At the risk of starting another thread debating evolution-

what did you think of the movie Ned?

Entertaining, well-reasoned. I thought it was a little heavy on the Iron Curtain imagery, but I think it is very well done. I liked hearing all the Darwinist Guards speak for themselves . . . unlike a Michael Moore “documentary.”

Is it available on DVD (not BluRay) only at Overstock.com, yet? ‘Cause, y’know, that’s where it’s headed.
.

The National Center for Science Education has set up a page debunking many of the claims made in the movie, and I’m sure you’ll be interested to read this Ned- Expelled Exposed.

Most of the stuff peddled in the Stein movie has already been debunked well before the movie even came out, which is pretty ridiculous for a guy as smart as I believe Stein to be.

Probably the most ironic part of the whole kerfuffle with this movie is the way in which Stein and the producers handled the movie reviewers. They forced them to sign NON-DISCLOSURE agreements, and made sure that any negative reviews were erased.

It also would have been nice if they at some point would explain what exactly is SCIENTIFIC about ID or creationism, but I digress.

Ned Williams:

I think you need to know that there’s more than a little bit of Richard Dawkins out there than what’s in that Ben Stein extravaganza. BTW, Ned Williams, I believe it was more about the Nazis than the Commies.

Tman:

Smart Stein might be, but he was a Nixon speechwriter.

Of course Ned linked to the wrong post at TN Free, try this one.

Ned Williams:

I know you’re too busy to check out www.talkorigin.org but I thought this quote from an artice about evolution might prove helpful:

“The misuse of the terms by creationists is all their own work. It is not due to the ways scientists have used them. Basically when creationists use “macroevolution” they mean “evolution which we object to on theological grounds”, and by “microevolution” they mean “evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds”.;””

the link is near the end of the thread under the post about the anti-abortion march that’s down towards the bottom of the page (just in case there are other folks, like me, who don’t have “day jobs”) for the curious.

Oh, okay, yes, that’s exactly what I meant when I used the terms.

And it’s a good thing you have time on your hands, because your hyperlink is screwed up.

Ned Williams:

I’ll have to assume you’re talking to me in your last comment. That’s ONE of your bad habits, btw, not saying who you’re talking to (other than yourself). The link works for me (I just used it)–and I’m pretty deficient in internetz skillz–so I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Does this:

“Oh, okay, yes, that’s exactly what I meant when I used the terms.”

then mean that you’re admitting that your obejection to evolution is faith based–not science based. There’s sort of a major distinction between those two positions, in case you hadn’t noticed.

No, I wasn’t admitting anything . . . I was being sarcastic.

But I’m troubled that you aren’t pleased with me or my many bad habits, dc. Somehow I’m going to have to learn to live with your disapproval.

Regarding your criticism, you can generally assume that a comment that immediately follows a democommie comment (and relates to the immediately preceding comment) is a response to said comment/er. When it might be reasonably unclear to whom/what I’m responding, I generally include a name.

Nonetheless, I would guess that at this point, nobody but you and me are still reading this thread.

. . . Which might be a good reason to say at this point that I visited the site Tman referenced and it takes some of the lustre off of Expelled. From personal experience and from observing the debate generally, Stein’s thesis resonates, but they’ve done some bang-up PR over at NCSE. They are very attuned to the political aspects of this issue and to shouting down any challenges to Darwinism, which is one reason I’d say “the [objective, science-serving, apolitical Darwinists] doth protest too much.”

If the lustre came off a bit with NCSE, then the movie will need an entirely new paint job with this ridiculousness-

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWRmOTU2YzZlN2RhMzhjNzEwNzQ3MzFiZDE2NjM3NWE=

Basically Ben Stein states that science is what drove men to commit genocide against the Jews in WWII.

Seriously Ned, there are far more worthy battles to fight than this one.

Ben has lost his mind, there’s no other explanation.

Dang, I was hoping you had lost interest in the thread.

I’ll look at that article, but there’s no denying that Darwinism (not “science”) is unsurprisingly fundamental to ideological racism (by which I mean racism that is simple fear or stupidity) and various types of genocide. Hey, the strong survive and we’re all better for it, right?

there’s no denying that Darwinism (not “science”) is unsurprisingly fundamental to ideological racism (by which I mean racism that is simple fear or stupidity) and various types of genocide.

This is a dumb analogy Ned. Bullets can be used in very stupid ways to kill innocent people, that doesn’t mean the bullets are “unsurpisingly fundamental” to murder. This is what is so insane about Ben Stein trying to equate the denial of ID from science classrooms with the holocaust. It’s just sheer lunacy.

