WE Blog

Rhonda,

Why on Earth would you post a topic about the movie, cite nothing but bad views of it, say you have not even seen it, then ask us what we think?

Then you call it an anti-evolution film.

The film was about Intelligent Design and how those who try to study it or believe it are puinhsed, mocked, or not even given a seat at the discussion.

The film was not anti-evolution.

Could you possibly be any more biased?

Could you possibly be any more ignorant?

Get off your but, go see the movie, do some research, and then post a topic on it.

What do you people even do at the Wichita Eagle?

out – where is it showing?

I saw it at the Warren West, Ben.

Watch the trailer here:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

“He makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth’s primordial soup. The answer is it couldn’t–and it didn’t. Organic chemicals needed eons of stirring and slow cooking before they could produce compounds that could begin to lead to a living thing.”

————

Chuckle,… The above is a quote from the Time magazine review. Hmmm… “Slow Cooking” is what produced life.

My oh my.

You guys are aware that evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life. What have you two been doing, getting your education about evolution from a creationist film?

So, the beginning of life does not evolve into higher life forms Doug?

Or, how does that transition.

“Leaping faith for dollars”

For the record, I think that a Christian can believe in the theory of evolution.
I do not believe that evolution and intelligent design or Creation are mutually exclusive.

Having said that, Rhonda why do you insist on showing your ignorance, time and again, on these subjects?

Hitler was highly enfluenced by Darwin. This is very well known. Only the truly ignorant would even try to argue this point:

“But for about ten minutes, Expelled touches on Darwinism’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to Nazi racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship.

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. 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.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. 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 Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

The key elements in the ideology that produced Auschwitz are moral relativism aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of human life, a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser races, that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews. All but the last of these ideas may be found in Darwin’s writing.

Like Hitler, Charles Darwin saw natural processes as setting moral standards. It’s all in The Descent of Man, where he explains that, had we evolved differently, we would have different moral ideas. On a particularly delicate moral topic, for example, he wrote: “We may, therefore, reject the belief, lately insisted on by some writers, that the abhorrence of incest is due to our possessing a special God-implanted conscience.”

In the same book, he compared the evolution of people to the breeding of animals and drew a chilling conclusion regarding what he saw as the undesirable consequences of allowing the unfit to breed:

“Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” In this desacralized picture of existence, to speak of life as possessing any kind of holiness is to introduce an alien note.

Most disturbing of all, in The Descent of Man, Darwin prophesied: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”

While it must be very clearly emphasized that the gentle-souled Darwin himself never supported ill treatment of any race or group, his words inspired a movement to “scientific” racism.

“Eugenics,” breeding humans for excellence, is a word coined by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton in 1865, six years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species. In America itself, between 1907 and 1958, in states including Indiana, California, and Washington, some 60,000 genetically “unfit” persons were legally sterilized against their will. Germany took eugenics to the point of murder, euthanizing 70,000 of the unfit.

You only have to read Mein Kampf to see the indebtedness. A shrewd manipulator of his fellow Germans’ sympathy for scientifically flavored racial theorizing, Hitler gives a Darwinian-style analysis of how the struggle for existence mandates a defense of the Aryan race.

He invokes the “principles of Nature’s rule,” “her whole work of higher breeding,” in which “struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.” He warns against racial decline from the mixing of blood — his own spin on Darwinism — arguing that the preservation of a “creative race” is “bound up with the rigid law of necessity and the right of victory of the best and stronger in this world.” He calls for “a more noble evolution.”

Other Nazi propaganda followed his lead. In a 1937 German propaganda film, Victims of the Past, the audience is shown a retarded person as the narrator intones, “In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply.”

None of which, of course, is an argument against Darwin’s theory, narrowly defined, which could still be true as most but not all biologists believe, despite having deadly implications.

Yet it is surely of interest that, at the very heart of his message, Hitler appealed to Germans primarily as devotees of modern biological science. He could have framed his pitch in any terms he liked. He chose evolutionary terms. No one knows what he believed in his heart, if he had one. But we know what he judged would stir up fellow Nazis and ordinary citizens to commit themselves to his movement. In that, he judged correctly.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=

I would also add that Planned Parenthood, and its founder, Margaret Sanger, owe a great deal to Darwinism and the Eugenics movement.

#
Maggotpunk
Posted April 24, 2008 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

Regular,
Let me repeat for you again, evolution is not abiogenesis. It’s like you are trying to claim the theory of flight is the same as the theory of gravity. Don’t blame me if you were educated by creationists, I’m just telling you the facts.

————————–
Actually, I’m just mocking your use of semantics.

As far as flight and gravity, neither are mutually exclusive.

The same with evolution and origins of life.

mutually exclusive.

Stop probing my mind Franklin, that phrase popped in my mind as I was writing. :D

“I don’t know why they had Stein narrate the movie since Stein knows absolutely nothing about evolution…”
I’ll take a shot at it, I’m guessing it’s because Ferris Buehler had the day off!
Or, too many people took ‘Ben Stein’s money!’

Ben and any others who might be interested,

This movie is now available. [It is set mainly in Kansas and stars a number of folks we used to read about in our newspapers]. I saw documentary at a special showing at WSU. The filmmaker was at the event, too. The filmmaker formerly studied evoluntary biology at Harvard. His contention is that scientists do not take time to explain things to the lay public and because of them holding what he sees as an obligation in such low esteem, is the main reason why we have the endless and pointless debates about this subject. I believe he is correct.

http://www.flockofdodos.com/

Didn’t Hitler’s beliefs stem more from being the decendants of ‘Atlantis’ and from some other metaphysical/superior being origins. Don’t think evolution had a whole lot to do with it.

Regular – evolution is often studied in Paleontology which is part of geology.

“But just to fill you in, the incredible, irreducible complexity of the cell is something that evolutionary theory has not convincingly explained.”

Er, wrong. Just to fill YOU in, outlander, the evolution of a working cell has been extensively researched. I do not have the time or inclination to sit here for the 1,294th time to explain what can only be covered in six months or so, especially since you’ll just respond to my painstaking explanations with “YAH BUT THERE’S NO PROOF HOW ABOUT THAT SMARTY PANTS”. I’ve learned my lesson trying to explain my field of study to people like you on a blog.

Of course, if you get your education from creationist propoganda and not a college level Cell and Molecular Biology class, I could see how cells are like magic little boxes that must have been created as is.

Franklin is correct, by the way. Evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusion. I’ve dedicated my life to both of them :)

And this is hilarious, and shows the intellectual dishonesty of creationists:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

(loves being chastised by Wahine_Tara)

(grins with an evil curmudgeon grin)

“Hitler was highly enfluenced by Darwin. This is very well known. Only the truly ignorant would even try to argue this point:”

Yes. Fair enough.

There are some people who drag gays behind the back of a truck. There are some people who killed black men for dating white women. There are some people who bomb abortion clinics. These people were highly influenced by Christianity. Only the truly ignorant would even try to argue this point.

Therefore, Christianity is wrong, amirite guys!

/sarcasm

Nathan,
Science doesn’t make moral statements. What moral conclusion can you draw from the theory of gravity? None, just the same number of moral conclusions you can make from the theory of natural selection.

I’ve not seen the movie either but I have seen a blatantly desperate effort on behalf of Rhonda to churn blog opinion against it.

Why the need for unprofessional bias in order to coerce the minds of people who can think for themselves and watch the film and come up with their own conclusions?

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.”
-Gandhi

Keep it up the attack machine Rhonda.

Maggot
Hitler absolutely thought he was on a “moral” mission.
Hitler was wrong, of course, and Hitler was definately a pagan.
However, Hitler was very well versed on the theory of Darwinism, and Hitler thought that it was “immoral” to allow the weak, among us, to reproduce.

Maggot,

Without Darwin drawing his own moral conclusions on interjecting what might be “evil” into his ideas then what would stop someone from taking Darwinian Evolutionary theory to it’s logical conclusion as Hitler did and others want and try to do?

If you have no morals then the logical conclusion of Evolutionary theory is that the strong should survive and the weak should now.

So why do we as a society waste our time trying to prop up and help those less fortunate and take care of them when we should just let them die, if we do not interject morals into the discussion?

