Daily Kos

First, They Came for the Biologists ...

Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:34:33 AM PDT

David Berlinski, a member of the anti-science flagship called the Discovery Insitute, plants a seed:

Human Events -- One man -- Charles Darwin -- says: "In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals. ..." Another man -- Adolf Hitler -- says: Let us kill all the Jews of Europe. Is there a connection? Yes obviously is the answer of the historical record and common sense.

Berlinski then launches into a convoluted history lesson tying long standing religious animosity between Jews and other ethnic/religious groups to the holocaust. Probably to give himself cover for the clear thrust of his article, which boils down to saying evolutionary biology and biologists who study it are cozy as bed bugs with the Nazi Final Solution and, hey, maybe even partially responsible for it. He finished by allegedly asking Richard Dawkins if he would like to 'live in a society governed by Darwinian principles,' to which Dawkins reportedly responds 'No, it would be fascism.'

To illustrate the speciousness of that tactic, I wonder how Stephen Hawking would respond to a similar question, like "Would you like to live in a society governed by the strong nuclear force?" To which Hawking could accurately answer in his synthesized voice, do doubt in a somewhat baffled manner, "Ummm no, it might mean instant annihilation of that society as it would immediately collapse into a microscopic black hole." No one wants that, therefore, using Berlinski's logic -- for lack of a better word -- let us all quickly rewrite the Laws of Particle Physics and ban teaching the real thing, lest these genocidal physicist get us all crunched into a quantum-sized event horizon ...

If you can stomach watching it, you'll see Stein explain, with Hannity and Colmes' help, that "Darwinism" wasn't really responsible for the death camps, and biologists aren't really Nazis, it's just that evolution logically led to ... the Nazi death camps. Stein's two-faced con is on display everywhere you look, here using a quote from the Expelled website itself:

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

Gosh Ben, how could anyone possibly get the mysterious idea that evolution is pro Holocaust?

  • ::

The Reductio ad Hitlerum shtick might sicken you, but it's nothing new for creationists. Darwinism, fascism, atheism, communism, materialism, evolution; they're all equitable, exchangable currencies in the sordid market place of Intelligent Design. It's been particularly popular among creationist apologists to to lay the blame for Hitler and Nazism at the feet Darwin, along with about anything else you can think of, for decades. Stalin is a commonly used exemplar, Pol Pot another. Tom DeLay blamed the teaching of evolution for the Columbine massacre.

One of the funnier efforts came from "Dr" Kent Hovind, a Young Earth Creationist currently doing time for massive tax evasion and obstruction of federal agents. Back in his wild and felony free days, Hovind liked to blame the Cherokee Trail of Tears on evolution and then go on to ask how any native American could believe in it. There's just one problem with that: the Trail of Tears happened in 1831, Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859. I could provide pages upon pages of similar vignettes, some comical, others sinister, all of them duplicitous. Ben Stein is only the latest ultraconservative shill to lob the Nazi bomb at biology, and he happily does so in a G-rated film now showing in a theater near you.

As far as Hitler's self proclaimed religious beliefs and how they may have motivated his murderous actions, if the creationists really want to open that deep, dark can of worms, here's just a few choice quotes from das Fuhrer himself:

We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement ...we have stamped it out. -- Berlin, October 24, 1933

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth!  -- 12 April 1922

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."  –- Mien Kampf

I don't pretend know what all went through Hitler's pathological brain -- up to that final slug from a Luger in an underground bunker in 1945 anyway. My guess is the simplest one: he was (mis)using religious rhetoric as a social lever to lift his perverse ideology out of the gutter.

Regardless if Hitler was or was not sincere, to blame Christians in America today, or religious faith in general, for his actions would be an inexcusably brutal, cheap shot of stellar magnitude. The same goes for biology. To blame it on atheism -- which creationists routinely conflate with evolutionary biology specifically and science in general -- a meta-philosophical view Hitler did not even profess, would be if anything even worse.