Glenn Reynolds explained this very well today -

“Auschwitz was not conceived as science, nor was it impelled by science, or scientists. The Holocaust was not a scientific endeavor, but had its roots in the Nazis’ unscientific loathing of the Jews. The Nazis did try to dress up that loathing in scientific dress, but that was a propaganda move, not science. (Indeed, Nazi science, for the most part, was dreadful science, made up by people to suit their preexisting beliefs without actual resort to the scientific method.) One can argue quite compellingly against moral relativism without engaging in raw intellectual dishonesty. Stein’s approach, however, seems more worthy of a Michael Moore. “

Auschwitz was a fruit of an ideology–one underpinning of that ideology was Darwinism. Surely this isn’t the first time that you have considered or heard the argument that God-denying ideologies devalue human life?

And I disagree with Reynolds assertion inasmuch as he means that the Nazis were disingenuous in stating their desire to eradicate the Jews as an inferior race.

After reading those Stein comments, I disagree with his seeming assertion that “science leads to genocide.” I do think it is legitimate to challenge the notion that “scientists” are somehow intrinsically objective or altruistic or apolitical or virtuous–”scientists” in service to the Nazis no doubt argued that they were “just following the science.” Indeed, wouldn’t Darwinism– standing alone, support a little assisted “natural selection”?

By the way, here’s a fine perspective on the Ben Stein/TBN interview you referenced from The Corner.

Ned, You can stop supporting the Republican War on science now. Even your conservative colleagues see how ridiculous this movie is.

This statement is BS:

“Auschwitz was a fruit of an ideology–one underpinning of that ideology was Darwinism.”

Auschwitz was a fruit of an ideology–one underpinning of that ideology was Darwinism.

Then it was an improperly applied underpinning. From Wiki on “Darwinism”- “For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought — particularly contrasting Darwin’s results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern synthesis.”

Surely this isn’t the first time that you have considered or heard the argument that God-denying ideologies devalue human life?

I am a firm believer that either god-believing or god-denying ideologies have a bad tendency to bring out the bad aspects of human psychology. Neither atheism nor religion are responsible for whatever deaths are a result of improperly applied ideologies.

Communism sounds good in theory, but it never works because humans can be lazy, greedy, or evil bastards. Or a combination thereof. Religion also sounds great in theory, but humans have a troubling tendency to use it for justification of some seriously hideous acts.

I disagree with Reynolds assertion inasmuch as he means that the Nazis were disingenuous in stating their desire to eradicate the Jews as an inferior race.

But they were disingenuous. They desired to eradicate the Jews because they were ignorant racists, not because they really believed they were “genetically superior”. The Olympics of 1936 pretty much ruined that idea.

I disagree with his seeming assertion that “science leads to genocide.”

That’s good. Science is apolitical. It can be used for good or evil.

I do think it is legitimate to challenge the notion that “scientists” are somehow intrinsically objective or altruistic or apolitical or virtuous

Yes, scientists are human beings. So are religious leaders and communists.

–”scientists” in service to the Nazis no doubt argued that they were “just following the science.”

Except they weren’t. There was no “science” that was used to prove a genetic superiority, because none existed.

Indeed, wouldn’t Darwinism– standing alone, support a little assisted “natural selection”?

I think you need to look up what these words mean again Ned. You are continually confusing the FACT of evolution with the THEORIES behind the MECHANISMS of evolution.

Seriously, try these FAQ’s one more time. It might help a little.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

It looks like my comment got eaten. I’ll try again-

Auschwitz was a fruit of an ideology–one underpinning of that ideology was Darwinism.

Then it was an improperly applied underpinning. From Wiki on “Darwinism”- “For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin’s proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought — particularly contrasting Darwin’s results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern synthesis.”

Surely this isn’t the first time that you have considered or heard the argument that God-denying ideologies devalue human life?

I am a firm believer that either god-believing or god-denying ideologies have a bad tendency to bring out the bad aspects of human psychology. Neither atheism nor religion are responsible for whatever deaths are a result of improperly applied ideologies.

Communism sounds good in theory, but it never works because humans can be lazy, greedy, or evil bastards. Or a combination thereof. Religion also sounds great in theory, but humans have a troubling tendency to use it for justification of some seriously hideous acts.

I disagree with Reynolds assertion inasmuch as he means that the Nazis were disingenuous in stating their desire to eradicate the Jews as an inferior race.

But they were disingenuous. They desired to eradicate the Jews because they were ignorant racists, not because they really believed they were “genetically superior”. The Olympics of 1936 pretty much ruined that idea.

I disagree with his seeming assertion that “science leads to genocide.”

That’s good. Science is apolitical. It can be used for good or evil.

I do think it is legitimate to challenge the notion that “scientists” are somehow intrinsically objective or altruistic or apolitical or virtuous

Yes, scientists are human beings. So are religious leaders and communists.

–”scientists” in service to the Nazis no doubt argued that they were “just following the science.”

Except they weren’t. There was no “science” that was used to prove a genetic superiority, because none existed.