The philosophy incumbent in the theory of evolution was a big factor in Germany’s desire to be “fit” during the rule of the Kaiser in 1917. It was believed that if nations (like species) were to survive, they had to be fitter as a nation and therefore more militaristic.

Through the effort to make Germany into the premier world power, Germany aligned itself against the countries it viewed as its biggest threat (Russia, England, and France).

Thus started the arms race that resulted in the tenderbox conditions that preceded WWI. The conclusion of which resulted embitterment which was acted upon by Hitler to foment WWII. Genocide is justified when you assume that some races are not as evolved as your own.

Yes, ideas do have consequences.

Maggot,

Hitler didn’t just single out the Jews though. He systematically was killing off the weak, retarded, handicaped and others too.

None of which was based on his alleged “Christian” views.

Maggot
Hitler was NOT a Christian.
Hitler hated Christianity.

Maggot
Hitler and his Nazi supporters read Darwin and quoted Darwin and used Darwin to support their views.
Perhaps, Mag, you have evidence to the contrary?
????

“Hitler and his Nazi supporters read Darwin and quoted Darwin and used Darwin to support their views.”

They read the Bible too and Grimm’s Fairy Tales too. So what’s your point? Justifying another Nazi book burning Paul?

maggotpunk RE-interprets history so that his world view does not have such unwelcome bedfellows as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Sorry, athiests (and the evolutionary theory that this belief is grounded upon) were key tenets of the facist and communisitic regimes. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedung, All atheists, who believed that people were mere animals to be treated and killed in accordance to that which gives them the most power.

How many people have been killed because of the belief that all men are not created and therefore not equal?

“Hitler was NOT a Christian.
Hitler hated Christianity.”

Lovely revisionist history. When was Hitler excommunicated or renounce his Christian beliefs Paul? He did hate the power that the Church had but he remedied that by buying them off. King Henry the 8th hated the power the Catholic church had and split off from them but that doesn’t mean Henry wasn’t a Christian.

Are you being dishonest Paul or do you just not know much about history?

Rage
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was part of the American Eugenics Movement.
Other people, on this thread, have made the point that America practiced some eugenic policies in the past.
I agree.
Sanger was in full support of American Eugenics.

Paul lies:
“Sanger was in full support of American Eugenics.”

Except for the part when she broke away from the eugenics movement because of the overt racism. But I wouldn’t expect you to be honest.

By the way, Doug, this nails them so effectively, I think it bears repeating:

Perhaps it’s just your bias that the only way for those to be stronger is to kill off others. Humans are a social animals and get stronger through cooperation and helping others. What comes from your background that assumes the morally logical conclusion is wholesale slaughter?

Perhaps if you studied a bit more science and a little less religion you’d realize that numerous species survive on this concept. Humans, gorillas, birds, fish, zebras, deer, and many more depend on survival through numbers and cooperation. If you want to draw your moral conclusions from evolution (and Darwin didn’t invent evolution contrary to what you claim) then one would have to be void of morals to come up with your conclusion since nature reveals your way is abnormal.

As Regular’s favorite nemesis (after cosmos) says: Exactly.

“HLP” –

“…the scientific community has become controlled by a faction with a Godless world view.”

Can you get that through your head?

I’ve had it with atheist evolutionary science!

I’m sick of Satanist plumbing too! (Did you know they use a “snake”?)

Maggot
In a hurry today, I can not prove the accuracy of the letter I quoted.
However, I would urge you to go to the Nuremburg Trial transcripts.
Nearly all of Hitler’s top government officials state, clearly, that Hitler thought Christianity was his enemy.

Paul, learn something about history. Sanger was working to allieviate poverty amongst the African-American community who resided primarily in the South. Guess who was in power in the South?

I suppose you don’t really have a problem with it since you are a supporter of Reagan who started his campaign appealing to racists in Neshoba County and honored Nazi war veterans by laying a wreath at their memorial.

Really Paul, I suggest you stop repeating your BS from anti-choice websites. Your ignorance of everything is astounding.

Paul sez:
“I can not prove the accuracy of the letter I quoted.”

Finally, we agree on something.

Oh Paul is being downright totally dishonest today now isn’t he?

Hitler DID take a lot of Luther, there simply is no denying that. The correlation between Luther and Hitler is stronger than it is between Hitler and Darwin.

You remark about Margaret Sanger, yet you only post little bits and pieces, if you’re going to be informed, be totally informed and actually go READ WHAT SHE WROTE- the WHOLE thing.

PM,
We’re still waiting for Paul to reference his “human weeds” reference. The only links I can find are to anti-choice websites and they are as honest as Paul is.

Er maggot,

Evolution can be easily invalidated without showing how such a belief is in the worst possible interest for society (Nazi Germany, Moa’s China, and Stalinist Russia).

How about answering a basic question?

If humans evolved from various subspecies, how can they be equal?

RFL,
I’ll ask again, when did Stalin and Hitler ever state they were Atheist?

“Then again, it’s clear that you are unaware of the entire Spanish-American war and the occupation of the Phillipines.”

I guess you alone are privy to that knowledge and how that relates to christianity.

I guess you don’t know about the zillions of Chileans that were murdered in greenland by evolutionists. See I can make up crap to support my belief when the facts are missing too!

I’ll ask again, when did Stalin and Hitler ever state they were Atheist?

They said it in 1942. reference http://www.obviousfact.com I gues you don’t know about that huh? Oh well.

I had a hard time believing that was really the question, even from a creationist.

#
bth
Posted April 24, 2008 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

OK RFL – how about my Native American ancesters and their genocide at the hands of good Christians.
———————————-

Prove that “good Christians” killed your ancestors.

Remember now, only good Christians, not some white guy.

And only give proof that some ‘good Christians’ went out on a killing raid of your ancestors.

Show it.

“They said it in 1942. reference http://www.obviousfact.com I gues you don’t know about that huh? Oh well.”

Which links to a non-existent page, just like RFL’s non-existent facts.

#
Rage
Posted April 24, 2008 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

How about the unnecessary deaths of some 600,000 Iraqis at the hands of our god-chosen, Christian, two-term president?
———————-
Which those numbers were proven wrong several times in this blog.

Extrapolation from interviews does not equal number of dead.

maggotpunk,
And i never said that Hitler claimed to be an atheist. Stalin was an atheist however and if that fact is not obvious to you, I do not choose to continue to answer your questions.

our claim = your claim

The Cherokee were murdered by US government soldiers during the Trail of Tears. But deny it. Join with with the Holocaust deniers.

“I never said the Spanish-American war was about Christianity. Get the deluded stick out of your ass.”
-Maggotpunk

Moments later:

“The occupation and slaughter of the Filipinos was about bringing Christianity to the Filipinos as much as it was controlling more markets.”
-Maggotpunk

Conclusion: Maggotpunk does not have a clue what he is talking about. Contradicting himself while Making stuff up is his strongest suit.

If Columbus never met with Native Americans and the U.S. government didn’t have a policy of genocide against the Native Americans then who were their target? It certainly wasn’t the Eskimos, they were too far away.

Maybe it’s those same Native Americans that Jesus met when he came to America as mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

bth
Posted April 24, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

The Cherokee were murdered by US government soldiers during the Trail of Tears. But deny it. Join with with the Holocaust deniers
————————————–

So name the good Christians.

Or are you saying every soldier in the U.S. employ is a “good Christian” and only they are responsible for the slaying.

Your statement and claim is ridiculous Ben, why bother defending it.

Now, if you would have said that citizens of the U.S.and it’s previous forms of government were responsible for killing my ancestors, I would have believed it.

But to single out a group – ridiculous.

Rage
Posted April 24, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

Besides, the Indians in Columbus landings were not Cherokees, which I believe you stated were your ancestors.

So, where is your proof?

I think merely quoting this statement is ridicule enough!
—————————
Actually Rage, your troll quote is the only thing that is ridiculous.

Nothing offered in way of explanation, just trolling weren’t you? :)

But you’re good at that, avoiding consequences.

You’d rather put some weasel words together that might be multi-syllable and you call that intelligent discussion.

I call it what it is, b.s.

#
Rage
Posted April 24, 2008 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

Ben, having lived in Oklahoma, I’ve been on the Trail of Tears.

Some audacity, huh?
——————-

So name those ‘good Christians’ responsible for the killings.