Religion, like so many human endeavors, is a double-edged sword. It played a critical role in the Abolitionist and later Civil Rights movements. Here on the Space Coast, in Florida, a good chunk of the wonderful people who man Hospice, providing care and fellowship to terminally ill and often indigent patients up to and beyond their last breath, are evangelical Christians. They spend their free time cleaning vomit and crap off of bedsheets and bodies, empty bedpans, hold the hand of the dying, the otherwise forgotten, the disposable, the old; those who too tragically and too often have no living friends or family left on earth to comfort them through senility and despair. That work demands a special kind of heroism, an inspiring strength of character, and to the great benefit of their fellow man and woman, these unpaid volunteers find it in their faith.

Now picture Ben Stein, David Berlinski, and the whole stinking crew abusing those Hospice volunteers, cloaking a pack of creationist lies in the genuine faith that sustains them, whispering surreptitious associations into their ears that biologists are in league with neo-Nazis. That's the other side of the religious blade, the ugly, sharp side wielded by the Discovery Institute. Zealotry most foul, in the hands of a skilled sociopath, has and continues to be misused by megalomaniacs and other deviants with an insatiable thirst for power, wealth, control, and sexual perversion, to justify the worst behavior known to mankind. It continues today:  

WaPo -- Texas officials told legislators Wednesday that they are investigating the possible sexual abuse of some of the young boys taken from a polygamist sect's ranch, as well as broken bones among other children. It is the first suggestion that anyone other than teenage girls may have been sexually or physically abused ...

Religion and science are different species of course. But one thing they share in common is both can be used for great good or nightmarish evil. Particle physicists developed the theories underpinning everything from PET/CAT scans to the device you are reading this post on. They also brought us the hydrogen bomb. Biochemists developed antibiotics, saving the lives and limbs of countless millions of suffering people. The same science produced Zyklon B, a substance used by the Third Reich to economically exterminate families by the trainload.

Only an exceptionally stupid asshole, or an intentionally dishonest creep, would blame chemistry for Auschwitz, and that asshole would be roundly laughed off the world stage -- assuming they somehow finagled a spot on it in the first place. Unfortunately, when it comes to biology, modern day Intelligent Design Creationists and their old fashioned fire and brimstone Young Earth Creationist ancestors are precisely those kinds of assholes. And they're not shameless in the least, quite the contrary: they're proud of it. Then again, why shouldn't they be? Creationists get a free pass from the media when they tie biology to the most horrific events in human history and, too often, a pat on the shoulder straight from the conservative pulpit.

If you think your profession or private life is immune from these puckering right-wing meat puppets, you better think again. Evolution was chosen as the "Wedge" with which to split "the materialist log of science open." But it's just the tip of a long spear:

Wiki -- The Wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.

One of the largest, private financial backers of the Discovery Institute is Howard F. Ahmanson. Mr. Ahmanson is the reclusive heir to a savings and loan fortune, a leading advocate for Dominionism, closely related to far right Christian Reconstructionism, and has purportedly stated his "goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."

Another Discovery benefactor is Sun-myung Moon, who has long proclaimed himself the Savior of Humanity, the True Parent or "Father" of mankind, and the second coming of Jesus Christ. Moon's Unification Church paid for the education of Discovery Institute fellow Jonathon Wells. Dr. Wells has stated "Father's [Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism ... When Father chose me to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."

There are a wide range of possible motives for why individual creationists do what they do. A handful may actually believe some parts of Intelligent Design. But given the pervasive stench of deception running rampant through it, that's getting more and more difficult to swallow. As far as why something as flaky as creationism might appeal to the more practical funding wing of the conservative party: there may have been a time when creationism was a more or less independent operation. But it has long since been co-opted by the broader conservative movement for at least two equally odious, potential goals. The first is to hold science and scientists hostage to the ideology of far right extremism. And if you believe neo-science by Right-wing Fatwah won't conveniently benefit the rich and powerful at the expense of the middle class and poor, then I have a cold fusion generator to sell you.