Indeed, wouldn’t Darwinism– standing alone, support a little assisted “natural selection”?

I think you need to look up what these words mean again Ned. You are continually confusing the FACT of evolution with the THEORIES behind the MECHANISMS of evolution.

Seriously, try these FAQ’s one more time. It might help a little.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Ned Williams:

You are just unintentionally humurous.

I think your problem here, Ned Williams, is that you have no idea what you’re talking about and so when the talking points prove useless you’re just left with your sputtering. So sad.

Ned:

Hitler was catholic, and the Nazi-era German people were by-and-large christians, except for the jews they were torturing and murdering.

The Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of prejudice that fit in quite nicely with christian values, in practice at least.

Indeed, the vast majority of modern anti-jewish hate groups pledge their allegiance to christ.

Again, you continue to conflate “Darwinism” and science.

Ned,

Can you check the comments? I think one of mine is being held up right now. It addresses your point about Darwinism and Nazi’s.

Evolution precludes one from seeking genocide. No one knows what the future brings and therefore know one knows what traits will be most advantageous as time marches on. Species that evolve into diverse populations will survive because at least SOME subsection of the species is likely to have the traits necessary to survive (or even thrive) in a changing environment. A species that is limited in it’s diversity is a species that will become extinct as times change.

Evolution happens to be one of the few world views that would lead one to objectively care about his neighbor. A rational view of evolution requires one do as much or face the extinction of the species.

There you go, Tman. They were “akismeted” for some reason.

dolphin,
Nice theory.

HBK,
Well, the Nazis (contra “Germans”) were probably Darwinist Christians, no? And, I hope you’ll appreciate that living in a “Christian” culture and/or having parents who are “Christian” is different than being a follower of Christ. I flatly reject the assertion that “the Holocaust fit in quite nicely with christian values.”

And how am I conflating Darwinism and science? That’s actually one of my beefs . . . that you guys believe Darwinism epitomizes science.

dc,
I guess you’ve got nothing substantive to add?

william,
Actually, the war is more accurately The Left’s war on free thought and free inquiry . . .

Tman,
I’m not sure of your point about my not understanding terms. From what I’ve read, the Nazis were enamored with eugenics, and eugenics would fit in the category of what I’ve termed “assisted natural selection.”

And Evolution is now a “fact”? How so?

Dolphin:

Rational views are not the speciality of the religious right.

Ned Williams:

Your dismissive tone (not just with me, btw) would be be less laughable if you actually had any way to refute the “theory” that someone like Dolphin or Keats puts forward. Me? I already know that truth is not what you trade in. You’ve run away from about four or five of your own posts in the last couple of weeks–because you run out of talking points and just don’t know where to go when that happens, except away.

You got me figured out, democommie.

Keep up the good work of exposing my untruthful, fraudulent, hypocritical, dismissive, fraidy-cat, talking-pointy self. Bravo!

Ned:

The whole concept of “Darwinism” is just a red herring.

The only question that matters is whether or not “intelligent design” warrants any merit as a legitimate scientific theory that can justify a claim that it belongs in a public school science curriculum.

It’s not just the godless left that understands that the answer is no.

Goodness, Ned Williams:

I thought that haughty, self-righteous exterior of yours might be hiding a deeply philosophical mind–guess not.

The argument of Expelled runs like this: The truth is the truth because it’s the Revealed Truth. The conclusions that the vast majority of the scientific community arrived at using standard scientific methods contradict in important ways the Revealed Truth (as a subset of people understand it to be). Therefore, the vast majority of scientists must be acting in bad faith — since their science doesn’t draw the same conclusions as Revealed Truth, that means their science is bad because God’s already told us what the answer should be. All we really need to do is cobble together some ideas based on flawed premises (including that big central tautology), interpret a few pieces of evidence acontextually, ignore most of what’s been thought or written on the subject, serve it up with a big side of martyrdom, and we’re good to go. If you don’t believe us, you’re just like the Nazis.

Bridgett,
Well,no, that isn’t the argument of the movie. Seen it yet?

HBK,
No, it’s not a red herring–not for me, at least. I use it to denote a theory that encompasses both micro- and macro-evoluyionary theories.

But I’ll concede that whether a theory or “questions” ought to be included in HS textbooks or curricula is a different issue. Noone in the movie, as far as I can recall, was a HS teacher or even a public schools board member. And any teaching/message that challenges the basic premises of Darwinism will have a hard time rising (by climbing the scientifically-credible ladder) to the level of warranting inclusion in such curricula as long as pursuing legitimate questions raised by hypotheses like irreducible complexity is treated as holocaust denial by tenure review committees.

dc,
All that time on your hands and still nothing substantive to contribute?

