I haven’t seen “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” the anti-evolution film by Ben Stein. The mainstream reviews certainly haven’t been good. The New York Times critic described it as “a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.” A number of reviewers said the movie doesn’t support its central premise: that all these academics are being persecuted because they question evolution or believe in intelligent design. There are a few people in the movie who claim they were persecuted but, according to the reviews, the film doesn’t present evidence of how widespread this is or whether what these people say is actually true. Were they really let go or denied tenure because of evolution, or were there other reasons? For example, the film suggests that one of these people lost his job at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History because of intellectual discrimination, but the Times reported that it “neglects to inform us that he was actually not an employee but rather an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term.” The film really goes off the rails, according to Time magazine, when it tries to link the theory of evolution to abortion and the Holocaust.
Have any of you bloggers seen the film? If so, what did you think?
234 Comments
I was hoping ksagnostic would bless us with a story about “jawless fish.”
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?
Sure, I’ve seen it.
Rhonda, you should go, and take Scholfield with you. Very good and logical presentation of the systematic suppression of scientific thought not compatible with Darwinian evolution. The film also debunks the proposition that Intelligent Design thought is related to Creationism.
Some criticize the film for linking Darwinism to atheism, but I think a good point is made in that regard. I do think Stein went too far in attempting to link Nazi atrocities to Darwinism, and I think that diminished the movie.
Overall, a good and important movie that is going to have a significant impact.
out - where is it showing?
Dunno if it is still showing, haven’t seen it myself.
Old schedule from April 18
http://www.hellowichita.com/shared/movies/Expelled_No_Intelligence_Allowed.cfm
I saw it at the Warren West, Ben.
At the Warren Theaters:
http://www.warrentheatres.com/ww0424.asp
http://www.warrentheatres.com/we0424.asp
Watch the trailer here:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
It’s sad that Ben Stein got reduced to Holocaust Denial which is sad for a Jew. So far the people who created the movie are being sued for plagiarism, and for some reason they had to oust PZ Myers from a screening even though he’s in the movie (they completely failed to notice Richard Dawkins though).
From all the reviews I’ve read the movie is completely absurd. It makes the notion that nobody persecuted Jews before Darwin’s theory of natural selection was developed (apparently the other evolution theories had no affect on Judaism). As for linking Stalin to Darwin the movie got it completely wrong. Stalin was an advocate of Lysenko’s theories and Stalin imprisoned those scientists who advocated natural selection.
Some real scientists present the facts about Expelled:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
I don’t know why they had Stein narrate the movie since Stein knows absolutely nothing about evolution, but when did that ever stop a creationist from lying?
“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.
Chuckle,… The above is a quote from the Time magazine review. Hmmm… “Slow Cooking” is what produced life.
My oh my.
Yes, that evolutionary “crock pot.”
There are no “easy bake ovens” in the evolutionary trampoline acrobatics. It’s all hard work, properly aligned stars, billions of years, cooperative crystals and compliant amino acids.
Of course, then there is the question, “who plugged it in?”
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?
7 bucks - I think I’ll wait for the DVD release or maybe some ‘advocacy’ showing.
So, the beginning of life does not evolve into higher life forms Doug?
Or, how does that transition.
“Leaping faith for dollars”
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.
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.
I dunno Maggot. Ask the Time magazine reviewer. It’s his quote.
But just to fill you in, the incredible, irreducible complexity of the cell is something that evolutionary theory has not convincingly explained.
#
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.
Paul, Please stop beating that dead horse.
mutually exclusive.
Stop probing my mind Franklin, that phrase popped in my mind as I was writing.
“intellectual discrimination” - love that one…
Talk about chuckling and chortling: actually belly laughs were more like it.
“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!’
Sigh, educating creationists is an effort in futility. No wonder they need to create propaganda films, there is no chance they’d actually use facts to promote their ideas.
Contrary to what Paul thinks Germans hated Jews before Hitler came around, and before Darwin came around. Darwin didn’t invent eugenics but actually wrote, in Descent of Man, against it, “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, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
But we shouldn’t expect creationists to be honest.
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/
In many ways the Holocaust was an outgrowth of a thousand years of pogroms against the Jews.
“Massive violent attacks against Jews date back at least to the Crusades such as the Pogrom of 1096 in France and Germany (the first to be officially recorded), as well as the massacres of Jews at London and York in 1189–1190.
In 1543, Martin Luther wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, a treatise in which he advocated harsh persecution of the Jewish people, up to what is called now pogroms. He argued that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated.[6][7]”
I wonder if Martin Luther was a follower of Darwin?
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.
It’s laughable how duh Libs on this blog try to claim intellectual superiority on the subject.
