortunate pleasure of commenting on both his educational "viewpoint" and his Disco Tute association (see above).

Additional comments can be seen here too, in the latest issue:

http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/mail_room/reactionary_or_sage_1937.html

I tried reasoning with him via a private e-mail correspondence - and thought he might be more reasonable than Bill Dembski - but without success.

Incidentally Klinghoffer will have a new book in June in which he explains "why God commands you to be a conservative". It ought to be entitled, "why God commands you to be a Disco Tute Christian Fascist.

Regards,

John

Andrea Bottaro · 17 April 2008

TomS: I would count as "darwinian" anything that the creationists themselves do not accept. "Micro"evolution, evolution within "kinds", the creationists insist on telling us that they accept. I understand that the early 20th century has been called "the eclipse of darwinism" because specifically darwinian ideas about natural selection were not generally accepted in the scientific community. Does anyone have a reference where Hitler referred to Darwin, by name, favorably? Or to any of the concepts that Darwin advanced which have not been accepted by the creationists, themselves?

Just because Creationists have come to accept some darwinian concepts, it doesn't mean that they are not darwinian. I wouldn't let them get away with it just because it makes their already inane arguments about Hitler and "Darwinism" look even more absurd.

TomS · 17 April 2008

And I would not let them get away with saying that there is anything "Darwinian" about a worldview which ignores or denies just about everything specific to Darwin.

Please, anybody, name something "Darwinian" about those social/political movements of the early 20th century.

I admit that I could easily have missed something, but what little that I've read seems to indicate opposition to Darwin (such as book burning), ignorance, or, at best, indifference (I don't think that they much cared about the origins of the bacterial flagellum, for example).

Mendel, Pasteur, Koch and others, I have heard of some (stupid, of course) positive mentions. But Darwin? Please let me know, so I do not persist in my misconceptions.

James · 17 April 2008

It's so funny to see you foolish people so upset over a movie you haven't even seen. Your hypocrisy is laughable.

Stanton · 17 April 2008

James: It's so funny to see you foolish people so upset over a movie you haven't even seen. Your hypocrisy is laughable.

Then I take it that the fact that the makers of "Expelled" call themselves Christians, and yet, behave in a thoroughly unChristian manner does not bother you one bit. Thank you for projecting, and go away.

Stacy S. · 17 April 2008

James: It's so funny to see you foolish people so upset over a movie you haven't even seen. Your hypocrisy is laughable.

I'm not upset at all! LoL! I can't speak for everyone here, but I'm just enjoying watching them scramble :-) It's amusing to me !

raven · 17 April 2008

James: It’s so funny to see you foolish people so upset over a movie you haven’t even seen.

Hmmm, so blatant lying, copyright infringement, and using an atrocity to further an agenda to destroy the USA doesn't bother you? OK. You must be a creationist.

John Kwok · 17 April 2008

Hi Raven and Stacy S.,

James must be enjoying his Disco Tute IDiot Borg Collective membership. It's rather obvious that he is since he seems incapable of weighing seriously the potential larcenies and felonies committed by Ben Stein, Mark Mathis, and the rest of their intellectually-challenged "Expelled" crew. It's too bad for delusional James, but at least we can laugh about it.... LOL!

Cheers,

John

Science Avenger · 17 April 2008

Poor James. In his simplistic little world, if he hasn't seen something, he knows nothing about it. Unless of course, it has something to do with JAYzus.

james · 17 April 2008

It's interesting how morally judgmental you guys become when it comes to Stine or anyone else who dares to disagree with your world view. Suddenly you become experts on how Christians should behave and "potential larcenies and felonies" committed. I know both sides of this coin have been caught lying and presenting false information, so get off your soapbox. If Stine is being dishonest it will come out.

fnxtr · 17 April 2008

E=mc^2 -> Hiroshima, therefore Einstein was wrong and evil.

Jeff Webber · 17 April 2008

James

We have no interest in what Mr. Stine is doing. Ben Stein is another matter though.

raven · 17 April 2008

James lying some more: I know both sides of this coin have been caught lying and presenting false information,

Of course, James is a creationist. He is lying. They always lie, it never fails. When your entire world view is a lie, all you can do. One side has lied, stole, and anything else they wanted to do without a thought about morality or the law. It isn't the scientists. We are too busy and don't have to lie. We also brought you the 21st century. Participation is however, voluntary and you are free to return to a hunting and gathering existence if you want to.