Really, the Darwinism/Holocaust connection doesn’t stand up even as a post hoc ergo propter hoc sort of argument, since Germans had a history of massacring Jews for centuries before Darwin came along. And, of course, recorded attempts of one ethnic group to wipe out others are as old as the Assyrians, and that’s several millennia ago now.

What’s ironic about trying to use Hitler to ‘disprove’ evolutionary theory is that Hitler did make an appeal to science: he referred to Jews as disease, and appealed to Pasteur and others as justification for killing this dangerous bacillus in the body of Europe. Yet no one, AFAIK, tries to use that as an argument against teaching the germ theory of disease, or suggests that ideas about spontaneous generation be brought into the science classroom.

Yep, ned. I did.

If so, bridgett, then you weren’t paying attention. Stein’s thesis is rather straightforward and it isn’t that Revealed Truth is truth. It is that an idea or a question shouldn’t be banned from academia simply because its logical inferences might undermine naturalistic beliefs.

nm,
Interesting points, but I didn’t assert that Darwinism led to genocide or that massacres never occur(red) in history absent ideological racism or Darwinist foundations. And I’m not sure that anyone–even Stein, is “us[ing] Hitler to ‘disprove’ evolutionary theory” (not that it is even possible to disprove the fact of evolutionary theory). But wouldn’t you agree that Hitler’s reference to Jews as a “disease” was a metaphorical device?

I wasn’t in Stein’s choir so maybe the preaching sounded different to me, ned.

Stein’s “logic” on this particular point doesn’t stand up to scrutiny unless you operate from an epistemological framework of Revealed Truth. The logical inferences proceed from a debunked central idea and the “logic chain,” therefore, takes a right at Albequerque. It’s like being able to show your work on a proof that 92=3. The proof might use all the right symbol sets and even some of the right operations, but the answer is wrong and it’s not persecution on my part to tell you that you’ve come up with the wrong answer.

The supporters he’s assembled in his fool’s gallery of a film want the credibility that goes with passing peer review but they don’t actually want to meet the standards of peer review or accept the judgments of their peers. They might be smart people, but their current work does not meet (in both major and minor ways) the standards of academic science. That’s not a paradigmatic problem with the rest of scientific practice, but instead indicates a failure to grasp the basic premises of the field that they are trying to gain credibility.

Stein does connect Hitler with evolutionary theory and suggests that belief in Darwinism led to genocide (man to Superman, remember?). Maybe you weren’t paying attention. Hitler really actually believed that Jews were a disease and their bodies contagion. He ordered millions of them killed. What part of that would you find metaphorical?

Bridget,
Obviously, you don’t know what you’re dealing with when you’re dealing with Ned Williams. This type of authoritarianism transcends politics and extends to world view shaped by the absolute certainty of fundamentalist religion.

No, but you’re in a choir, and that’s the point. The theory of irreducible complexity hasn’t been “debunked,” as far as I know. And to use your mathematical proof example, it comes pretty close to censorship/persecution when a person is not allowed to use variables that do not please the instructor or is not allowed to say, “uh, the instructor has no clothes.” I understand that science cannot presume supernaturalism, but I see this situation as secular scientists rushing to naturalistic conclusions despite a host of unknowns. The virtual jihad (as manifested on this blog and elsewhere) against anti-Darwin Infidels only undermines–I’d say, the credibility of those who claim to be objective or altruistic or apolitical or virtuous. What’s the harm in all us little ol’ hayseeds believing in a God who originated everything? (despite the tone, I intend that as a serious question)

Re. Hitler, your description of what Stein did and nm’s description of what Stein did are two different assertions.

Lastly, I find it majorly metaphorical for a person to refer to a race of people as a “disease.” And, as adults, can we agree not to insinuate that one or the other is indifferent to the Holocaust?

The theory of “irreducible complexity” has been debunked repeatedly. Stein and the thinkers that he has assembled refuse to accept that their theories have been tested by the scientific community and found to be without merit. They’d happily take a positive response from peer review, but since they got a negative response, they seek to claim there’s something wrong with the process of inquiry rather than accepting that there’s something wrong with their findings.

Believe what you like, ned, but remember that it’s called freedom of religion, not freedom of science. The problem here is not in what is believed (which is a matter of individual conscience) but what is demonstrable as a scientific finding, through methods that the bulk of the scientific community agrees upon.

Bridgett beat me to it while I was at lunch, but, Ned, I think that Hitler made it very clear that he considered Jews to be a disease. It was no metaphor for him. I’m sure that you don’t share his feelings, so there’s no need to claim that by being honest about what he believed I am accusing you of indifference to the Holocaust. I do, however, consider the attempt in Expelled to demonstrate a connection between evolutionary theory and the Holocaust to be deeply flawed, since those carrying out the Holocaust did not, in fact, claim it as their rationale.