All those with PhD’s in Biological Science, who are on this blog , raise their hands…
Regular - evolution is often studied in Paleontology which is part of geology.
“Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is:
First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss sulphur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire…
Second, that all their books– their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible– be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted…
Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country…
Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it…
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)”
Luther wanted the Jews to be Expelled and the good Catholic Hitler followed through on that. Notice that Luther lived well before Darwin and managed to hate the Jews.
“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
#
bth
Posted April 24, 2008 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
Regular - evolution is often studied in Paleontology which is part of geology.
——————–
Correct.
Here, I’ll toot your horn for you. (honk)
(loves being chastised by Wahine_Tara)
(grins with an evil curmudgeon grin)
The only person I know to be forced to resign over the subject of evolution/creationism is Chris Comer, director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency. However she is a scientist who was fired by creationists for the crime of promoting science.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/TX/270_barbara_forrest_on_chris_comer_12_5_2007.asp
“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
Tara,
The film was not attempting to say that Evolution was wrong because it influenced Hitler.
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.
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.
Hey Libs
Your logic is a bit challenged on this subject.
To say that Martin Luther was in favor of harsh treatment, towards Jews, does not, in any way, reduce or negate the fact that Darwin had a huge influence on Hitler!
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.
Yeah, Paul, and the Beatles had a huge influence on Manson, too.
And the reasoning was just about as sound.
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.
RFL, actually that’s a Schopenhauer quote. And he was full of it–that’s not always the way truth emerges.
And sometimes, you are laughed at, and then. . .you are laughed at some more!
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?
Good afternoon Rhonda!
I went to see the film with the boy. Kind of a father/son bonding experience.
Ben Stein wrote and produced a very good film in my opinion. However, I was a little disappointed. As much as I love Ben Stein I believe he did go a little over the edge in some aspects.
The main point of the film was that the scientific community has become controlled by a faction with a Godless world view. Of course, after watching the film it becomes obvious that Ben Stein brought much of his world view to the project.
I believe in ID. I can discuss my views without calling the evolutionists names or impugning their intelligence. A courtesy that is seldom returned.
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.
Paul,
Hitler’s belief about the Jews being a different race or weaker has nothing to do with evolution but has everything to do with his Christian beliefs which is shared by Martin Luther who I quoted above.
The policies of genocide where people didn’t want an entire population to breed is found in the Bible. The belief that Darwin spawned this notion is absurd when you can find comments in Exodus and Leviticus where god ordained people to slaughter people like the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and the Jebusites.
Where in any of Darwin’s documents was he calling for the extermination of the Jews? They aren’t to be found anywhere so claiming Hitler was influenced to commit genocide because of Darwin is absolutely false. There is no scientific data to show that a Jew’s DNA is any different than anyone else’s so that belief is not spawned from science. Once again we have to turn to religious documents to reveal Christian thought about Jews being an inferior race of devil children.
Hitler was never a Pagan, he was a Catholic and remained a Catholic until his death. This has been explained to you before but I see you remain willfully ignorant.
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.
Nathan sez:
“If you have no morals then the logical conclusion of Evolutionary theory is that the strong should survive and the weak should now.”
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.
Maggot
Hitler was NOT a Christian.
Hitler hated Christianity.
RFL,
Exactly. If we don’t interject some form of our own subjective views on what morality is into Evolution then drawn to Evolution’s natural conclusion there is no reason to be compassionate to those who are considered to be a “drain” on society.
Just as was pointed out the other day, those are basically Darwins own words.
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 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.”
Well, that would have more to do with Lamarkian evolution wouldn’t it? It would make sense to get your evolutionary theories straight if you want to actually try to criticize Natural Selection. So much for your belief that Hitler was influenced by Darwin.
In America the retarded were being sterilized as well. The practice of limiting the insane and the retarded from reproducing went on well before Darwin’s day. Germany went on to continue this to alcoholics, prostitutes and others who were considered unfit for the new Reich. It’s not uncommon in a nationalistic furor to eliminate society’s undesirables and it has nothing to do with evolution (hence the entire Spanish Inquisition ridding society of Jews and Muslims).
“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?
“More from the fit, less from the unfit, this is the message of Birth Control” Margaret Sanger.
“Human Weeds” Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
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?
Well, that would have more to do with Lamarkian evolution wouldn’t it?
Yep. But people who refuse to understand Darwinian evolution aren’t likely to grasp the difference.
“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?
Margaret Sanger.
“Human Weeds” Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
Any figure out the alleged relevance of this??