Let’s see some rock solid evidence that only ‘good Christians’ are responsible.

Come on now Libs, quit B.S’ing and make your claim stick.

Or be forever known as b.s. artists.

Why does Paul keep changing his nickname on the blog anyway. God it’s worse than the rest of the trolls.

Why did you change Doug?

Michael Moore and Ben Stein have a lot in common: Both present their side, using anything and anybody to prove their point of view correct. Doesn’t matter cherry-picking interviews, using questionable interviewees, or attacking the other side with anything they think they can get away with.

Both not worth the price of admission!

“If humans evolved from various subspecies, how can they be equal?”

Oh dear. Are you…are you…joking? Humans are all one species. We evolved from a single lineage. Our variations in appearance (which make up less only a negligible percentage of our genome, I might add) are due to migration–we adapted to whatever environments we found ourself in.

I think people forget that evolution doesn’t have a goal or direction…it just exploits whatever is best in the short term. So, Europeans evolved lighter skin to increase vitamin D absorption, and developed a higher disposition to skin cancer as a result. There is no “better”, just “better for this environment”. Holy cow, RFL, please please please PLEASE tell me you didn’t go to a Kansas public school. I don’t think I could bear it.

“All those with PhD’s in Biological Science, who are on this blog , raise their hands…”
:Tentatively raises hand:

Close anyway, about two more years to go :)

Oh, and RE: Dodos. I can definitely see how scientists are being arrogant by not trying to explain evidence to the general public and instead writing them off as uneducated. But I have tried to do so multiple times, and it’s frivolous. Of course there has to be a breaking point where someone loses their temper at such blatant disregard of the scientific method, and says, “You know what, F THIS! You people are a LOST CAUSE”.

I don’t think I’m there. Yet. No, not yet.

As though the history of civilization not to mention the animal kingdom are not replete with examples of the concept ’survival of the fittest’. So the feeble attempt to lay any genocide on the back of Darwin, is just that feeble.

Maybe “Goddess-Doctor”?

We can combine your biology with my chamistry and geology and have lots of fun. When I did my Masters Env Science biology was my hardest past.

Ben said the Proctor for his PhD board was fond of barbed wire whips, chains and branding irons. :)

And she was a lot of fun!

Ms Holman,

Shouldn’t you review the movie before you write about it?

What a wasted thread this turned out to be. I thought it had hopes. But, I think I was wrong.

This thread is just more mindless religion v. science nonsense – it has nothing to do with the actual issue of evolution.

What Hilter believed or who killed the Native Americans has nothing to do with science.

For all the know-it-all conservatives that think that by virtue of the fact that they took a biology class once upon a time makes them an expert on evolution please consider the fact that the field of biology does not exist without the theory of evolution.

With that, could all the (semi) Intelligent Design folks go back to Fundy Bible Camp and let real scientists determine science?

Passages from an insightful article by Tom Bethell in reply to a piece by George Will (yes, that George Will) regarding our Kansas evolution battles.

“George Will has made one accurate criticism of the idea he so dislikes: “The problem with intelligent design is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable. Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis.” This is true; but he should have added that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is not falsifiable either. Darwin’s claim to fame was his discovery of a mechanism of evolution; he accepted “survival of the fittest” as a good summary of his natural-selection theory. But which ones are the fittest? The ones that survive. There is no criterion of fitness that is independent of survival. Whatever happens, it is the “fittest” that survive — by definition. This, just like intelligent design, is not a testable hypothesis. As the eminent philosopher of science Karl Popper said, after discussing this problem that natural selection cannot escape: “There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.” Popper was the first to propose falsification as the line of demarcation between theories that are scientific and those that are not; both intelligent design and natural selection fall by this standard.

The underlying problem, rarely discussed, is that the conclusions of evolutionism are based not on science, but on a philosophy: the philosophy of materialism, or naturalism. Living creatures, including human beings, are here on Earth, and we got here somehow. If atoms and molecules in motion are all that exist, then their random interactions must account for everything that exists, including us. That is the true underpinning of Darwinism. What needs to be examined in detail is not so much the religion behind intelligent design as the philosophy behind evolution.”

-— Tom Bethell is a contributor to National Review.

Apophis
Posted April 24, 2008 at 8:55 pm
“If this liar has completed all of the course work he claims, why is he still living off the government welfare system?”

To make Middle School Science Teachers jealous?

That doesn’t even include all the other science courses I’ve taken. Not to include Safety related courses which pounded in the previously mentioned courses which specific applications and vignettes.

I did take the required Humanities, but not much more. heh

Herb?

We are sorry you did not enjoy your blogging experience. We understand you have a choice in blogging and we wish you good luck in your pursuit of a blog more to your tastes.

“That doesn’t even include all the other science courses I’ve taken.”

And with a little help with the “i” before “e” except after “c” stuff, he can SPELL science.

With help…..

Nathaniel: Look up the ‘open’ thread where I just addressed the Darwin thing will you? I posted a rebutal to you on the wrong damn thread, and I’m too tired to do it over again! Besides I can’t find my glasses……again!.

Topical article. Black genocide at Planned Parenthood?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352537,00.html

“I think the media, and I think America, and certainly black folks, need to start thinking about race and Planned Parenthood, said Rev. Clenard Childress, who raised the question, not for the first time, about Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, who died over 40 years ago at the age of 86.

Sanger, a pioneering advocate for universal access to birth control for women, was also a proponent of “eugenics,” a philosophy that advocates social intervention, like birth control and abortion, for “improving” the hereditary traits of the human race. According to biographies written about Sanger, who was the sixth child of 11 eleven born to a rigid Catholic family in upstate New York, her support for this practice was focused on the “unfit” and the poor — slum dwellers — as they were called at the time, by making contraceptives more available there.

Over the years, comments made by Sanger about reproduction among the poor and minorities have led to her reputation as a racist and a belief that she wanted to “weed” out blacks from society. Planned Parenthood has disputed that caricature and has pointed out her supporters in the black community, including Martin Luther King Jr., and W.E.B DuBois. Nevertheless, Childress and others repeatedly invoked her name as a major force behind a century-long “genocide” on the black community.

According to a report released by the group of Students for Life America on Tuesday, black women are 4.8 times more likely to have an abortion than white women, while the black population in the U.S. is in decline. Black women account for 36 percent of those having abortions in the U.S. today, according to group, while black children make up 17 percent of live births.

Regular
Posted April 24, 2008 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

To make Middle School Science Teachers jealous?

Why would I be jealous? I hold two degrees and actually hold a real job.

Evolution exists. Despite this horrendous implication I strongly think it is true that some humans of African decent do resemble primates. If people are honest with themselves, what their eyes see, there are some African decendents who have very similar features to primates.
I wonder how much of science is retarded because of the political and social implications of openly discussing the resemblence.
I am sure some of the readers will suggest I resemble a horse’s ass.

#
Apophis
Posted April 24, 2008 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

Regular
Posted April 24, 2008 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

To make Middle School Science Teachers jealous?

Why would I be jealous? I hold two degrees and actually hold a real job.
———————————–

Then why do you think, you are the only one entitled to education and degrees?

Besides, I’m a bit older than you. Been there and done that.

“Besides, I’m a bit older than you. Been there and done that.”

So why do you lie, JM?

Marital status – children – Viet Nam – JM – nics – etc?

Why are you such a liar, JM?

“the resident asshole”

Or I could be McCluer the Resident LIAR.

So, McCluer, why did you LIE about being JM?

So, McCluer, why did you LIE about Viet Nam?

So, McCluer, why did you lie about your children?

So, McCluer, why are you such a LIAR?

We can only conclude that McCluer is not a REAL man.

He is just a LIAR.

Look at Margaret Sangers Autobiography:

http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/2007/07/after-kkk-talk-dozen-invitations-to.html

“”I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan…I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses…I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak…In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.” (Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, P.366)”

“You would never say those words to my face, why say them here?”

I wouldn’t say them to your face?

You chickened out, McCluer.

You are a god damned LIAR, McCluer.

Either refute your lies or go away, fat man.

If you want me to say those words to your face, name the time and place……. LIAR.