Moreover, I find it odd that you consider (mostly) polite disagreement with your position here on this blog to be a jihad. No one contests your right to believe whatever you like; but you don’t get to teach it as science. And those who won’t follow scientific protocols (which have to do with methodology, not with anticipated results) don’t get to be treated as scientists.

Ned Williams:

Obviously, whether I was putting carefully annotated comments complete with bibliographies and footnotes or doing what I do, it would make zero difference to you because, as several other folks have pointed out, it’s about “revealed truth” and your beliefs (as deluded as they might be) trump all other arguments.

You really don’t want to argue, Ned Williams, you just want to preach. Unfortunately, you’re not acting as a minister here, but as the “political” co-editor of MCB (I think that’s the terms you used to describe yourself recently) and this, bub, ain’t no church.

I find it laughable that you treat serious intellectual debate with the same level of disdain and condescension that you do my comments. But then, to you, I suppose the educational level of the unbeliever is immaterial.

You said:

“The virtual jihad (as manifested on this blog and elsewhere) against anti-Darwin Infidels only undermines–I’d say, the credibility of those who claim to be objective or altruistic or apolitical or virtuous.”

Ned Williams, I can only speak for myself, but I would never consider those folks, like you, who don’t believe in evolution, to be infidels. On the contrary I think they’re “True beievers” of the first water. That use, by you, Ned Williams, of “jihad” now that is sort of a metaphor.

This is an excerpt from a piece on Hitler/Naziism at the “Website of the Center for the Study of War, Genocide and Terrorism”

NATIONALISM, NAZISM, GENOCIDE, by Richard Koenigsberg, Online Publication Date: 26-Oct-2005.

“”In one of his Table Talks in 1942, Hitler referred to the transport of Jews to the eastern regions by asking what possible objection could be raised when in the interest of the state an “obvious canker of the people has to be eliminated.” In 1943 when the policy of the gas chambers was operative, Hitler said to the Hungarian Regent Horthy that Jews should be treated like “tubercles which can infect a healthy body.” Nobody could call this cruelty, he said, considering the necessity of “killing innocent creatures of nature like hares and roes to prevent them from causing damage.”

Goebbels put it this way: “Our task here is surgical; drastic incisions, or some day Europe will perish of the Jewish disease.” Hans Frank, General Governor of Poland during the Nazi occupation, called Jews “a lower species of life, a kind of vermin, which upon contact infected the German people with deadly diseases.” When the Jews in the area he ruled had been killed, he declared that, “Now a sick Europe will become healthy again.” Finally, on February 22, 1942, Hitler made the following astonishing statement: “The discovery of the Jewish virus is one of the greatest revolutions that have taken place in the world. The battle we are engaged in is of the same sort as the battle waged during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch.””

It appears that he was not speaking in metaphorical terms. He actually thought of the jews as a disease, thereby dehumanizing them.

Yep, sorry I can’t come up with more substantive stuff, Ned Williams–unlike you, who furnishes, ala William, reams and reams of stuff to back up your assertion, excuse me “facts”. But I had to go talk to some doctors today. They tell me I’ve got a bad meniscus in my left knee and suggest that I spend less time on my knees and more time writing thoughtless screed, diatribes and polemics attacking folks, like you, who are only trying to bring light into the darkness of our ignorance.

Oh, there’s plenty of “anticipated results” hunting going on in the scientific community, nm (and bridgett). Discoveries that jibe with the Darwinism construct make it to the cover of Nat’l Geographic or Scientific journals, discoveries that don’t . . . well, they have some other explanation.

nm,
Stein had his sources for making those assertions about ideological rationales and ideological bases for Nazi genocide. They weren’t from left field.

And my Jihad comment is not just in reference to this particular “evolution” thread. There are TONS of holes/gaps/unknowns in evolutionary theory, and it is not naturalist scientists’ privilege to pick which hypotheses are labeled as such and which are characterized, if not outright labeled, as “fact.”

dolphin and others may be convinced that evolutionary theory would not should not could not lead to treating humans like animals, but it is wholly consistent with such a view. Now, whether Hitler was motivated by Darwinism is another issue, but his view of Jewish persons as a literal disease (as you say) or as members of an inferior/dangerous race certainly wasn’t rooted in a worldview that says humans are created in God’s image. And I didn’t accuse you of accusing me of being indifferent to the Holocaust . . . I thought it was pretty clear that I was addressing bridgett.

bridgett,
I disagree that ID advocates represent some threat to scientific methodology. In fact, the problem I have with Darwinism is the propensity to over-reach in “explaining” things we observe in nature. Much of it is generally agreed upon, but there are some pretty big areas of biology/science (territories you might call scientific no-man’s land) that Darwinists presumptuously occupy and stick a “Another Fact Proving Darwinism” flag into.

Also, please direct me to the source for your assertion that irreducible complexity has been debunked.