“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 is that any different than any other government? The American government had no problem slaughter 200,000 Filipios who were considered mere niggers to be hunted like rabbits. The British crown had no problem slaughtering millions of Africans who were mere savages. It’s naive to think Hitler (Catholic), Stalin (Russian Orthodox) and Mao (goodness, an actual Atheist) were any different than the other authortarian rulers.
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.
Rage sez:
“Yep. But people who refuse to understand Darwinian evolution aren’t likely to grasp the difference.”
I’m from the understanding that creationists think all of evolution started and ended with Darwin. Nobody thought of evolution before Darwin and no scientific progress has been made since. So is my understanding from reading creationist propaganda. Then again, I never accused creationists of being educated. From this thread alone they don’t want factual history to be taught either.
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.
This is lifted from a letter written by Hitler:
“So it’s not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there’s no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds - perhaps inhabited worlds like ours - then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”
I do not agree with this entire website. I do think Hitler was Pagan to the core. However, this website claims that Hitler was only trying to attract Pagans:
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/4885/hitler.html
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.
Nice Paul, you quote a work of historical fiction. Typical lying propagandist Paul.
“HLP” –
“…the scientific community has become controlled by a faction with a Godless world view.”
Which is like saying the major league baseball community has a godless world view.
And it’s just as accurate.
“God” transcends science. Science isn’t prepared for or designed to approach whatever you think “God” might be. That’s not the job of science. Science depends on natural law and on observable and challengeable questions and conclusions.
As soon as you play the “God” card, you’re out of the realm of science.
Can you get that through your head?
Maggot
Sanger gave a seminar at KKK meeting.
She thought the KKK members were not very bright, but she had no objection to speaking to them.
Not surprising at all, really.
The KKK had a great deal to do with women getting the right to vote, and the KKK was a political force in many areas of the country.
I’ve had it with atheist evolutionary science!
I’m sick of Satanist plumbing too! (Did you know they use a “snake”?)
Does anyone find it ironic that a bunch of bible thumpers want to invalidate Darwin claiming it inspired Hitler but still hold onto their Bible despite it having inspired many atrocities throughout history? I wonder why they can’t apply their criticisms to themselves?
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.
#
Maggotpunk
Posted April 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm | Permalink
Rage sez:
“Yep. But people who refuse to understand Darwinian evolution aren’t likely to grasp the difference.”
I’m from the understanding that creationists think all of evolution started and ended with Darwin. Nobody thought of evolution before Darwin and no scientific progress has been made since. So is my understanding from reading creationist propaganda. Then again, I never accused creationists of being educated. From this thread alone they don’t want factual history to be taught either.
—————————–
Want to compare biological science courses taken?
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.
” The American government had no problem slaughter 200,000 Filipios who were considered mere niggers to be hunted like rabbits.”
Huh? Systematic killing of filopinos ordered by the President? WRONG
“The British crown had no problem slaughtering millions of Africans who were mere savages.”
Huh? Systematic killing of africans ordered by the thrown? WRONG
Communisism is the first form of government predicated on atheism which is intellectually defensible if you assume that evolution is true.
Facists Germany was no different in action although the feckless church was used as a pawn by the Furher.
It is no coincidence that
the Great Purge (Stalin= 2 million dead)
the Cultural Revolution (Mao = 500,000 dead) and
the Holocaust (Hitler = 6 million dead)
All occured under people who were either professed atheists or evolutionists. Only when people are nothing more than evolved beings with no inalienable right to life can genocide of millions strong be justified and permitted to happen at all.
Paul sez:
“I can not prove the accuracy of the letter I quoted.”
Finally, we agree on something.
Cute RFL, when did Hitler ever say he was an Atheist? For that matter when did Stalin say he was an Atheist? Sure there was a problem with numerous Communist party members still attending church but Stalin remained quite cozy with the Russian Orthodox church.
Then again, it’s clear that you are unaware of the entire Spanish-American war and the occupation of the Phillipines. So I wouldn’t expect any words of wisdom from you.
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.
“The main point of the film was that the scientific community has become controlled by a faction with a Godless world view. Of course, after watching the film it becomes obvious that Ben Stein brought much of his world view to the project.”
Thank you for bringing up what it really is about. God. ID is about God and nothing more than an attempt to put religion back into science. And it shouldn’t be there.
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.
More fundamentally, where on Earth does this notion of atheist = amoral come from?
Oh right. . .see word #2 above.
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?
Oh my, what about Dr. Norman Borlaug, who used that godless science of evolution to create a new strain of wheat that saved a billion lives? He must be just like Hitler.
RFL,
I’ll ask again, when did Stalin and Hitler ever state they were Atheist?
If humans evolved from various subspecies, how can they be equal?