“Private statements
Hitler’s private statements are clearer. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler’s intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[17] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: “The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay.” Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”[18] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that “only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age” were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[19] In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-Christian tract from 362, Julian’s Against the Galileans, saying “I really hadn’t known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this…”[20] He was reported to say that religion should die on its own accord.[21]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler’s_religious_beliefs
—-
By the way, I can find absolutely nothing, anywhere, to back up the claim, by Maggot, that I have ever quoted from a “historical fiction” — as he said I did when I linked a letter from Hitler to Himmler.
Again, even if Maggot can prove that letter to be false, you need go no further than the statements made, at the Nuremburg trials, by other Nazis — You learn rather quickly that Hitler did not think very much of Christians!

Uh yeah Paul F Rosell.

Prescott Bush was also deeply into laundering money for the Nazis.

Your history and your take on pretty much everything is deeply skewed.

Paul,
One of the websites you linked to referenced Sanger’s “human weeds” comments to her work, The Pivot of Civilization. However, doing a word search in that book doesn’t reveal such a phrase. So do you have a reference for that phrase or did you never read the work and just reference dishonest anti-choice websites?

What is the point of referencing a wiki page that reinforces the fact that Hitler was a Christian only to conclude that he isn’t a Christian? What you claim makes no sense.

Hitler’s Mein Kampf makes numerous references to his belief in the Christian deity. What more is there than his own words? So apart from your historical revisionism I still don’t see anything from you that shows that Hitler was excommunicated or renounced his religion. As expected you have once again failed to support your position and merely rely on the typical dishonesty I expect from a fundy.

Good morning Steven!

We could address my views on “Expelled” briefly at our next monthly book club meeting!

Hank

Hitler used propaganda to achieve political ends.

PRETENDING to hold Christian views, when it suited Hitler, politically, made sense to Hitler.

Privately, however, Hitler made clear his anti-Christian intentions and anti-Christian beliefs.

By the way, Maggot, I call you out: You claim that I posted a “historical fiction” when I quoted a letter that Hitler wrote to Himmler:

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4885/hitler.html

If you can prove that this letter is false, I will apologize for posting it.

If you can not prove that is false?

Well, then, you owe me an apology.

— However, even if you do prove the letter is false, there are plenty of other quotes, from Hitler allies and friends, that show Hitler to be very anti-Christian.

So, even if you prove the Hitler/Himmler letter to be false, you have not disproven my basic point:

Hitler was very anti-Christian!!

I try hard to be honest, here.

I have tried to find some source to tell me that letter was forged or untrue.

I have found no such link to “debunk” the Hitler/

Libs

Type “Human Weeds” into your browser.

“Human Weeds” is a Sanger term.

Maggot
You are being dishonest.

I do not doubt that Hitler, at times, CLAIMED to be a Christian.
Hitler LIED!
Those closest to Hitler made it very clear, after the war, that Hitler hated the Christian faith!

When did Hitler lie about being a Christian? He wasn’t your brand of Christian but he never left the Christian faith. He was an advocate of Positive Christianity and viewed Jesus as an Aryan. He thought the other Christian sects were deluded thinking Christ was a Jew or some other sort which is often a common disagreement amongst Christians.

As for your document it’s flawed. You have an English translation of a French translation of the original German (of which there are three different authors). The English translation doesn’t match up to the German original in many circumstances. But that’s just to present facts which you aren’t interested in.

When will you apologize for wasting my time and dumbing down every conversation you enter into?

Maggot

Moslems believe that Jesus existed, does that make a Moslem a Christian?

Of course not! Your logic is twisted if you claim that everyone who believes that Jesus existe is a “Christian” —

Hitler insulted every Christian faith, when he talked about Christianity in private.

The Early Christian Church Councils condemned “Arianism” — why would Hitler pick that name, for his “master race” if he was truly “pro Christian” in any way?

Nearly every Christian Faith condemns and rejects Arianism when they recite the Creed.

You are an anti-Christian bigot, and you are desperate to claim the false, “Hitler was a Christian” line as propaganda for YOUR cause.

Maggot

Sanger was a radical. She said many outrageous things.
She repeated those outrageous comments in more than one forum.

Try proving that she did NOT say any one of the quotes found here, all have been footnoted and referenced, I believe:

http://dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Yeah Paul, keep on repeating yourself without actually providing anything.

Still waiting for that reference but I’ll be waiting forever just like I’m still waiting for that scientific evidence for creationism. You are a compulsive liar Paul and it amuses me to see what fable you’ll tell next.

Here’s where Paul loses all credibility on the subject:
“My guess is that Hitler’s letter is still very negative, towards Christianity, no matter how it is translated.”

So no matter what it says your conclusion will be exactly the same. The only thing you’ve proven is that you are a complete waste of time, oh, and the fact that you are a compulsive liar.

Maggot
You SAY I have used a bad translation, yet you do not give me a translator, who agrees with your claim.

You SAY that I have used a bad translation, yet you do not provide your OWN translation?

You are a joke, Maggot.

And, on this thread, you are ALSO a looser.

You called my Hitler letter to Himmler a fake, then you backed off and called it a bad translation.

Now, you can not even prove that it is a bad translation.

Maggot = Joke

Maggot = Looser

I am a looser? I wonder how I could be an adjective. So much for your intelligence.

Anyway I might as well link you to this site to indulge your ignorance for the last time today:

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/trial/defense/evans/430diiB

“5. In his Pleadings, Irving recognises that he is on weak ground because of his constant mistranslations in this case. He tries to rescue his position by arguing that he merely followed the official translation in English, first published in 1953 by Weidenfeld. However, this is merely a smokescreen, and just raises more questions about Irving’s methods. The table talks in question, recorded by Heinrich Heim at Hitler’s lunch and dinner table, were first published by Weidenfeld in an English translation. Until 1980, the German originals were not officially accessible to historians, who had to rely on the English translation, which is full of mistakes.21″

I link to a site that debunks Holocaust deniers in the irony that you too deny factual history.

Paul, your propaganda websites say Sanger said it in her Pivot book. Clearly she doesn’t. So you lied before, use dishonest websites and I’m supposed to take your word for it now? Nah, I’ll stick to the fact that you are a compulsive liar.

Here it is:

“Birth Control is not merely an individual problem; it is not merely a national question; it concerns the whole wide world, the ultimate destiny of the human race. In his last book, Mr. [H. G.] Wells speaks of the meaningless, aimless lives which cram this world of ours, hordes of people who are born, who live, who die, yet who have done absolutely nothing to advance the race one iota. Their lives are hopeless repetitions. All that they have said has been said before; all that they have done has been done better before. Such human weeds clog up the path, drain up the energies and the resources of this little earth. We must clear the way for a better world; we must cultivate our garden” (Ibid., p. 47-48).”

I believe you need to look in this book:

(“The Need of Birth Control in America,” in Birth Control: Facts and Responsibilities, edited by Adolf Meyer, 11-49 [Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Co., 1925]).

Author: Margaret Sanger!

Yes, that evolutionary “crock pot.”

Never been to Yellowstone, huh, Regular?

Maggot, are you really loose? Paul keeps saying you’re a looser… Shameful.

Ohhhhh kay.

“Pre

“Here is a book for YOU to read, it is YOU that is in most need of an education, in these matters:

” http://www.nazireligions.com/index.htm ”

Uh huh.

This follows:

“The Early Christian Church Councils condemned ‘Arianism’ — why would Hitler pick that name, for his ‘master race’ if he was truly ‘pro Christian’ in any way?”

Truly, this is a jaw droppingly ignorant comment. Anyone with a modicum of intellectual integrity wouldn’t have made such a stupid mistake or confusion.

You are a shill and a bullsh*tter. You have no respect for what is true or real beyond what fits into your chosen beliefs.

You are in no position to lecture ANYONE on this subject. You clearly have demonstrated that you have no integrity.

And by the way, predictably, the book Rosell linked to is a shill book by someone with a politically religious agenda.

http://www.nazireligions.com/HTML/youasked.htm

Big surprise.

I haven’t been able to find a copy of “The Need of Birth Control in America” anywhere on the web much less amazon.com to validate the claim. However, from the quote it appears she is paraphrasing HG Wells comments.

So once again we have a case of Paul taking something out of context, the act of a desperate, dishonest man.