Ned Williams:

You said:

“nm,
Stein had his sources for making those assertions about ideological rationales and ideological bases for Nazi genocide. They weren’t from left field.”

You’re absolutely correct, they were from right field, far right field.

Ned Williams:

and then you said:

“And my Jihad comment is not just in reference to this particular “evolution” thread. There are TONS of holes/gaps/unknowns in evolutionary theory, and it is not naturalist scientists’ privilege to pick which hypotheses are labeled as such and which are characterized, if not outright labeled, as “fact.””

Really? Please give a few examples of those “TONS of holes/gaps/unknowns in evolutionary theory”, along with the arguments against them and their scientific underpinnings.”

I’m just curious, Ned Williams. When you appear in a proceeding (civil or criminal) does the judge or the jury just accept your theory of the case as the only one that could be right? with no “evidence” to back it up? Boy, it must make the court reporter’s job so easy.

You know, I think that nice doctor man was right, my knee already hurts less than it did earlier today!

“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 by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before 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.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

Hmmm, Hitler referred to the Jews as “a canker,” “like hares or roes,” (emphasis added), a “kind of vermin,” “like terbecles that can infect a healthy body” (emphasis added)–was that a literal body or just a metaphorical one? I wonder. Was the “Europe” to which he referred literally sick, or figuratively? Hmmm, I wonder. I’d say your research only demonstrates that Hitler et al marshaled every negative image possible to dehumanize the Jews.

And while I can understand you disagreeing with the “infidel” analogy, surely you’re not misunderstanding it . . . the whole point of Expelled is that some Darwinists are fundamentalists brooking no dissent.

And when you’ve seen the movie, you can tell me all about which field Stein’s sources are from.

Re. gaps or holes, it is a quagmire in waiting for people to throw links at each other if there is not a commitment to respectful, even-handed consideration. I personally attempt to listen to others’ respectful, even-handed arguments . . . to follow their links and give them a fair read. Not everyone shares that value. Nonetheless, here is one article I just googled and found interesting. It’s kind of long (this is complicated stuff, no?) but for what it’s worth . . .

Lastly . . . newsflash: Middle Tennessee blogger makes assertion, antagonist commienter (sic) unconvinced . . . more at 11.

All that being said, I overheard my young daughter today quoting a verse in the Bible that says do not return evil for evil.

That’s good counsel. I’m going to try, but boy you tempt, dc.

hbk,
I guess you’re saying that the Holocaust “fits nicely with christian principles” because Hitler said so? I know that you’re down on religion and–it appears, Hitler may have thought the Holocaust fit nicely with Christianity, but is that what you’re asserting?

Ned Williams:

Is this comment:

“Hmmm, Hitler referred to the Jews as “a canker,” “like hares or roes,” (emphasis added), a “kind of vermin,” “like terbecles that can infect a healthy body” (emphasis added)–was that a literal body or just a metaphorical one? I wonder. Was the “Europe” to which he referred literally sick, or figuratively? Hmmm, I wonder. I’d say your research only demonstrates that Hitler et al marshaled every negative image possible to dehumanize the Jews.”

supposed to refute something? If so what?

Ned Williams; you consistently (and constantly) make unsupported (and, generally, unsupportable) statements of opinion as if they were facts. You refuse to offer any factual data to go along with them.

Once again you’ve run out of answers so you simply rephrase the questions you’re asked. I suppose that is a technique that often has results that desire it to have–but, I doubt that it worked in the courtroom.

I love this:

“hbk,
I guess you’re saying that the Holocaust “fits nicely with christian principles” because Hitler said so? I know that you’re down on religion and–it appears, Hitler may have thought the Holocaust fit nicely with Christianity, but is that what you’re asserting?”

You, Ned Williams, used a specious piece of dreck written by William Kristol to attempt to link Barack Obama with communism (a charge I’m certain you’ll deny). However, when someone else uses direct quotes by Adolf Hitler, quotes in which he professes HIS christianity, you have a problem with it.

How cute of you, Ned Williams, to use your daughter’s quoting from the bible to underscore your piety and christianity. But, don’t you know by now that attacking an apostate like me is your sworn duty? Am I not like a cancer on YOUR body politic. Why don’t you just say a load of prayers for me, Ned Williams. I’ll make you the same offer I made one of your fellow travelers here a month or so back. You say prayers for me, I’ll ask your GOD to let the blessing fall on Barack Obama so’s he can get the nomination and beat John McCain for the presidency.

That’s a nice verse, but scientific knowledge isn’t evil, Ned. That misconception of yours highlights the fear driving this pseudoscientific movement. The need to come up with a scientific-sounding explanation for the world’s origins compatible with a literal doctrine of divine creation requires putting the answer before the question. Scientific hypotheses have to be structured in an intellectually honest way and these inquiries don’t begin to pass that threshold test; ID researchers know what conclusions they are supposed to reach and are crafting their studies to reach those ends, which is not the scientific method.