Suddenly you become experts on how Christians should behave

What is the point of waving a bible around if you never read it and could care less what it says? And what is the point of the 10 commandments which have now been reduced to 7 or 8 if Xians pay zero attention to them? When Xian cults begin to resemble satanic cults, the question becomes; who are you really following? PS James, some of us are knowledgeable about how Xians should behave. This is because some of us including some who run Pandasthumb, are....Xians. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Stanton · 17 April 2008

james: It's interesting how morally judgmental you guys become when it comes to Stine or anyone else who dares to disagree with your world view. Suddenly you become experts on how Christians should behave and "potential larcenies and felonies" committed. I know both sides of this coin have been caught lying and presenting false information, so get off your soapbox. If Stine is being dishonest it will come out.

So, then, please explain how lying to the interviewees, making base-less claims that both Hitler and Stalin were inspired by Darwin to commit their atrocities (despite all evidence suggesting that they were not inspired by Darwin), as well as using copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holders do not contradict some of the various prohibitions and admonishments in the Bible that go along the lines of "THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS," "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL," and Jesus' big Broadway-style song and dance routines about "love thy neighbor"?

james · 17 April 2008

With all due respect Stanton, I don't think Stine's movie has anything to do with religion or promoting Jesus on Broadway(that's already been done). From what I understand( I've seen the trailer, and interviews with Stine) he's trying to point out the hostility towards any view that opposes Darwin's theory. Like I said, if he has been dishonest in that attempt then he will suffer the consequences.

Stanton · 17 April 2008

james: With all due respect Stanton, I don't think Stine's movie has anything to do with religion or promoting Jesus on Broadway(that's already been done). From what I understand( I've seen the trailer, and interviews with Stine) he's trying to point out the hostility towards any view that opposes Darwin's theory. Like I said, if he has been dishonest in that attempt then he will suffer the consequences.

If you genuinely had any respect for us, you wouldn't have called us hypocrites in the first place. Furthermore, if you actually knew how to read, his name is spelled "Stein" and if he isn't trying to push religion, then his whole point is totally negated given as he complains about how "Darwinists" the other minions of "Big Science" seek to push God out of science altogether. If you actually knew how to read, you would realize that there has been no viable scientific theory to compete with the Theory of Evolution since Lamarck's theory was debunked well over a century and a half ago. If you weren't commanded to think only what your religious handlers specifically told you to think, you would know that the entire premise of "Expelled" is a pack of lies. What Stein and his cronies don't want you to know is that the real reason why all of those poor Intelligent Design proponents were fired, denied tenure and denied promotions was because they were incompetent. The only way that this could be "religious persecution" as Ben Stein claims it is, is if by espousing Intelligent Design/Creationism, they forswear doing any work. In fact, that's what happened to this one moron when he was fired from Woods Hole, in that he refused to do the research he was specifically hired to do on the grounds that he didn't want to do any work (re)affirming the Theory of Evolution. Ben Stein doesn't want you to know that in the states where Intelligent Design and Creationism are being taught, the science curricula are the worst in the entire continent (and if it's not, then why is teaching Biology in Florida, Kansas and Texas regarded as a dark joke?). Ben Stein also doesn't want you to know that there is, in fact, no evidence what so ever that suggests that the Theory of Evolution is directly responsible for any of the evils plaguing the 20th and 21st Centuries outside of the blood libel perpetrated by Creationist propaganda. In other words, James, would you feel that it would be fair, if you were trying to protest a documentary that made the claim that you and all of your relatives are actually immortal, blood-drinking diabolists who are directly responsible for literally every bad thing that's happened in Human History for the last 5 centuries, we were to come over and call you a hypocrite while mocking you for your bad fortune?

Science Avenger · 17 April 2008

James said: It’s interesting how morally judgmental you guys become when it comes to Stine or anyone else who dares to disagree with your world view.

It's LYING that pisses us off. Weird, I know. And if you knew 1/10 as much about us as you think you do, you'd know we come from a wide variety of world views, and argue them frequently and fervently, yet without moral judgement. It's bearing false witness, not lying, that's the issue.