To be blunt, the only way that I may even be remotely inclined to hold my nose to see Expelled would only be if I could do it in such a way that does not put any money, not one red cent, into the pockets of the liars at the Discovery Institute or anyone else who is responsible for making this propoganda. Certainly, I suspect there is nothing new. Most of the charges about “censorship” and “suppression” are absolutely bogus. There has been no serious attempt at scientific scholarship or offering testable scientific “alternatives” to evolution (common ancestry) because that is not the agenda of ID advocates. This is merely creationism redressed. It is an inherently dishonest attempt to attack methodological naturalism, the very basis of science.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

However, there is something more sinister going on here. Unable to actually argue the science, the ID advocates, including such dishonest scalawags as David Klinghoffer (predictably linked to by “Franklin/Econ 101/Paul Rossell, although the National Review is a bit above what he typically links to with a total evident lack of critical discernment) try to insinuate that Darwin and those who accept the vast evidentiary support for common descent are somehow responsible for eugenics and modern racism. This claim has been relayed several times on this blog. Nathan’s comment below is typical.

“However, if you want to argue about Evolutionary theory, only if you interject some subjective notion on our morality could you reject the logical conclusions of Evolution which Hitler drew to their conclusion.

“Conclusions many have drawn.”

This is not only wrong, it is catastrophically wrong. I suspect that Nathan is honest in his statement of belief here. I also suspect that outlander is honest. But, their honesty is, if anything, cold comfort for the fact that they unknowingly libel the overwhelming majority of those of us who accept the evidence for evolution, not to mention Charles Darwin himself. The irony of how wrong they are is absolutely choking. However, the willingness to prey upon the beliefs of their supporters is what I find so damning about people like Phillip Johnson or the above mentioned Klinhoffer, or for that matter Stein himself. These people should and almost certainly do know better. They know that in order to support their cause, they are willfully misrepresenting people and issues. Grossly so.

For example:

1) Belief in evolution is not necessary, nor does it add support for, eugenics. Eugenics is the idea that humanity can be improved by selective breeding. This principle has been used for thousands of years in the breeding of livestock, pets, and even crops. Darwin came up with the term Natural Selection because selection was already a well understood term by his 19th Century audience. The use of the term “natural selection” was to create an analogy to “artificial selection”, which was well understood by the people of the time. An understanding of artificial selection and the presumption of inherited traits is all the basis that is necessary to promote a eugenic philosophy. And the fact of the matter is, eugenics and selective breeding of “better stock” to make “better” human beings is a very, very old idea.

2) Racism also is completely independent of evolution, and belief in evolution provides no additional support for racism. It is interesting to note that the greatest opposition to the teaching of evolution historically in this country came from the south, which was also the very same location where opposition to integration and defense of segregation were the strongest. Creationism in fact has been used to strongly support racism. People should be familiar with the idea that “black” people were the children of Ham. However, that is actually a charitable view compared to some of the others that had wide acceptance among people who strongly supported both institutional racism and creationism (that is, the dominant view of 19th century Europeans and people of European descent, particularly before but for awhile even during and after Darwin became known for Natural Selection). Others claimed that “other” races were actually seperate creations not descended from Adam at all, and therefore indistringuishable from other beasts. The Christian Identity Movement today echoes that belief. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, that belief (polygenism) was unfortunately quite widespread.

www-personal.umich.edu/~jaylemke/courses/SocCultSci/science_and_eugenics.htm

What is important to note about this is the fact that common descent actually assumes that all human beings share a recent reproductive history. Such an assumption did not eliminate racism, indeed scientific “support” for racism was simply recalibrated from the great chain of being assumed by creationists to a corrupted evolutionary framework. But, the attempts of some individuals to refit to an evolutionary framework has been confused with the racism itself, which was going very strong long before Charles Darwin was even born. And in fact, racists arguably had to work HARDER to try to make their beliefs sound scientific as evolution and common descent became better supported and gained wider acceptance among scientists. No more resorting to the idea of seperate (polygenic) creations.

3) The historical irony of pointing to Charles Darwin as the influence on later eugenic movements is nothing short of incredible. Anyone actually familiar with the biography of Charles Darwin would know that had very strong personal and ethical reasons for objecting to eugenics.

The other thing that underlies the posts of people like Nathan and outlander is the common mistake of conflating methodological naturalism (the idea that scientific inquiry requires the assumption of natural, consistent phenomenea) with metaphysical naturalism (the idea that the nature is all that there is). One does not presuppose the other. Therefore, when one is arguing with an “evolutionist”, one is not necessarily arguing with an “atheist”. There is no evolutionist agenda to support atheism (there are some who use evolution to argue for atheism, like Richard Dawkins, but there are many others who do not, and there are many scientists who work under the framework of evolution who are indeed theists of some sort or another). The assumptions that people support evolution because they are trying to influence people to become atheists and that people who support evolution, or for that matter atheists, do so because they want to take away transcendent reasons for ethical behavior, are offensive, wrong, and bigoted. More to the point, many of those who take the lead in making these claims public are knowingly dishonest. It is perhaps the greatest irony of all that people who oppose evolution in the presumed name of protecting people from the so called logical conclusions of evolution resort to blatant and willful dishonesty in their arguments.

What does the following paragraph say Paul?

I went to see the movie before I posted. Something that I think all should do before they express an opinion especially Rhonda Holman who posted the subject of the thread. Why start a thread on hearsay?.

What I did not get from the film was what exactly do the Intelligent Design people believe that make them outcasts.

The file left me to believe that they, the Intelligent Design people are not anti-evolution only that god created everything then everything was designed by him.

I that is the definition of Intelligent Design then I must also believe in intelligent design as well as Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Francis is both a highly respected man of science and a man of faith.

Shame on you Rhonda Holman for not see the film before you start the thread

I agree with Nathaniel post
==========================
Nathaniel
Posted April 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
Rhonda,

Why on Earth would you post a topic about the movie, cite nothing but bad views of it, say you have not even seen it, then ask us what we think?

Then you call it an anti-evolution film.

The film was about Intelligent Design and how those who try to study it or believe it are punished, mocked, or not even given a seat at the discussion.

The film was not anti-evolution.

Could you possibly be any more biased?

Could you possibly be any more ignorant?

Get off your but, go see the movie, do some research, and then post a topic on it.

What do you people even do at the Wichita Eagle?

“However, there is something more sinister going on here. Unable to actually argue the science”

Because they are being “expelled”. ksagnostice, how do you build a brainwashing consensus without rooting out the pesky dissidents?

“And the fact of the matter is, eugenics and selective breeding of “better stock” to make “better” human beings is a very, very old idea.”

Yes you see the tap dancing going on here. Since ksagnostic and Dawkins can’t argue with the clear connection between the implication of natural selection and the holocaust, they simply insist that such ideas are “old ideas”. Therefore they are not Darwin’s fault and we can not tie them to Darwin!

That does not change the fact that they are bad ideas which Darwin ceremoniously popularized.

And so, here comes RFL again to proclaim his willful ignorance for all to see. Too harsh? Nope. Willful ignorance occurs when someone is so invested in a world view that he will assume definitive knowledge about subjects that he really has no knowledge of. Willful ignorance arises in the thinking that such rhetorical questions such as the one he asks below are even remotely relevant.

“How about answering a basic question?

“If humans evolved from various subspecies, how can they be equal?”

If it wasn’t for Franklin/Econ/Paul’s incredibly stupid confusion of Arianism and Aryanism, compounded by his illitarate proclamation that Arianism was a form of paganism, this would be the single most ignorant claim on this thread. No serious scientist in the fields that study evolution takes the idea that humans evolved from “various subspecies” seriously (even multi-regionalists like Milford Wolpoff argue that there were far fewer species of prehistoric humans than is commonly thought, and due to genetic evidence now being augmented by fossil evidence, Wolpoff’s position will probably die when he does). In fact, the same sort of genetic evidence that indicates that humans and African apes share a relatively recent common ancestor also demonstrates that every human being is suprisingly closely related. Indeed, humans as a species exhibit much less genetic variability than most other species. For example, there is greater genetic variability among chimpanzees than there is among modern humans. Humans are a single species with no subspecies, which means that we “evolved” from a single species, not subspecies. This finding was accentuated by a finding from genetic research that made the news just this week. There appears have been evidence of a bottleneck in human population where our species had as few as 2,000 people 70,000 years ago. Once again, RFL, you demonstrate that you don’t know what you are talking about. You have done so on this subject over and over again.