Once a line of inquiry has been established to be a blind alley (orthogenesis, autogenesis, Lamarckism, for example, to stick to discredited evolutionary theories), scientists move on to more plausible interpretations. The ideas of macro and microevolution were popular in the 19th century but has been soundly rejected by the scientific community since the mid-twentieth century scientific community because it’s teleological.

Religious faith is fine with me. Just don’t put lipstick on that pig and call it science.

Read “The House that Hitler Built” for an excellent, unbiased analysis of Hitler’s relationship with the church.

I can tell you, he was no christian. His only religion was Naziism. The Nazis subjugated the church to their own ends. They used christianity as a lever when it was convenient. If he had any religion, he pushed the ‘old, German ways’, meaning paganism.

I tell you what. When Ben Stein reveals his ’sources’ for connecting evolutionary science and Naziism, I’ll be glad to consider them. Until he does, I’m more concerned with the way Ned chooses to characterize people providing him with contrary evidence as accusations of softness on Naziism, and with the way he says that widespread disagreement with his ideas is a jihad.

In the meantime, scientists are waiting for the Discovery Institute (or any other source) to produce any research that controverts evolution and present it for peer review — they’ve been waiting for it for years, but no one comes up with any. Which is too bad, because real scientists actually love having new ideas and evidence to pick over, and would have a ball with anything real coming out of the ID camp. But there isn’t any, even though, if I’m not mistaken, the Templeton Foundation is offering a reward in the millions for the researcher who does it. So why have there been no results? You do the math.

Exador:

You can tell me he’s not a christian till the cows come home. His own words identify him as such. Just like Jeremy Wright, Barack Obama and all those other folks whose words are all the evidence we need, the same is true for Herr Hitler. He was certainly strong in his faith!

Sadly, there don’t seem to be any excellent, unbiased books on Hitler’s genuine views on evolution but I’ll be happy to accept that his views on evolution were equally to blame, along with his christianity, for his murderous policies towards european jewry. Is it not wonderful when things can be tied up with such neat little bows?

I personally attempt to listen to others’ respectful, even-handed arguments

I’m sorry, but I can’t let this flat out lie go unchallenged. You are one of the single most self-righteous and pompous individuals I have ever met. You start with the assumption that anything you think is inherently right and there can be no dispute of it. If you read links provided by others, it’s only with the intention of finding something “wrong” with them. For chrissakes, you said have said that anybody who doesn’t share your political views can’t be a real christian, and (per your world view, one can assume) is going to hell. You realize that ned. You have said that those who fail to agree with you deserve eternal damnation. Is there possibly a higher level of self-righteousness that one can attain??

You do NOT give even-handed consideration to different views, and I’m ok with that. It’s who you are (or at least who you are choosing to be), but don’t come around claiming to be something else. When such statements are compared to the rest fo what you have to say, they fall flat. REALLY REALLY flat.

humorous to see folks say Stein is akin to Michael Moore, as if Moore had invented the concept of a propaganda film. what Moore has done is make the distribution of documentary-styled movies financially viable at the box office in our current age.

the only people i have ever encountered, either face to face or through their writings, who believe Darwin’s theories are unquestionable science are Christians who despise the theories.

Stein wins at two things - making himself money and dumbing down the general population.

Dolphin:

Careful or you’ll wind up in deep dutch with Ned Williams, like I am all the time.

Ned:

No Ned, I am not trying to characterize all christians as bad people.

But power corrupts, even christians.

I will admit, I don’t take much comfort knowing there is no inherent moral accountability in the whole “Jesus saves” scheme (kind of like atheism in that regard, except that atheism is not in the morality business), but many christians manage to be good people in spite of that (as do many atheists).

Apparently however, it is possible to manipulate a largely christian population into embracing a fascist dictator, as long as they perceive him to be a good christian.

dc,
It was a small point (I think raised by bridgett and nm to disprove some aspect of Hitler’s “motivations” for the Grand Solution), but the Hitler quotes you cited, provide numerous examples of Hitler’s metaphorical language to refer to the Jews.

dolphin,
newsflash: Tennessee blogger thinks he’s right . . . unpersuaded by arguments of antagonists . . . more at 11. I’m not really sure how I should respond to your accusations. Feel free to try and back them up, though (not to mention attack the substance of the assertions not the person making them). I “argue” in good faith. I work hard not to traffic in fallacies, and especially not to be personal. But, again, please feel free to back up your blushingly harsh (and judgmental, ironically) accusations.

hbk,
That wasn’t my question. Are you (seriously) asserting that the Holocaust “fits nicely with christian principles”?