Could you restate that in English?
“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!
RFL, I’ll answer your question since you won’t answer mine.
“If humans evolved from various subspecies, how can they be equal?”
Answer: Humans all evolved from the same species and are all the same species. There is only one species of human on the planet.
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.
OK RFL - how about my Native American ancesters and their genocide at the hands of good Christians.
I had a hard time believing that was really the question, even from a creationist.
RFL,
I never said the Spanish-American war was about Christianity. Get the deluded stick out of your ass.
#
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.
How about the unnecessary deaths of some 600,000 Iraqis at the hands of our god-chosen, Christian, two-term president?
“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.
Regualr - study about the westward expansion of this country and its original colonization by the Europeans. Beginning with Catholic Columbus they enslaved and slaughtered the Native population.
#
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.
Thanks to RFL’s comments I decided to recheck my info. The occupation and slaughter of the Filipinos was about bringing Christianity to the Filipinos as much as it was controlling more markets.
Although the Filipinos were largely Catholic I guess they weren’t the correct type of Christian. From Indiana Senator Albert J. Beveridge,
“We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race - trustee, under god, of the civilization of the world. The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East.”
RFL loves himself some Bud Dajo (ask your parents RFL, or if they are as clueless as you then do a google search).
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.
#
bth
Posted April 24, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Permalink
Regualr - study about the westward expansion of this country and its original colonization by the Europeans. Beginning with Catholic Columbus they enslaved and slaughtered the Native population.
—————————-
Not my claim, it’s our claim.
Besides, the Indians in Columbus landings were not Cherokees, which I believe you stated were your ancestors.
So, where is your proof?
our claim = your claim
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!
The Cherokee were murdered by US government soldiers during the Trail of Tears. But deny it. Join with with the Holocaust deniers.
RFL,
The same Stalin who was raised a Russian Orthodox and attended the Russian Orthodox seminary and revived the Russian Orthodox to it’s status as the official church in the region in 1941, and who educated his daughter in the Russian Orthodox religion? Yup, that sounds like a committed Atheist to me.
“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.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1567.html
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?
“Conclusion: Maggotpunk does not have a clue what he is talking about. Contradicting himself while Making stuff up is his strongest suit.”
No, I hadn’t made any statement about the Spanish-American war being about Christianity. Perhaps you could notice the positions of the statements in this entire thread. Try being honest for a change. Reading comprehension, it’s something they teach to grammar school kids, kinda like history, clearly two subjects you weren’t paying attention in.
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.
Ben, having lived in Oklahoma, I’ve been on the Trail of Tears.
Some audacity, huh?
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.
But to single out a group - ridiculous.
Well, Reg, one can look to religiously bigoted motivations but I don’t think Ben or anyone else here saying this is a general feature of Christians.
Can’t say the same for people like RFL.
#
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.
Rage
Posted April 24, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Permalink
But to single out a group - ridiculous.
Well, Reg, one can look to religiously bigoted motivations but I don’t think Ben or anyone else here saying this is a general feature of Christians.
———————–
Then you Libs should be much more careful in your wording.
Inflammatory words meant to incite is not helpful to a discussion.
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?
#
Political_mama
Posted April 24, 2008 at 5:25 pm | Permalink
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?
—————-
Econ stated his name was already registered and Doug has two registrations I believe or I saw “Doug” before the registration unsure.
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!
Oh, Rhonda!! See what you started!! LOL!!! The thread quickly devolved, didn’t it?
Hitler liked German chocolate cake. What does THAT tell you???? LOL!!!
And it seems that NO ONE has seen this silly thing…
“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.
Do I have to call you Dr. Wahine then?
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.
PM,
I previously had the registration under maggotpunk so I didn’t go for a second. I think the neo-cons like calling me maggot anyway.
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.
Tara - a question. Sort of a wild idea.
Homo sapiens is ‘related’ to Neanderthal and to homo erectus. How close? Now consider: the time from our migration out of the Rift Valley is not all that long. So, how did our species differentiate so much among African, European, Asian? Neanderthal was light-skinned and hairy. So are Europeans. Could there have been interbreeding? Could we have been close enough cousins?
An interesting implication for the ‘racial purity’ nuts. That would make the Africans ‘pure’ Homo sapiens and Europeans mixed.
Ben said the Proctor for his PhD board was fond of barbed wire whips, chains and branding irons.
The question is still out on whether or not Neanderthals could breed with homo sapien sapiens. I’m still wonder who these sub-species of humans that are around that RFL believes in.
And she was a lot of fun!
From what I’ve read, the genetic link from human to Neanderthal doesn’t exist through a common ancestor.