I know both sides of this coin have been caught lying and presenting false information, so get off your soapbox.

This is what we in the reality-based community call MSU (making shit up). Any fool can do it, and it doesn't impress. Fact is, only one side here is doing the lying, regardless of how much that might offend your Compulsive Centrist Disorder.

With all due respect Stanton, I don’t think Stine’s movie has anything to do with religion ... he’s trying to point out the hostility towards any view that opposes Darwin’s theory.

Yes, views based on...wait for it...RELIGION! Stein himself makes it very clear (and credit to him for this) that he is talking about the Abrahamic God.

Like I said, if he has been dishonest in that attempt then he will suffer the consequences

Yes, but not by some magic sky justice, but rather by people like us who are paying more attention to this issue than you apparently are calling attention to his dishonesty.

james · 17 April 2008

Well, I guess you are the moral authority then aren't you? I find it funny that "Stein," "Stine" or "Stain," (I don't care how his name is spelled) and his little movie is such a threat to you and your oh so varied world views. I guess respect in your case isn't deserved when you say you're so concerned with honesty, yet overlook the many evolution frauds like "Piltdown Man", 'Nebraska Man", Haeckel's drawings just to name a few. That's why I call you hypocrits. You don't care about honesty or fairness, you want Stein to fry. Well, my friends, you're losing the fight and your hypocrisy and bigotry is being exposed and you freakin know it. Let this movie be a warning to you, the days of discrimination are coming to an end. Whether this movie flops or not, the light has been shed, and millions more people will start thinking about the possibilty of more than one theory of the origin of life. I know that really scares you doesn't it. Good!

Stanton · 17 April 2008

Science Avenger:
James said: It’s interesting how morally judgmental you guys become when it comes to Stine or anyone else who dares to disagree with your world view.
It's LYING that pisses us off. Weird, I know. And if you knew 1/10 as much about us as you think you do, you'd know we come from a wide variety of world views, and argue them frequently and fervently, yet without moral judgement. It's bearing false witness, not lying, that's the issue.

Isn't "bearing false witness" the same thing as lying, but, fancier?

Science Avenger:
Like I said, if he has been dishonest in that attempt then he will suffer the consequences
Yes, but not by some magic sky justice, but rather by people like us who are paying more attention to this issue than you apparently are calling attention to his dishonesty.

If we were back in Biblical times, Ben Stein and friends would be exploding with boils while everything they owned was being stripped to the bone by a plague of ravenous locust for creating such an odious example of blood libel, or at least stoned at the local gehenna.

Stanton · 17 April 2008

~~james~~Moron: Well, I guess you are the moral authority then aren't you? I find it funny that "Stein," "Stine" or "Stain," (I don't care how his name is spelled) and his little movie is such a threat to you and your oh so varied world views. I guess respect in your case isn't deserved when you say you're so concerned with honesty, yet overlook the many evolution frauds like "Piltdown Man", 'Nebraska Man", Haeckel's drawings just to name a few. That's why I call you hypocrits.

If you honestly think that we still teach those things, even though they were debunked by scientists so long ago that the vast majority of people in the field have totally forgotten about them, then you are a moron as well as a hypocrite.

You don't care about honesty or fairness, you want Stein to fry. Well, my friends, you're losing the fight and your hypocrisy and bigotry is being exposed and you freakin know it.

If we didn't care about honesty or fairness, we wouldn't be complaining about the movie in the first place, moron. Furthermore, you're projecting, moron.

Let this movie be a warning to you, the days of discrimination are coming to an end. Whether this movie flops or not, the light has been shed, and millions more people will start thinking about the possibilty of more than one theory of the origin of life.

There has been no discrimination, moron, there has only been quality control. And the fact of the matter is that Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents haven't been able to get into Mainstream Science is because they don't want to make any positive contributions to Science in the first place.

I know that really scares you doesn't it. Good!