But we’re not done yet.

“‘Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection’
-Dawkins
(from maggots link above)

“hmmm…this is completely wrong. Darwinism at it’s root does not conclude that organisms that evolve ONLY do so if the evolving is done sans intelligence. Where does Darwin say that artifical selection does not and can not achieve the same spectacular results as natural selction?”

RFL, what do you even think you are correcting here? Suggestion, don’t presume to “correct” someone, particularly a professional in a field, when you don’t even know what he is saying. Again, however, it is apparent over and over again that you haven’t researched evolution, you don’t know what people who work in the field are saying or what the thought is, so you respond to things without even knowing what they are saying. For example, to answer your rhetorical question, Dawkins was not saying, nor did he in any way infer, that artificial selection could not come up with “spectacular results”. Your rhetorical question isn’t even remotely relevant to what Dawkins was saying.

“Darwinian” natural selection refers to environmental selection of traits in a reproducing group of organisms that enhance reproductive success. That is, the creatures that have the most success leaving offspring are the ones that will leave the most descendents, and any inherited trait that assists creatures in their reproductive success will be preserved and indeed become the rule. Reproductive success doesn’t even necessarily mean survival after reproduction. For example, a creature that dies after reproducing may have greater reproductive success than a creature that survives and ends up competing with its offspring, which results in shorter lived creatures. The reason why there is nothing Darwinian about artificial selection is that humans are selecting for traits that are unrelated to reproductive success, except that humans themselves prefer the traits. Thus, humans may select for smallness in breeds of dogs, or a faster growth rate in domestic meat animals, but such traits would not be selected for in nature. More to the point, they may even be unable to effectively reproduce, meaning that the sought after traits have to be bred into new generations over and over again, or even in certain plant crops cloned. That is expressly “non-Darwinian”. So when you go on to say…

“What a dufus brain Dawkins is being!! He simply creates Darwin’s theory to match whatever basis he needs to make his argument compelling even if it means making him look like a Darwin-illiterate. Upon analysis of his base claims however, he and Darwinism can be turned on its head.”

…the person who reveals himself to be Darwin-illiterate, once again, is yourself, because you obviously don’t know what “Darwinian” means, so you don’t know the basis for which Dawkins is saying that artificial selection is “non-Darwinian”. Therefore your quote from Darwin is a non-starter. Dawkins wasn’t talking about variability or complexity when he said that artificial selection was “non-Darwinian”, he was talking about the difference between natural selection which favors traits related to reproductive fitness versus artificial selection which favors whatever traits the breeders are looking for regardless of reproductive fitness.

Then you go on to say, before you write your rhetorically illitarate reply to me…

“Believing this theory, and applying it to the human race, you get the Holocaust. Or you can just ignore what it is you believe and live like everyone has been created equally. But then you will live like a creationist.”

Here is why I am being so harsh on you. You did NOT read what I wrote, you certainly ignored the main point of what I wrote. This comment, RFL, is evil. It is evil because it is a) blatantly false, but b) false in a way that Holocaust denial is false or racism is false. It literally libels people who believe differently from you. The idea that creationism leads to the idea that people should be treated equally, while belief in evolution (aside from the fact that it is either true or not) leads to events like the holocaust. That, sir, is blatantly a lie, and deeply offensive to me and to any person who not only accepts overwhelming evidence for the reality of evolution. Why? Because as I demonstrated before, and you failed to even understand or acknowledge, beliefs in creationism just as easily, and in fact arguably more easily, lead to racism and genocide. And in fact, creationism has and still is used to justify some of the most virulant forms of racism and genocide in history.

Again, an example of willful ignorance:

RFL chooses to select this line from me and respond to it:

“‘And the fact of the matter is, eugenics and selective breeding of “better stock” to make “better” human beings is a very, very old idea.’

“Yes you see the tap dancing going on here. Since ksagnostic and Dawkins can’t argue with the clear connection between the implication of natural selection and the holocaust, they simply insist that such ideas are “old ideas”. Therefore they are not Darwin’s fault and we can not tie them to Darwin!

“That does not change the fact that they are bad ideas which Darwin ceremoniously popularized.”

First of all, RFL, don’t accuse me of tap dancing when you actually just ignore how I specifically supported the above statement. By resorting to this ploy, you engaged in one of the fundamentally dishonest means of argument that has been employed by creationist and IDist, quote mining. Incredibly, you resorted to it on a discussion board thread where the post you are responding to is exhibited right above yours.

The idea of selective breeding obviously predates Darwin. Eugenics is the idea of selectively breeding human beings. Evolution and natural selection in no way brings anything new to this idea. That is a fact, it is reality, to argue otherwise is to be historically ignorant. And, I am in fact doing my utmost to remain somewhat civil here, and not engage in the use of descriptive names that would be appropriate for you with this sort of posting, because the important fact is…

Darwin…did…not…endorse…eugenics, and the reasons why he would not have would become very evident to anyone who actually had any biographical knowledge of the man. To say that “Darwin..ceremoneously popularized” eugenics is to engage in 180 degree libel. The fact that the libel probably wasn’t intentional doesn’t make it any better, because it is avoidable. Because, once again, you have an image of “Darwinism” and “evolution” in your head that does not come from actual knowledge of the subject. You have, on this thread and in others, engaged in some of the typical straw men arguments against evolution that are employed by people who really don’t understand the subject. This indicates clearly to me that you don’t read what people who actually work in or argue for the validity of evolution actually say, you read and listen to critics who infect you with the same sort of ignorance that they display. Avoiding primary literature except to quote mine is the very epitome of WILLFUL (i.e., intentional) ignorance. To make pronouncements born of willful ignorance is to me as shameful as lying.

“Darwin…did…not…endorse…eugenics, and the reasons why he would not have would become very evident to anyone who actually had any biographical knowledge of the man”
-ksagnostic

ksagnostic is a Darwin-illiterate. He and Dawkins can not defend the man without dissassociating from him the very words which he wrote. Kind of rough to be an avowed Darwinist these days, huh?

Lets first look at the definition of eugenics which ksagnostic claims that Darwin is opposed to.

eu·gen·ics
: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics

Next, lets look at what Darwin actually wrote in “The Descent of Man”.

“We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the WEAK MEMBERS OF THE CIVILISED SOCIETIES PROPAGATE THEIR KIND. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that THIS MUST BE HIGHLY INJURIOUS TO THE RACE OF MAN. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so IGNORANT as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

-Darwin, Descent of Man
infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

Furthermore, on ksagnostic’s repeated attempts to pain me as evil, it looks like he simply emulating his high priest Dawkins.

Isn’t it ironic, that in Dawkin’s response to “David J”, about Hitler being purportedly influenced by Darwinist philosophy, that the only person(s) that he labels as “evil” were the likes of Stein and anybody associated with making this film about academic freedom?

richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins

Hmm, Hitler gets a free pass huh? From Dawkins’ and ksagnostic’s POV, only those who do not agree with the non-evidentiary based philosophical theory of evolution are truly evil?

RFL,
You are clearly being dishonest by taking a section of the book out of context. Let’s take it all in context:

“Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have hitherto
only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition
to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of
natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This
subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,* and previously
by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.*(2) Most of my remarks are taken from
these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon
eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state
of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check
the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the
maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men
exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last
moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved
thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have
succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies
propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of
domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to
the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care
wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but
excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as
to allow his worst animals to breed.”

Here he said he was paraphrasing the comments of other authors. It so happens you cut part of that out to serve your dishonest (as is typical with creationists) intent. Darwin’s rebuttal to the author’s position follows:

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered,
in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of
hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if
we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could
only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak
surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior
members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check
might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.
In every country in which a large standing army is kept up, the
finest young men are taken by the conscription or are enlisted. They
are thus exposed to early death during war, are often tempted into
vice, and are prevented from marrying during the prime of life. On the
other hand the shorter and feebler men, with poor constitutions, are
left at home, and consequently have a much better chance of marrying
and propagating their kind.”

Here he is stating that eugenics is completely unnecessary as natural selection, as opposed to artificial selection, will take care of itself. He also pleads that war is detrimental to natural selection as it artificially takes the fittest individuals out of the gene pool

Did you actually read the book or did you just steal some quotes from a creationist website and think nobody could verify your dishonesty?