A second, intertwined and likewise nasty goal is to destroy the public school system, in this case by whipping up anger and outrage at K-12 schools among grassroots voters. For no better reason than mega-wealthy landowners who send their kids to expensive private schools don't like paying property taxes on their winter mansions or summer homes. Think of it from their privileged viewpoint: Why should they support the same schools that produce educated middle class citizens who, in the end, compete with and might even dare to challenge their own pampered trust fund brats?

We can all agree that abusing another person's faith or misrepresenting science to secure another stack of cash for multi-generational billionaire clans is not in the same league with using it to justify genocide. But wrapping up a scheme with the spectre of the Holocaust and padding it with pages ripped from the Bible designed to spare zillionaires a few shekels and give their political minions total control over all aspects of government, deprive middle class families of life saving science, and deny our children a public education, is not exactly a noble project is it?

Blaming evolutionary biology for Hitler is just a single means to an evil end for these scam artists. As long as Berlinski, Stein, and their anti-science, authoritarian ilk have eagerly suspended Godwin's Law for a few pieces of silver and a fleeting moment of PR gold, let me end by noting for those of you who value science, history, education, medicine, or the simple core democratic principles upon which the United States was founded: First, they came for the biologists ...

Tags: evolution (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 313 comments

  •  If (41+ / 0-)

    you would like to do more than shake your fist at Stein, I strongly recommend joining the National Center for Science Education. This organization is dedicated to preserving the integrity of science education in the K-12 public school system. And for a small band of committed science educators on a tiny budget facing all the might of the well funded antiscience movement, they have so far been almost miraculously successful. If it’s Sunday, it’s Sunday Kos!

    Read UTI, your free thought forum

    by DarkSyde on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:35:23 AM PDT

  •  Bueller.... Bueller...?? (7+ / 0-)

    Dudehisattva...

    "Generosity, Ethics, Patience, Effort, Concentration, and Wisdom"

    by Dood Abides on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:40:58 AM PDT

    •  Social Dawinism and Calvinism (7+ / 0-)

      Ben Stein is not a stupid person, which means he is an incredibly venal lying sack of shit, whoring himself to the wingnut welfare Mammon dispenser.

      For the uber rich robber barons, Social Darwinism was a nice secular complement to the Calvinist Mercantilism they had long embraced.

      Calvinism (the core belief of American Puritanism) held that rich were doing God's work by letting you starve to death in the street, after working you to death in their coal pits.

      Natural Selection was a perfect fit for their world view -- that Ben Stein can turn this around, and blame Darwin for the ills of society is evidence of what a corrupt vile person he is.

      Ben Stein is the ultimate proof of the Upton Sinclair maxim: If is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

      Ben Stein understands that his wingnut welfare check is dependent on lying through his teeth, so he lies and dissembles with gusto.

      •  Absoutely. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Dood Abides, neroden

        The capitalists live by the Social Darwinism creed.  Only, instead of using "ability to reproduce" as a marker for human "success," they use wealth.  If you are wealthy it makes you a better human being than a non-wealthy one.  The cream rises to the top.  If you aren't able to succeed in the capitalist system, it means you're just a lazy person and a loser.  It also fits in nicely with the "God Wants you to be Rich" philosophy, wherin people who are doing well must be full of the grace of God.  And notice the very narrow, very material definition of "success:" wealth.  If you are skilled in a profession that does not pay you an astronomical salary, that is not success.  If you are content and healthy, but you don't make an astronomical salary, you are not a success.  If you are a brilliant thinker, scientist, engineer, mathematician, historian, musician, or painter that does not make an astronomical salary, you are not a success.  

        Stein is right in a way.  Social Darwinism is very destructive.  But it has nothing to do with Darwin's biological theories.  To apply it to human society you would have to release Ben Stein into the wild and make him fight for food and get some female to reproduce with him.(eeew.) Something tells me he wouldn't do very well.

        "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

        by Reepicheep on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:05:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hitler was a Catholic (7+ / 0-)

    He never renounced the church, and the church never excommunicated him.

    Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts, hot ashes for trees, hot earth for a cool breeze?

    by minerva1157 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:41:23 AM PDT

    •  Therefore? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Joy Busey

      "Dear Jack: Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide."

      by 1918 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:51:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've read several Hitler biographies, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Joy Busey

      and one of them said Hitler was excommunicated by the RC Church before he took power, not for his political views, but for being a witness at the wedding of Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels (the future propaganda minister, and a Catholic) to a Protestant woman. Goebbels was thrown out at the same time, for marrying a Protestant.

      I need to look this up. I don't recall where I read it. I think it was Alan Bullock's Hitler, A Study in Tyrrany.

      I was a Republican until they lost their minds, The word 'conservative' means 'discriminatory,' ... It's a form of political discrimination. --- Charles Barkley

      by Kimball Cross on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:55:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  at any rate, the Catholic Church was a Nazi (4+ / 0-)

        enabler; however to be fair, here is a defense of the Catholic Church and its dealings with Hitler:
        http://www.churchinhistory.org/...

        Here is an alternate view:
        http://www.nobeliefs.com/...

        so folks can decide for themselves.

        •  Not everyone in the Church was: (5+ / 0-)

          Lets not do what "they" do and paint every Catholic in that era an "enabler". Many GOOD Catholics lost their lives defending Jews and others from Nazis oppression. The fact that the great majority did nothing or helped the Nazis shouldn't devalue the GOOD few.

          "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

          by Blutodog on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:50:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So was eugenics... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          SoCalRefugee

          ...which the Americans first gleefully enacted into law because they didn't want to share their stolen land and wealth with immigrants, free blacks and other victims of the times (and Great Depression). It was America that gave Hitler his legislative models for the 1933-34 eugenics laws in Germany.

          This stupid game of dueling Hitlers is... stupid. If biology/science wants to play it then I think it should do what churches and others have done about their roles in the horror. Admit their culpability in the promotion of eugenics and apologize for it. Pretending they're pure a the driven snow isn't very convincing when lined up beside actual, well-documented history. They're supposed to be so much smarter than everybody else, why the denial?

          •  eugenics was a political program (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            skrekk, Reepicheep, Calamity Jean

            not a scientific one.

            Science is no more responsible for eugenics than it is for global warming or poverty.

            It is PEOPLE that are responsible.

            Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

            by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sorry, but no (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Joy Busey

              Eugenics was "science" long before it ever got into politics.

              •  sorry, but yes (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                flight2q

                Eugenics is a political and social program.

                It is no more "science" than "beat the Russians to the moon" was, or "let's eliminate the tse-tse fly".

                Those are POLITICAL PROGRAMS.  They are not "science".

                As I said before, some people have difficulty differentiating "science" from "political ideology".

                And, alas, it's not just the fundies who have that difficulty.

                Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It was not a political program... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...until Francis Galton and Leonard Darwin could convince enough of their rich elitist friends to finance the effort through academic research funding and scientific authority via the science policy arms and research councils of NAS (and their international connections).

                  Galton invented "eugenics" in 1883 by specific appeal to his cousin Charlie's theory of natural selection, as an attempt to put the ancient skills of animal breeding to work in human populations. He established the BES (British Eugenics Society) at the turn of the century, but it was America that went whole hog for the program. The state of Indiana passed the first (of 33 eventual) state laws mandating involuntary sterilization in 1907.

                  It was sold to the public as 'good science' by science itself. If it was a corruption of Darwinism - and I think most people are agreed that it was - an auful lot of scientists played willing roles in that corruption.

                  •  that does not make it "science" (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    alicia logic, flight2q

                    It makes it a political program that was supported by lots of scientists.

                    The two are not the same.

                    "Science" is a different thing than "the political and social uses to which science is put".

                    Nuclear physics, is "science".

                    Nuclear weapons programs, are NOT "science".  No matter how many scientists like it and support it.

                    Genetics, is "science".

                    Eugenics, is not.  No matter how many scientists like it or support it.

                    See the difference?

                    Stalin couldn't.

                    Neither, apparently, can most of us here.