If you want to see this country become a place Creationism and Intelligent Design is the science of the land, then you will see a theocratic hellhole where the main causes of death would be famine, diarrhea, disease, not being Christian enough, and speaking one's mind.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 17 April 2008

This is how I think idiocy and willful ignorance like james' should be answered, with reference to TalkOrigins' Index to Creationist Claims, (which is at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/):

james: Well, I guess you are the moral authority then aren't you? I find it funny that "Stein," "Stine" or "Stain," (I don't care how his name is spelled) and his little movie (CA006.1. Hitler based his views on Darwinism., CA006.2, Stalin's policies were influenced by Darwin.) is such a threat to you and your oh so varied world views. I guess respect in your case isn't deserved when you say you're so concerned with honesty, yet overlook the many evolution frauds like "Piltdown Man" (CC001, Piltdown man was a hoax.), 'Nebraska Man" (CC002, Nebraska man was a hoax.), Haeckel's drawings just to name a few (CB701, Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures.). That's why I call you hypocrits. You don't care about honesty or fairness (), you want Stein to fry. Well, my friends, you're losing the fight and your hypocrisy and bigotry is being exposed and you freakin know it. Let this movie be a warning to you, the days of discrimination are coming to an end. Whether this movie flops or not, the light has been shed, and millions more people will start thinking about the possibilty of more than one theory () of the origin of life. I know that really scares you doesn't it. Good!

GvlGeologist, FCD · 17 April 2008

(Sorry, I hit Submit before I was quite done. Here is my post, finished (althouhg I'm sure others could add to it.) This is how I think idiocy and willful ignorance like james' should be answered, with reference to TalkOrigins' Index to Creationist Claims, (which is at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/):

james: Well, I guess you are the moral authority then aren't you? I find it funny that "Stein," "Stine" or "Stain," (I don't care how his name is spelled) and his little movie (CA006.1. Hitler based his views on Darwinism., CA006.2, Stalin's policies were influenced by Darwin.) is such a threat to you and your oh so varied world views. I guess respect in your case isn't deserved when you say you're so concerned with honesty, yet overlook the many evolution frauds like "Piltdown Man" (CC001, Piltdown man was a hoax.), 'Nebraska Man" (CC002, Nebraska man was a hoax.), Haeckel's drawings just to name a few (CB701, Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures.). That's why I call you hypocrits. You don't care about honesty or fairness (CA040, Fairness demands evolution and creation be given equal time, CA041. Teach the controversy.), you want Stein to fry. Well, my friends, you're losing the fight and your hypocrisy and bigotry is being exposed and you freakin know it. Let this movie be a warning to you, the days of discrimination are coming to an end. Whether this movie flops or not, the light has been shed, and millions more people will start thinking about the possibilty of more than one theory (CB0: Abiogenesis, CB090. Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis.) of the origin of life. I know that really scares you doesn't it. Good!

Not only is james a willful ignorant idiot, he's not even original.

GvlGeologist, FCD · 17 April 2008

Oh, and Andrea, feel free to delete my first, incomplete post. Thanks!

Dan · 17 April 2008

james: You don't care about honesty or fairness, you want Stein to fry.

Since you've just claimed to read my mind, I'd like to know where your training in mind reading came from. As a matter of fact, I do care about both honesty and fairness. And as another matter of fact, I don't care about Ben Stein fried, baked, or sauteed. So, where ever your mind-reading training came from, I suggest you demand your tuition money back, since it didn't work.

Richard Simons · 17 April 2008

james: I guess respect in your case isn't deserved when you say you're so concerned with honesty, yet overlook the many evolution frauds like "Piltdown Man", 'Nebraska Man", Haeckel's drawings just to name a few.

Ah, yes! Piltdown Man. Far from being a black eye for the theory of evolution, it actually illustrates the predictive ability of the theory. When first announced, many people were doubtful about it because it did not fit in with the predictions. Creationists, however, had absolutely no reason to pay any attention to it. It took real scientists to discover that it was indeed a hoax. Creationists. Not only are they completely incapable of finding any evidence for their theory, they are also incapable of finding problems in evolutionary science, even when hoaxes are involved.

Science Avenger · 17 April 2008

I said: It’s LYING that pisses us off. Weird, I know. And if you knew 1/10 as much about us as you think you do, you’d know we come from a wide variety of world views, and argue them frequently and fervently, yet without moral judgement. It’s bearing false witness, not lying, that’s the issue. To which Stanton replied: Isn’t “bearing false witness” the same thing as lying, but, fancier?

DOH! Typo. That last sentence should read: "It’s bearing false witness, not disagreeing, that’s the issue."