And what is your criteria for fittest? Is it subjective like it is in eugenics? Or is it objective like it is in natural selection? Eugenics removed people from the gene pool based upon biases, not based upon genetics.

It’s quite evident from your pointless rants that you don’t know what you are talking about. You have already been outed for your dishonesty, I see you intend on following through with ignorance.

“And what is your criteria for fittest?”

I don’t know, you tell me. You are the Darwin genius, right? Many darwinists claim to know what fit means. Are you saying that you do not and therefore you do not and can not know which traits are favored for survival?

ksagnostic brilliantly said above:
“the creatures that have the most success leaving offspring are the ones that will leave the most descendents”. I think we can all agree that the creatures having the most offspring, are the ones who have the most offspring.

“Eugenics removed people from the gene pool based upon biases, not based upon genetics”
-Doug

“war is detrimental to natural selection as it artificially takes the fittest individuals out of the gene pool”
-Doug

Wait, do the young men who die during a war and therefore inhibit natural selection (as Darwin claimed and you agreed) die based on their genetics? Wow, that’s pretty incredible of an opposing army that can somehow point to natural selection as a reason for killing off the enemy. Does one’s mortal susceptibility to rifle and cannon fire indicative of a trait non-conducive to propagation? What about a nuclear bomb blast? Those who die were not genetically selected to survive, right? Is that what you are saying? Because that is NOT what Darwin is saying.

If war is “detrimental to natural selection” (as you say), and weak species can be removed from the population based only upon genetics (as you say), than nuclear bomb blasts that kill individuals would indicate that those individuals weren’t fit at all. Since they were not genetically predisposed to survive a bomb blast, they were not fit. Is that it Doug?

If war works against natural selection, than there is no logic in claiming that eugenics does or can not work in favor of it.

RFL,
Are you working hard at being this clueless or does it come naturally? Have you noticed that unattractive guys, or guys with deformities tend not to get as many girlfriends as attractive men? This may come as news to you but women tend to base their preferences on a mate on characteristics they find desirable and those preferences tend to favor those men who have attractive characteristics. The same sexual selection that happens in humans happens throughout the animal kingdom. I can’t believe this is news to you. For being someone who pretends to be so well read on Darwin’s works you would have known this.

So thanks for proving that you don’t have a clue about the entire subject.

“Let’s see Doug abandons all of his previous statements to move on to so called sexual selection. That’s okay, there is plenty in this statement to work with still.”

You are beyond clueless. Are you aware that in order to pass on your genes that you must engage in sexual activity?

Are you aware that deformities are often causes by mistakes in the DNA sequencing caused by mutation? Perhaps you aren’t aware that’s why inbreeding is a problem. My gosh, I can’t believe I have to explain something so simple that even a child could understand. I swear, you are arguing Lamarkian evolution. You have no idea what you are talking about.

“Have you noticed that unattractive guys, or guys with deformities tend not to get as many girlfriends as attractive men?
-Doug

“Are you aware that deformities are often causes by mistakes in the DNA sequencing caused by mutation?”
-Doug

Doug realizes that mutations do not change a species as a means to increase its survival. Yet, while he is making this point, I wonder if he knows that this is exactly the opposite of Darwinism.

In the above two quotes, it is obvious to infer that deformities caused by mutations are sexually De-selected for survival.

How do mutations (or deformities) result in survival if women reject those men who have them?
The point Doug has made is that mutations are DE-selected for survival.

So we see that deformities caused by mutations are of course, Not selected for survival, lets look further as to what Darwin thought about the possibility of sterilizing the weak to improve the human race.

“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak
surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior
members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check
might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage,

Clearly, Doug believes that if all people who had a “deformity” (by his own definition) could be sterilized, then all the world will experience less “deformities”. Of course only a omnipotent Darwinist is able to determine what a deformity is and who should sterilized because of it.

Eugenics is the political inactment of a belief in Darwinism. It was tried in Germany as well as in America with sad results. Where does this idea come from?

“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak
surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior
members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check
might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage,”
-Darwin, Descent of Man

Ow. My. brain.

“Why don’t you answer some questions if you really want to explain something to me.

“1. Do “deformities” still exist today?”

Yes

“If so, how could unfit men and women be passing down these deformities. If they were unfit, they would not be reproducing now would they?”

Deformities are not necessarily genetic. They can be caused by unlucky errors and plain bad luck. If they do have a genetic component, it’s possible (probable) that the trait is recessive, passed down for generations before being expressed. Or its possible that a gene complex responsible for a deformity is activated in one person while it remains inactive in another for whatever reason.

“2. If the people with “deformities” stopped pro creating (BY FORCE), would the “deformities” disapear from the population?”

No. Mutations and gene copying errors will still happen, stuff goes wrong. The number of recessive components responsible for a deformity are impossible to determine, since carriers are phenotypically exactly like other people.

“3. Are you able to determine which men have “deformities” and which do not based your analysis of their genetics or based on YOUR OWN BIAS of what constitutes a deformity?”

You can determine which men have “deformities” by analysis of genes in some cases, sure. Generally, what constitutes a deformity is something that will prevent reproduction, whether its mortality before childbearing years, infertility, or lack of ability to secure a mate. Factors negatively affecting the quality of life (but not reproductive ability) are subject to bias. What’s your point? Sterilizing people based on biases is useless. “Weak people” don’t negatively affect us as a species on the whole–there is no point, it’s an unnecessary evil. That’s why we don’t selectively sterilize people and have absolutely no plans to do so.

RFL, I am the sweetest and most mild tempered biologist you’ll ever know, but goddamn you are either a great stupid idiot or blatantly dishonest. Have you read Origin of Species, or just out of context snippets?

All of this is irrelevant anyway, I just am a bit peeved that I am being lumped in with Nazis. Is it a sin to bear false witness if you believe that it’s the only way to preserve your interpretation of God’s words? Is it arrogant to believe that God needs you to come to His rescue in the face of overwhelming evidence against creationism?

Even if tomorrow we find out that Darwin murdered little old ladies, ate babies, molested children and stomped on kittens, evolution would still be supported. Darwin is not the reason we “believe” in evolution. The EVIDENCE is the reason. Darwin was one of the first to propose the idea which we’ve been testing and gathering evidence for for the past 150 years.
******************
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” -Galileo

Three exceeds the maximum limit per customer ksagnostic.

Try and conserve the http okay? :)

RFL asks:
“2. If the people with “deformities” stopped pro creating (BY FORCE), would the “deformities” disapear from the population?”

Tara answers:
“No. Mutations and gene copying errors will still happen, stuff goes wrong. The number of recessive components responsible for a deformity are impossible to determine, since carriers are phenotypically exactly like other people.”

Darwin answers:
“but there appears to be at least
one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior
members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check
might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining
from marriage,”

I agree with Tara on this point. The question is, does Tara agree with Darwin that banning the weak from marrying will result in fewer deformities resulting in a stronger human race?

Nope. Not if you compare what she is saying with what Darwin has written. Defending Darwin by disassociating him from the words that he wrote is dishonesty.

Does Darwin profess to know that we CAN DETERMINE who is weak and who is inferior and thereby keep them from marriage (i.e. procreating) to better the human race?

Obviously yes. Hence the foundation for eugenics is justified if you assign scientific credibility to Darwin’s non-evidentiary based philosophy.

ksagnostic,
Darwin says that the “ever present evil” provides a “contigent benefit” does he not? He implies that we must not do evil to obtain a benefit. However, he maintains that it does provide a BENEFIT! If one believes Darwinism is a fact, and he wants to obtain a benefit for his own race, what reason is there to stop him from doing evil?

Therefore, Darwin acknowledges that Darwinistic evolution can be expedited by doing evil. Darwin assumes that civilized society will not choose commit that evil to obtain that “contigent benefit”. We know that was a false assumption.

It’s evident that wrong ideas from Darwin provide the “scientifc” basis for evil whether Darwin opposes the evil or not.

To make matters worse, Darwin wasn’t even right.
The evidence has yet to validate Darwin.