                    Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                    by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 01:24:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  don't blame Newton (0+ / 0-)

                      Theory of Gravity is science.
                      ICBM's are engineering.
                      Mutual Assured Destruction is politics.

                      If you think anyone needs a conscience, besides politicians, first talk to the engineers. But seriously, it is the politicians who have the most sway over what science and engineering is done. The politicians set the incentives, and sometimes effect massive direct government budgeting. Basic research is just a little bit more politically pure, because it's less clear what all the end uses could be.

                      Make no mistake about it. If your government wants genocide, it will buy it. And the line item will say something about national security widgets.

                      •  exactly (0+ / 0-)

                        Science does nothing more than produce knowledge of the world.

                        What we DO with that knowledge, and how we use it (or mis-use it) is entirely up to us.

                        In the hands of a surgeon, knives can save lives.  In the hands of a serial killer, knives can TAKE lives.  But it's not the maker of the knife (or the knowledge to make it) that is responsible for the results of that decision.

                        Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                        by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:34:24 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Interesting sleight of tense there, Lenny. (0+ / 0-)

                      When Eugenics became all the rage it was indeed sold as science. By scientists. That it's now brushed off as pseudoscience doesn't change history. Honest.

                      •  calling an ideology "science" (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        entlord1

                        doesn't make it science.  No matter WHO does it.

                        Eugenics is an ideology and a political/social prgram.  It's very basis -- that we "should" let the "best" people breed -- is based on value judgements and ideology, not on science.  Science doesn't have a damn thing to say about what is "best" and what isn't, or what we "should" or "shouldn't" do.  Those are value judgements, made by ideology and social/political judgements, not by science.

                        Even if that value judgement is being made by a scientist.

                        Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                        by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  after all (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          entlord1

                          the IDers tell us that THEIR crap is "science", too, and they have lots of scientists who are willing to claim that it is.

                          That doesn't make it science, though.  It's still an ideology, even if every scientist on the planet swears that it's not.

                          Same with eugenics.

                          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                          by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Science Is Neither GOOD NOR BAD! It is what it is (0+ / 0-)

                            That is the point I've been trying to make to my friends. I totally agree with the perspective that science is different from politics AS IT IS DIFFERENT FROM RELIGION
                            Science, unlike religion does not require that you BELIEVE it because even when you do not believe it, it is still what it is. In other words, when people believed that it was a fact that the world was flat, the world was still round, so that even if they decide or believe again that the world is flat, the world will remain round (or the shape that is NOT flat).

                            People who argue for creationism in a science class are calling for an end to religion as we know it. Because when religion is put to a scientific test, it cannot stand and simply requires that you believe it which is contrary to science as science relies on proof to be a fact or a   scientific theory. Students will be skeptical, will question it, will pick it apart, will mix it with other religions, may choose something other than what they are taught at home (assuming that all major religions are represented and ALLOWED), etc students will simply not believe it especially when they read the history of the book we call bible today comes to light. How it was a selection of agreeing texts by men to create an encyclopedia of what is known today as Christianity. That is, Christianity was not the word of God as it is purported, but theories of men and some women.

                            What I love about science is that, you can choose to disprove it if you disbelieve it or prove it if you believe it, you can't do that with religion.

                            Why Obama won't attack HRC - LAZIO effect! She can play victim card easily.

                            by PunditHater on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:54:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Science Is Neither GOOD no BAD! It is what it is. (0+ / 0-)

                          That is the point I've been trying to make to my friends. I totally agree with the perspective that science is different from politics AS IT IS DIFFERENT FROM RELIGION
                          Science, unlike religion does not require that you BELIEVE it because even when you do not believe it, it is still what it is. In other words, when people believed that it was a fact that the world was flat, the world was still round, so that even if they decide or believe again that the world is flat, the world will remain round (or the shape that is NOT flat).