Science Avenger · 17 April 2008

Get some material that is less than 50 years old James. You are boring us to tears with all these reruns.

james · 17 April 2008

Stanton, if you really believe that allowing the discussion of alternate theories about origin of life will cause a "theocratic hellhole", then you are a paranoid nutjob.

raven · 17 April 2008

James lying some more: Stanton, if you really believe that allowing the discussion of alternate theories about origin of life will cause a “theocratic hellhole”, then you are a paranoid nutjob.

Wikipedia Wedge: "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

James lies again. The Xian Dominionists of the ID movement could care less about evolution or ID. They are strictly a front for an attempt to destroy the USA, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages. They say so often in public and written documents, such as The Wedge above. They aren't hiding anything. They may even succeed. They controlled the US congress for 6 years and own the president. A recent poll shows that IIRC 80% of the public thinks the US is going the wrong way. No point in stopping until it is 100%. Our American civilization wasn't much but it was the only one we had. These people should really be called the Xian Nihilists.

Stanton · 17 April 2008

james: Stanton, if you really believe that allowing the discussion of alternate theories about origin of life will cause a "theocratic hellhole", then you are a paranoid nutjob.

The Theory of Evolution does not discuss how life originated on this planet. The Theory of Evolution discusses how "descent with modification" creates biological diversity, and discusses how "descent with modification" forms and modifies structures in biological organisms living and extinct. There are several competing hypotheses about the origin of life on this planet, but Creationism and Intelligent Design are not regarded as competing against any abiogenesis hypotheses. Creationism, nor Intelligent Design are neither sciences nor even scientific hypotheses, especially since all of their proponents have demonstrated that they have never been interested in doing even rudimentary science, and they have repeatedly demonstrated that they never will be. I have not been proven wrong about this, especially since you, and along with all the other trolls, have no expressed interest in discussing science. On the other hand, if you have actual, verifiable proof that Creationism/Intelligent Design is actually science, please show us. If not, please stop projecting and go away: you're making a fool out of yourself.

Pierce R. Butler · 17 April 2008

Stanton: The only two species I know of that have survived a bottleneck event and made a full recovery are the elephant seal, and the cheetah...

There's a lot of evidence that the human race experienced such a squeeze, perhaps 70 thousand years ago: one hypothesis about how this happened is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory.

TomS: Does anyone have a reference where Hitler referred to Darwin, by name, favorably?

I can’t find this in any of the biographies on my shelf, but I recall reading that he told a story of himself hassling the teachers in his (Catholic) school about how the contradiction between the Genesis account taught in religion class and the Darwinian biology in science class. (The same source indicated that Hitler’s teachers remembered him as apathetic and quiet, and that the story was almost certainly untrue.) Back to Stein - if the spectacle of a Jew hamming it up (at Auschwitz, yet!) on behalf of crude Christian fundamentalism and simplistic revisionist history doesn’t lead to a tsunami of denunciations at synagogues around the world, it may be necessary to round up all the rabbis and send them to self-esteem rehab therapy.

Pierce R. Butler · 17 April 2008

Here’s a report on a human population bottleneck about two million years back, and another from 60 thousand years ago, both found at New Scientist.

Stanton · 17 April 2008

Very interesting, Pierce...

It seems that we humans are even more resilient than elephant seals.

Steven Carr · 18 April 2008

Hitler had some interesting views on the Darwinian concept that man had evolved from other animals.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

And in the entry for 27 February 1942 , Hitler says 'Das, was der Mensch von dem Tier voraushat, der veilleicht wunderbarste Beweis fuer die Ueberlegenheit des Menschen ist, dass er begriffen hat, dass es eine Schoepferkraft geben muss.'

Hitler was influenced by the ideas of the Reverend Thomas Malthus, as was Darwin, and indeed as was everybody in the 20th century.

Nigel D · 18 April 2008

James: It's so funny to see you foolish people so upset over a movie you haven't even seen. Your hypocrisy is laughable.

James, your argument here is so feeble that I was torn between trying not to step in it and kicking a man while he's down. You see, there are these things called words. Intelligent, educated people can use them to communicate information, ideas, thoughts and feelings. So, this means that, once a few people have seen the movie Excreted - uh, sorry, Expelled (same meaning, different spelling) - they can use these words to convey to other people what was in the movie. You see? It's so elegant in its simplicity, one might almost think it was designed!