bridgett,
The “evil” I was referencing was much tamer than that . . . it was–in that context, unkind words or actions. Re. the substance of this issue, I’ll reiterate that there are gaps in the theory of Evolution that beg questions. I perceive that you think ID types are disingenuous or dishonest or unscientific or ignorant or blinded, so I think I know what you’re asserting when you say they “know what conclusions they are supposed to reach,” but isn’t every hypothesis a “conclusion” one is trying to reach through research and investigation?

joe p,
Well, I hope you’re not counting me in that category of people who believes Darwin’s theories are unquestionable science. But I think I understand your point. I would just have to say that many people who ostensibly are open-minded on the issue of what is true about how everything came to be appear very close to being “unquestioning.”

nm,
The “sources” are people he interviewed in the movie–curators at museums re. the Holocaust. Now, those sources may not be credible to all (and there were language/translation issues/concerns, too), but they

All,
I’m not sure how to handle the whole Evolution Could Lead to Another Holocaust (Evolution Caused the Holocaust) theme of the movie. Yes, I believe that Darwinism, standing alone, is consistent with a view that people are not really different than any other living thing and that might makes right or the strong should survive. I think it is no coincidence that in modern history, most states that operate or have operated on a paradigm of naturalism or dialectical materialism or atheism (or whatever the exact term is) have been brutal and inhumane. I would argue that unlike Christianity (ref. HBK’s comments), a worldview predicated on Darwinism is not inconsistent with authoritarian abuses (sorry that I disagree with your previous assertion/conclusion dolphin).

[…] reading through this long thread about Expelled, it is clear that there is a lot to disagree about surrounding the issue of […]

Ned, I’m not going to miss your leading questions.

A hypothesis is a prediction that is testable by recourse to a set of open-ended questions. It is not a conclusion, but a method of inquiry. A scientist does not presume that his or her prediction will hold up to scrutiny or will be the necessary endpoint of research.

ID researchers start with a conclusion that their religious belief system asserts must be True — a universe existing by divine creation and manifesting divinity in its order — and are attempting (with little success, judging from their reception in the scientific community at large) to bend their questions to arrive at this result and this result only.

And remember, for the umptieth time, Darwinism is not synonymous with the study of evolution. You appear to be totally stuck in the 1870s with your knowledge of the development of the field.

Ned,

There is a historical pattern of persecution against Jews, and Christians are often perpetrators.

Other holocausts have been justified by Christians on biblical/religious grounds.

How do you think Jews are supposed to feel about all those heaping praise on Mel Gibson’s Passion play, in light of his revealing indiscretions?

How about Ann Coulter, a Christian nation apologist that you have praised; declaring that Jews need to be perfected?

In the sense that Christians insist that there is only one path to righteousness, i.e., Christ, the Holocaust definitely fits in nicely with Christian values.

Ned Williams:

To quote your patron saint, Ronnie the Miscommunicator, “There you go, again.” Like I said before, you quit posting nonsense and I’ll quit commenting on the threads under your posts.

Tennessee blogger thinks he’s right . . . unpersuaded by arguments of antagonists

That’s the thing. I don’t care that your unpersuaded. But unless you can offer up WHY you’re unpersuaded, you’re simply saying that, no matter what, you’re always right, and how dare we suggest that you lower yourself to actually backing up what you have to say. That is self-righteousness.

But, again, please feel free to back up your blushingly harsh (and judgmental, ironically) accusations.

Do you not read what you write? My “accusations” are backed up by you. Look at the evolution threads alone. Every single one of them has you making the exact same arguments, despite them having been debunked by others in these threads. I’m not expecting you to admit that your wrong, but when you can’t even be bothered to come up with other reasons that you’re right, it’s clear you’re NOT “listen[ing] to others’ respectful, even-handed arguments.” Address the arguments that are giving. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting “I can’t hear you” while simultaneously making the exact same statements over and over again isn’t discussion. You think someone’s wrong, why not say WHY you think they are wrong?

Secondly, why is the judgment inherent in my statement ironic? I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t be judgmental, just that you should have reasons to back up your judgments other than simply “this is the way I think and I don’t want to hear anything different.” All you have to do is read your posts to see the reasons behind the judgment I made.

sorry that I disagree with your previous assertion/conclusion dolphin

I couldn’t possibly careless that you disagree with me, but if you want to have a discussion related to it, you have to tell me WHY you disagree. I’ve offered WHY I think an evolutionary worldview rationally would discourage genocide. Am I wrong? Maybe. Can you point out the flaw in my reasoning that makes you think so? You offer “a worldview predicated on Darwinism is not inconsistent with authoritarian abuses.” That’s simply a statement, not an argument. WHY do you think that? That is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. It comes off as self-righteous and arrogant when you assume that simply giving your word that a statement is fact is on par with intellectual discussion.

[…] that’s been intriguing to me of late (here, here and at other times when Evolution has come up as a debate topic) is how obviously the issue […]