Tara said: “RFL, I am the sweetest and most mild tempered biologist you’ll ever know, but goddamn you are either a great stupid idiot or blatantly dishonest. ”

I suspect that RFL is so welded into his viewpoint that he is impervious to actual evidence, but I also am now certain that he is blatantly dishonest, because quote mining is an excercise in blantant dishonesty, i.e. LYING (but he is probably lying to himself as well as to us).

The latest head shaking crap from RFL:

The full sentence RFL quoted from Descent of Man(RFL quote mined part of it in responding to Tara-it’s incredible that he is willfully stupid enough to think that he can get away with this):

“We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.”

The italicized portion is the part that RFL quote mined (again, incredibly stupid when the whole sentence is available on this thread).

RFL’s then inteprets this as: “The question is, does Tara agree with Darwin that banning the weak from marrying will result in fewer deformities resulting in a stronger human race?”

Two things:

One, and this shouldn’t have to be said, agreeing with and working in the field of evolutionary and biological science does not entail agreeing with the social or political world views expressed by Charles Darwin any more than working in relativistic physics entails agreeing sith the political world views expressed by Albert Einstein.

Keeping that in mind, two, RFL gets it completely wrong about Darwin. Darwin was expressly NOT promoting “banning the weak from marrying”. That is a simple lie, and even the snippet RFL quote mines makes this clear. Darwin was hypothesizing that the “weak” had a harder time finding mates in the society he lived in. He expressly, in the very sentence that was quote mined said “this is more to be hoped than expected”. Plus, of course, Darwin indicated his firm opinion that such treatment would be an “overwhelming present evil”.

RFL has had plenty of opportunities to approach this issue honestly and even to try to elevate his argument by incorporating and learning from information provided. Quote mining from material that is freely available and in fact is available on the very thread he is typing in is simply an act of willful stupidity. So:

“Nope. Not if you compare what she is saying with what Darwin has written. Defending Darwin by disassociating him from the words that he wrote is dishonesty.”

As I’ve pointed out, belief in evolution is not contingent upon agreeing with the social views of the founder and besides, Darwin did not even come close to saying what you said he did. I invite anyone patient enough to be monitoring this thread to read Darwin’s words. Yes, there is the uncomfortable paternalism that was typical of a nineteenth century Englishman (whether be believed in evolution or not), but look closely anyway. Darwin in no way said that the weak should be banned from marrying. The dishonesty, RFL, is yours. And only an intentional idiot would engage in the dishonesty of completely distorting what someone said when the context of what the person actually said is right there for anyone reading the thread to see. Cerebral inertia, remarkable.

“Does Darwin profess to know that we CAN DETERMINE who is weak and who is inferior and thereby keep them from marriage (i.e. procreating) to better the human race?”

Not only did he not profess to know it, that is essentially the exact question that Darwin asked of his cousin, Francis Galton, who DID propose keeping the “weak and inferior” from having children. Keep in mind that under Galton style eugenics, DARWIN (a man of chronic poor health) COULD NOT HAVE MARRIED HIS COUSIN EMMA WEDGEWOOD.

“Darwin says that the “ever present evil” provides a “contigent benefit” does he not? He implies that we must not do evil to obtain a benefit. However, he maintains that it does provide a BENEFIT! If one believes Darwinism is a fact, and he wants to obtain a benefit for his own race, what reason is there to stop him from doing evil?”

If we kill all the people in Pakistan, we will kill Osama Bin Ladin and that would be a benefit for all the people who are victimized by Al Quaeda (at least those people who are out of Pakistan), so what reason is there to stop us from doing that evil?

Let me guess, this is a rhetorical question that you assume that a person who believes in evolution does not have moral beliefs, or no reference point for his/her moral beliefs.

That assumption itself is a complete moral outrage. The height of religious bigotry. Darwin was clear that he considered the evil far outweighing the benefits. Who the hell are you to question that?

Obviously, you are a holder of the idea that it is OK to lie if it is a beneficient lie. Except that your lying isn’t beneficient. You libel Darwin, and by extension you are tying to libel everyone who disagrees with you on evolution.

One last thing:

“To make matters worse, Darwin wasn’t even right.
The evidence has yet to validate Darwin.”

Repeating bullsh*t that you want to be true doesn’t make it true. You have willfully remained ignorant as to what the evidence is supporting evolution (common descent). Cover your ears and shut your eyes and repeat what you want to believe as if it is true. Reality will remain unchanged.

“RFL” is afraid and angry.

He thinks science and Darwin are a threat to God.

Not much of a God you have there RFL if it cannot survive the efforts of men. But then maybe the efforts of men have already outstripped “God”?

Maybe God didn’t make man. Maybe man made God.

“One, and this shouldn’t have to be said, agreeing with and working in the field of evolutionary and biological science does not entail agreeing with the social or political world views expressed by Charles Darwin”
-ksagnostic

Specifically who is disgreeing with Darwin and over what?

I am assuming that you can comprehend clearly that what Tara has said is the opposite of what Darwin (and Doug) has said. However, you do not have the honesty nor the integrity to admit that explicitly.

ksagnostic is obviously so clouded in his own delusion, that he can not stand to read the words of Darwin. He feels Darwin does not mean what Darwin says. He has a preconceived idea of what Darwinism is and determined to remain ignorant.

ksagnostic is therefore highly offended by anyone who quotes Darwin because it forces him to be reconciled with his own willful ignorance. He then labels the quoteminer as dishonest.

“Darwin was expressly NOT promoting “banning the weak from marrying”. That is a simple lie, and even the snippet RFL quote mines makes this clear.”

ksagnostic lies about what Darwin has written. The quotation from Darwin’s book endorsing the “refraining” of people who are “weak and feeble” from marrying has been quoted too many times to count. Yet ksagnostic denies.

Woa what do we have here! Another Gem!

RFL writes:

Darwin says that the “ever present evil” provides a “contigent benefit” does he not? He implies that we must not do evil to obtain a benefit. However, he maintains that it does provide a BENEFIT! If one believes Darwinism is a fact, and he wants to obtain a benefit for his own race, what reason is there to stop him from doing evil?”

ksagnostic responds:

“If we kill all the people in Pakistan, we will kill Osama Bin Ladin and that would be a benefit for all the people who are victimized by Al Quaeda (at least those people who are out of Pakistan), so what reason is there to stop us from doing that evil?”

Lets establish one thing here. The weak and feeble are NOT at threat to the human race if you reject Darwinism. I pointed out that Darwin clearly stated (and ksagnostic freudianly declined to object) is that Darwinism does provide the basis for doing evil to obtain a “contingent benefit”.

ksagnostic has wandered off into dark and is lost without a moral compass. But such depraved thinking is consistent with the moral relativity incumbent with a belief in Darwinism. ksagnostic compares the killing OBL, a known murderer, with the culling of human beings as being an apples to apples comparison. As a Darwinist (scientifically speaking), Both is believed to bring a benefit to the human race

ksagnostic, open your brain dude! If we kill the weak and feeble, we kill innocent people who are NOT causing the human race degenerate (ref Tara’s quote: Posted April 28, 2008).

Get this into your head quickly: Killing a known mass murder who is a proven threat to humankind is not the same thing as killing innocent human life for the sake of trying to purify the human race.

If Darwinism is true (which it is NOT), a moral relativist is deluded into believing that he posesses the scientific basis to killing innocent people because of the “contingent benefit” of improving the human race. Darwin explicitly endorsed eugenics while preaching to us that while culling human beings would bring a “contingent benefit” it is an evil. Thanks preacher Darwin, but in the minds of a moral relativist, “science” trumps morality.

Lastly and more importantly:
RFL writes:
“The evidence has yet to validate Darwin”
ksagnostic denies claiming there is evidence of common descent. Using ksagnostic’s logic, one could deduct that Model T Fords coming before Porsches chronologically predicts that the simplicity evolved into the more complex thus automobiles evolved.

Or becaue Porsches and Model T Fords share similar characteristics that they must be related in phylogenetic lineage.

We know that Porsches do not come from Model T Fords through random evolution, so how is it that we know the Humans came from terepsids and tetrapods using the same parameters?

However, I digress. What ksagnostic has not discussed is the origin of species.

ksagnostic,
In the book titled “Origin of Species”, where does Darwin address the question of the origin of the species?

Correction:

Thanks preacher Darwin, but in the minds of a moral relativist, “science” trumps [traditional] morality.