                          People who argue for creationism in a science class are calling for an end to religion as we know it. Because when religion is put to a scientific test, it cannot stand and simply requires that you believe it which is contrary to science as science relies on proof to be a fact or a

                          scientific

                          theory. Students will be skeptical, will question it, will pick it apart, will mix it with other religions, may choose something other than what they are taught at home (assuming that all major religions are represented and ALLOWED), etc students will simply not believe it especially when they read the history of the book we call bible today comes to light. How it was a selection of agreeing texts by men to create an encyclopedia of what is known today as Christianity. That is, Christianity was not the word of God as it is purported, but theories of men and some women.

                          What I love about science is that, you can choose to disprove it if you disbelieve it or prove it if you believe it, you can't do that with religion.

                          Why Obama won't attack HRC - LAZIO effect! She can play victim card easily.

                          by PunditHater on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:51:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

          •  "Dueling Hitlers"... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Joy Busey

            cue the banjo and accordion!

            -8.25, -6.26 Pardon our dust, sig line under renovation in order to serve you better.

            by snookybeh on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:36:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I was (0+ / 0-)

        assigned to look at the issue of the Nazis and religion as my final project for a history class this past fall quarter at college. I can't claim to be an expert, but I can tell you that the general consensus among historians is that, while there were many people in the Nazi movement who were Christians, and who found ways to espouse Nazism in a Christian framework, the evidence suggests that the "God talk" of Hitler and other top leaders was basically rhetoric designed to pander to the masses.

        As for the Catholic Church, there can be no denying that the Church made a deal with the devil agreeing to recognize the Nazi government in order to protect the rights of German Catholics... but the Catholics were no worse in this regard than the Protestant churches, whose lay members were actually more likely than Catholics to be Nazi supporters.

        I read a book by a historian named Richard Steigmann-Gall called The Holy Reich which tried to prove that Nazism was basically a Christian movement, but his evidence was flimsy at best... he basically tried to prove his point by emphasizing all the evidence that could be interpreted as pointing his way and dismissing as "inaccurate" or "unreliable" anything that seemed to contradict his point.

        "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel

        by BlueTape on Sun May 04, 2008 at 07:11:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I must disagree (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          BlueTape

          Steigmann-Gall's book is based on anything but flimsy evidence and yes, he demonstrates a considerably greater cooperation between the Nazi government and the Christian churches than had ever been postulated previously. That fact is not incompatible, however, with the notion that many of the Nazi leaders (Hitler chief among them) were largely talking in pious platitudes because they felt it was necessary to do so to avoid alienating the majority of Germans who were still believers.

    •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

      I believe the Church did excommunicate all Nazis after a point, so I assume that covers Hitler as well.  

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

      by bythesea on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:57:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, but no (0+ / 0-)

      Hitler was baptized Roman Catholic, but he stopped actively practicing the faith long before he arose to power in Germany.

  •  Be Careful Supporting Evolution (3+ / 1-)

    Recommended by:
    Joy Busey, lastamendment, futurebird
    Hidden by:
    R Rhino from CT4

    We as liberals must be very careful in supporting anybody who says they are for evolution.  Conservative scientists have used the basis of evolution to make claims about "human nature," based on Darwin's theories, that are racist, sexist, and anti-gay.  The liberal community should not blindly support anybody who says that they are for evolution.  Conversely, we can not completely discredit somebody who points out it's flaws.  Evolution absolutely has it's limits and should never be taken as an end all.  

    I will probably write a diary on this soon as it has become a contentious issue of late.  Hope this comment offers more insight.

    •  And watch out for gravity (26+ / 0-)

      Conservatives are using this "gravity" thing to prove that they are heavier than fruity gays and liberals and therefore are more deserving of space and resources.

      "Dear Jack: Don't buy a single vote more than necessary. I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for a landslide."

      by 1918 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:49:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Supporting evolution without reason (0+ / 0-)

      If someone is supporting evolution for the purposes you state, I believe it would be easy to point out the faults and fallacy of their logic.

      Those against evolution cannot put forth an argument that doesn't require a magical, mystery stage that cannot be described and must be accepted on faith.

      If your theory is weak, those who challenge you will quickly find those weaknesses.

      "I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV."

      by zeitshabba on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:49:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's not easy (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Joy Busey

        I believe it would be easy to point out the faults and fallacy of their logic.