Some even claim the mtDNA resembles that more of a chimp than the H.Sapiens.
Ms Holman,
Shouldn’t you review the movie before you write about it?
No show.
Not even wait for HBO.
Better things to do than devote even a minute to the persecution of the Christian deluded majority.
What a wasted thread this turned out to be. I thought it had hopes. But, I think I was wrong.
My thoughts? Glad you asked:-0
I think there were many bipedals, one of which became Homo Sapian. I suspect they may have come from different branches, all but one of which became extinct. H.S. was chosen by God to become an independent thinker, endowed with reason (Adam and Eve). But somewhere along the line, one sly, slick species, resembling true man (liberals) in all but the power of reason, emerged, and called itself neo-con:-0
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?
Actually Clark, more than basic biology.
Biology, Zoology, Botany, Chemistry I and II, Biochemistry, Anatomy, Physiology, micro-biology, comparative anatomy, Entomology, not including all the specialized courses that involve sub-classifications of the above. clinical studies, diseases, trauma studies and too many others to list.
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.
I see jimmymac is telling his usual lies:
“Regular
Posted April 24, 2008 at 8:43 pm | Permalink
Actually Clark, more than basic biology.
Biology, Zoology, Botany, Chemistry I and II, Biochemistry, Anatomy, Physiology, micro-biology, comparative anatomy, Entomology, not including all the specialized courses that involve sub-classifications of the above. clinical studies, diseases, trauma studies and too many others to list.”
If this liar has completed all of the course work he claims, why is he still living off the government welfare system?
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
Maggot, your historical ignorance is stunning. For evidence of Hitler’s intolerance of Christianity and Christians see the Rutgers archives. They have extensive documentation on the issue.
Secondly, you apparently have no knowledge of Marxian theory either. A central tenet of Marxism and the Communism derived from it is atheism and the critique of religion as the “opiate of the masses”.
Thirdly, Sanger’s own writings are replete with racist comments. Abortion and eugenics were racist mechanisms to eliminate blacks - then and now.
Thanks to Rhonda Holman, a modern day bitch of Belsen, this blog continues to be one of the most hateful and uninformed forums to be found anywhere. Normally, one doesn’t read this kind of tripe outside the pages of some skinhead/neo-Nazi publication, but then again, I’m not sure the Eagle does fall outside that category.
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.
Wow, dare inject an argument into any discussion H_S disagrees with, and BAM: you’re a modern day bitch of Belsen.
Marx’s’ hatred of anything black, Catholic, Jewish or whatever has absolutely nothing to do with ID, natural selection or evolution. Marx was a true nut-case. About as worth studying as a serial killer.
“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…..
“Expelled’s inflammatory implication that Darwin and the science of evolution was necessary for eugenics, Nazis, and Stalinism is deeply offensive and detrimental to public discussion and understanding of science, religion, and history. Such generalized insults are untrue and grossly unfair to millions of scientists in the United States and worldwide who are working to cure disease, solve hunger, improve national security, and otherwise advance science to improve the quality of human life. Genocide has been an all-too-frequent occurrence in human history and the fanaticism that drives it does not require the writings of Charles Darwin. By obscuring that fact, Expelled betrays either profound ignorance or a willful disregard of historical reality in service of its ideological agenda.”
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics
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!.
Expelled accuses scientists of subscribing to an unquestioned Darwinian orthodoxy and claims that those who dare to question “Darwinism” will quickly be silenced. This claim is as baseless as that of students who complain they failed their classes because their teachers hated them. Scientists question existing theories or propose new ones all the time in science. When they make their arguments, they find and present the best evidence they can in support of their alternative views. Colleagues, in turn, challenge that evidence and reasoning. This process is hard and it is this very rigor that is responsible for science being such a powerful tool; when a new idea is accepted, it means that evidence exists that is considered to be strong by people who study these ideas in great detail. Intelligent design advocates, by contrast, have no research and no evidence. They will even admit their unwillingness to form testable hypotheses and argue instead that science should be focused on the search for adequate ideas rather than testable ones. This is as absurd as a student trying to convince their teachers that they should ignore zeroes in the gradebook. In point of fact, scientists welcome and invite criticism of their ideas; they only insist, reasonably, that alternative views be testable. Barbara McClintock, Lynn Margulis, Barry Marshall, Stanley Prusiner, and Motoo Kimura are a few of the scientists who have challenged the scientific status quo and, far from being “expelled” from science, were lauded as visionaries once they had successfully supported their ideas with experimental evidence. Science makes no apologies when this evidence takes years, even decades, to develop into the ideas that capture the consensus of the scientific community.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/challenging
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,