Nigel D · 18 April 2008

james: It's interesting how morally judgmental you guys become when it comes to Stine or anyone else who dares to disagree with your world view. Suddenly you become experts on how Christians should behave and "potential larcenies and felonies" committed. I know both sides of this coin have been caught lying and presenting false information, so get off your soapbox. If Stine is being dishonest it will come out.

Just goes to show what little you understand. It is you creos who typically claim that "Darwinism" (whatever that means) leads to all sorts of horrors - the Berlin wall, the holocaust, immorality of all kinds. By pointing out how many laws Mathis and Stein are breaking, it illustrates the hypocrisy of the entire anti-evolution movement. WRT "both sides of the coin", I think, if you can ever be bothered to check your facts, you will find that, on the one hand the creationists: Misrepresent science; lie about facts and data; refuse to acknowledge genuine, substantive criticisms of their work; deny reality; cycnically manipulate their constituency to achieve political advantage. Whereas, on the other hand, the scientists (even including vocal atheists like Richard Dawkins): Only make claims that can be substantiated by logic and evidence; accept correction when shown to be in error; tolerate an astonishing extent of abuse of their entire profession.

Nigel D · 18 April 2008

Stanton:
~~james~~Moron: Well, I guess you are the moral authority then aren't you? I find it funny that "Stein," "Stine" or "Stain," (I don't care how his name is spelled) and his little movie is such a threat to you and your oh so varied world views. I guess respect in your case isn't deserved when you say you're so concerned with honesty, yet overlook the many evolution frauds like "Piltdown Man", 'Nebraska Man", Haeckel's drawings just to name a few. That's why I call you hypocrits.
If you honestly think that we still teach those things, even though they were debunked by scientists so long ago that the vast majority of people in the field have totally forgotten about them, then you are a moron as well as a hypocrite.
You don't care about honesty or fairness, you want Stein to fry. Well, my friends, you're losing the fight and your hypocrisy and bigotry is being exposed and you freakin know it.
If we didn't care about honesty or fairness, we wouldn't be complaining about the movie in the first place, moron. Furthermore, you're projecting, moron.
Let this movie be a warning to you, the days of discrimination are coming to an end. Whether this movie flops or not, the light has been shed, and millions more people will start thinking about the possibilty of more than one theory of the origin of life.
There has been no discrimination, moron, there has only been quality control. And the fact of the matter is that Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents haven't been able to get into Mainstream Science is because they don't want to make any positive contributions to Science in the first place.

Nicely put, Stanton.

TomS · 18 April 2008

There are several quotations from Hitler on the "SkepticWiki" page "Hitler and evolution"

http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution

But I'm not going to rely on selective quotations.

Does anyone have anything which indicates that Hitler was ever influenced by Darwin or ideas original to Darwin?

Cool Daddy · 18 April 2008

Nigel D is a dick.

John Kwok · 18 April 2008

Hey Cool Daddy,

If Nigel D. is a "dick" then what are you? My guess is that you're a rabid putz and schmuck enjoying your membership in the Disco Tute IDiot Borg Collective. I think that's an excellent assumption.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

Richard · 20 April 2008

james: I guess respect in your case isn't deserved when you say you're so concerned with honesty, yet overlook the many evolution frauds like "Piltdown Man", 'Nebraska Man", Haeckel's drawings just to name a few.

At least nobody claims that Piltdown and Nebraska Man are real hominids anymore. Some people still think the shroud of Turin is genuine, though.

Wayne Robinson · 27 April 2008

I have been looking at Ian Kershaw's "Hitler" and I can't find any reference to Social Darwinism, crude or otherwise (according to reviews I have found on the internet, it is supposed to be in the introduction to the first volume).

Andrea Bottaro · 27 April 2008

Wayne Robinson said: I have been looking at Ian Kershaw's "Hitler" and I can't find any reference to Social Darwinism, crude or otherwise (according to reviews I have found on the internet, it is supposed to be in the introduction to the first volume).