        I hate to say it but science can be abused by people with an agenda too-- I've seen it happen.

        •  It happens every day as everyone has an agenda... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Joy Busey

          ...some agendas are liberal and progressive others are regressive and Fascist in nature.

          Natural selection IMO is a response to random natural events  while what is referred to as social Darwinism is always the result of some sort of agenda or combinations of agendas.

          Because man is self-aware and that awareness comprehends death (something no other animal does) he always has an agenda to put off death and extend his life or self. He also sees himself as being what he thinks and does, rather than a unique individual capable of thinking and doing many things, so any negation of his perception of self (based on the habits of doing and thinking) is perceived as a death threat. Some very nasty agendas are formed as a result.

          IMO self-awareness puts man outside of natural law...

          The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

          by Bobjack23 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:20:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  eh. (6+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            marina, MT Spaces, Joy Busey, wgard, gsenski, vadasz

            something no other animal does

            We can't know this. Not at this stage, in any case.

            I agree that humans will always have an agenda.

            I think science is the process of trying to describe the world without one--

            and, frankly, some people mess it up some of the time.

          •  Outside of natural law? (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Reepicheep, entlord1, futurebird

            How is that? I hate to break it to you, but your self-awareness is bound to natural law just like everything else. Also, the theory of natural selection doesn't have anything to say about social policy. It describes how species adapt and evolve due to environmental influences. It still acts in human societies, but it doesn't say anything about how we should govern our societies.

            •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

              It is unlikely you could break much to me.

              The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

              by Bobjack23 on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:05:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Not quite "doesn't say anything" (0+ / 0-)

              It says that societies that govern themselves badly are more likely to die out. It says that if a society can't raise kids, or adapt to changes, it will die out.

              "Democracy is where everyone gets what the majority deserve." Of course, the US still has a large theocratic faction, and so the last eight years we've been getting what they deserved. America is adaptable; now if we could only figure out how to not be so stupid collectively.

              •  Not true. (0+ / 0-)

                It says that if a society can't raise kids, or adapt to changes, it will die out.

                The theory of natural selection didn't originate this idea. Do you really think that inteligent people before 1859 didn't realize that not being able to raise kids would kill them off?

                The theory of natural selection tells us how environmental influences cause species to adapt over many generations.

        •  but isn't the abuse of science (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          RonV, Reepicheep

          really pseudoscience? No one today would call Mengele's experiments on twins science today.

          •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

            But I've found there is a blury edge to what is science and what is not--

            The middle is sound but there are people on the fringes and some are quite conservative and they use science to push an agenda.

          •  Pseudoscience is not unethical science (0+ / 0-)

            Pseudosciences are ideas which are dressed up in scientific-sounding jargon but which do not submit to the rigorous examination by peers seeking to disprove the ideas. Usually this is because the pseudosciences are wrong, in the sense of 'incorrect' rather than 'evil', and can't stand up to such examination.  

            Homeopathy is a good example; practitioners use impressive-sounding terms like 'sussation' and 'hydromolecular memory'; they have an elaborate theory to justify their methods; they often wear white coats. What they never do is prove that the effects of their watery potions are provably different from those of placebos (plain water would be ideal in this case, since that is in effect what they are selling), by setting up standard double-blind studies for example. This is because they are well aware that when actual scientists have done so, the result is invariably the same; homeopathic 'remedies' simply do not work. Homeopathy is pseudoscience.

            I don't know offhand what experiments Mengele did on identical twins, but I can easily imagine some which would be good science but bad behaviour.

            For example, multiple sets of identical twins could be kept in separate but identical living quarters, fed identical diets and so forth, then exposed to identical pathogens - with one randomly chosen half-set being given a putative cure, the other half a placebo, in a double-blind methodology so neither the twins nor Mengele's team know which is which until afterward.

            Pretty much any scientist today would abhor such experiments (as would anyone, I'd hope), but they couldn't honestly call them pseudoscience, or even 'bad' science. What they would call them is unethical.