If you use the Amazon "search inside" function, you will find the quote at page 448 of the paperback edition. The quote is correct, but it's a reference to Hitler's view of politics and economics as struggle for supremacy. That's a view that long preceded Darwin, and continues to influence much of right-wing politics and economics even today. To give an idea of how crucial Kershaw thinks "Darwinism" was for the development of Hilter's ideas, the term appears only 2 other times (both also general references to "social Darwinism", and only one related to Hitler) in a book that focuses specifically on the topic of the origin and rise of Nazism. So, the quote itself is, strictly speaking, not "mined", but clearly Klinghoffer espouses the approach to literature-searching, the "art of corrected reading", that Hitler himself highlighted in the paragraph mentioned above.

Pauli Ojala · 1 May 2008

Ben(jamin) Stein is under heavy artillery for 'exaggerating' or 'going easy' on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the 'Politics-is-applied-biology' Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I. It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous German Ernst Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871. If Thomas Henry Huxley with his concept of 'agnostism' was Darwins bulldog in England, Haeckel was his Rotweiler in Germany.

'Kampf' was a direct translation of 'struggle' from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application.

There was, supposedly, not enough Lebenstraume. That's why in the industrial revolution in England 12 year old proletariat girls had to work over 100 hours a week. Malthus set the paradigm that is today very relevant even to Islamist terrorists. They believe that unconscious myth that there is not just enough space for us all.

Catch 22: Haeckel's 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled for the 'public understanding of science' (PUS) in most biology text books until this millennium, although Haeckel's crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS - and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it.

Some edited quotes from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a 'bit'):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf

The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between "white" and "colored races" was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould's scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87). Typically, the operations hit blacks the most in the US, poor women in the Europe, and often the victims were never even told they had been sterilized.

Mendelism outweighed recapitulation (embryos climbing up their evolutionary tree through fish-, amphibian- and reptilian stages), but that merely smoothened the way for the brutal 1930’s biolegislation - that quickly penetrated practically all Western countries. The laws were copied from country to country. The A-B-O blood groups, haemophilia, eye colours etc. were found to be inherited in a Mendelian fashion by 1910. So also the complex traits and social (mis)behaviour such as alcoholism, schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality, rebelliousness, artistic sense, pauperism, racial differences, inherited scholarship (and its converse, feeble-mindedness) were all thought to be determined by one or two genes. Mendelism was "experimental" and quantitative, and its exaggeration outweighed the more cautious biometry operating on smaller variations, not discontinuous leaps. Its advocates boldly claimed that these problems could be done away within a few generations through selection, persisted (although most biologists must have known that defective genes could not be eliminated, even with the most intense forced sterilizations and marriage restrictions due to recessive genes and synergism. Nevertheless, these laws were held until 1970's and were typically changed only when the abortion legislation were released (1973).

So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938 ) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the 'Up' of the ancient city from Plinius' Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17). Today, Swedish state church is definitely the most liberal in the face of the world.

Hitler's formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the "Nordics", a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel's position on the 'Judenfrage' was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

In 1917 the immigration of "defective" groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the "nordic" balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family, and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Regarding us Finns, Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the "yellow" group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.

Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, 'legally'. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

Andrea Bottaro · 1 May 2008

Pauli:

Well, when I studied German, we would tend to translate "Kampf" as "battle" (as in "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" - not that this is any less of a mere coincidence than the one you dwell on) rather than "struggle", but whatever.

For anyone actually interested in a sane examination of the influence of Haeckel on Hitler, I suggest this rather more informed article by historian Robert Richards: The Moral Grammar of Narratives in History of Biology - the case of Haeckel and Nazi Biology. Richards, a professor at U Chicago, is probably the pre-eminent expert on Haeckel in the world; more of his works can be found here.

Kirstie · 13 September 2008

hitler only killed himself because he hot his gas bill!

Jim Harrison · 13 September 2008

Pauli, Trying to make Haeckel into some sort of monster is rather unhistorical since his political views were not remarkable for someone of his era--German history explains them a lot better than Darwinism. The business about the doctored illustrations is also something of a red herring if you know much about the normal practice of scientific illustration in the time. If you're really interested in understanding the problems involved with objective representation instead of making polemical points, I recommend you read Objectivity by Daston and Galison (2007), which deals with the disparate ways that scientists defined an accurate illustration in the 19th Century. Haeckel doubtlessly over did it, but the kind of redrawing he did on what were, after all, merely pedagogical illustrations is not different in principle from the sort of thing that the illustrators of field guides do to this day in order to make their work easier to use.