            The essential difference is that pseudoscience merely attests that something is so; science tests whether something is so, and acts accordingly.

      •  Find out about "scientific racism" (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Joy Busey

        Scientific racism remains a problem today in some areas.

        •  and it has nothing to do with evolution (15+ / 0-)

          Indeed, anyone with a fourth grade understanding of evolution  (and that rules out all the creationists) would knoiw that evolution makes "scientific racism" IMPOSSIBLE.  After all, the whole goal of racism adn eugenics is to produce a "genetically pure master race".  Anyone who knows fourth grade genetics knows that a "genetically pure race" is a monoculture, and that is, in evolutionary terms, the WEAKEST possible species.  Evolution is driven by genetic DIVERSITY, and depends utterly on the existence of widespread genetic alleles.  "Genetically pure" monocultures cannot evolve or adapt, and when ecologicla times get tough, they are the first species to go extinct.

          (sigh) In 25 years of creationist-fighting, I have never yet met ANYONE, ANYWHERE, who both rejects evolution and understands it.

          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

          by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:22:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it is called line breeding (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Joy Busey

            and the way to develop a breed is by breeding close relatives with desirable traits and then culling the ones who exhibit undesirable traits. The problem arises with a small gene pool, which is why most associations and organizations that certify "registered" animals examine them for any recessive undesirable traits and insist that animals falling into this category not be bred.

            The list of woes suffered by various breeds to satisfy human vanity is too long to produce here. In the long run the lack of genetic diversity becomes a problem as most of the hybrid corn grown today descended from 3 gene lines. Any mutation of a corn disease, such as smut, will result in devastation of the Corn Belt as was seen in the Corn Blight of 1968 (I think)

          •  You're talking to me (0+ / 0-)

            like I reject evoloution.

            •  you're talking (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Philoguy

              as if you do.

              Be more clear.

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:39:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Becuase I brought up "scientific racism" ? (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Joy Busey

                How is that rejecting evolution? In fact, the comment all of you are responding to didn't reject evolution-- it merely pointed out that conservatives have (and do) use fake science to make their points-- and that the theory of evolution has been distorted and abused to fit the needs of racist agendas.

                •  you should be more clear about that (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Philoguy, wilderness voice

                  particularly when you are in a thread that discusses a movie whose ENTIRE POINT is that "evolution is evil because it leads to racism and Nazis".

                  As for racists and Nazis, I've never seen a racist website yet that used "evolution" as a justification for its racism.  Every one of them uses "God" and "The Creator" instead.

                  Most of them, I suspect, don't like that whole idea of being related to black people.  

                  So there's an experiment we can all try.  Go do a Google for "white power groups".  Look at their websites for as long as you can stand it.  Count how many times they mention "God" or "The Creator" or "Jesus Christ".  Then count how many times they mention "Darwin" or "evolution".

                  Then we'll compare numbers.

                  I have a pretty good idea what we'll find (but then, I'm cheating since I already did the experiment some years ago).

                  Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                  by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:53:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  The trouble is, as you point out in your last (0+ / 0-)

            sentence, that very few people actually do understand evolution. And you stretch the goals behind the eugenics movement out of all proportion when you reduce them to producing "a 'genetically pure master race.'" The eugenics movement was based on the idea that races were not so much social constructs as biologically determined entities, and that it was important to protect that racial stock by keeping the races from mingling and by preventing "inferior" stock from reproducing. The concept of the Herrenvolk was an offshoot of a very small subset of people who had very little to do with the eugenics movement per se, but who were more than willing to use its language and its tenets to advance their own ideologies.

            •  alas (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              alicia logic, R Rhino from CT4

              that all has to do with political ideology and social programs, not with science.

              Indeed, as anyone who DOES understand evolution knows, evolution makes the very idea of a "master race" or an "inferior race", impossible.

              Indeed, no living organism is any more "highly evolved" or "superior" to any other.  The petunia is just as "evolved" from our common ancestor, as we are.  Whether it is "better" than us, depends utterly on what environment we and they live in.  It is evolved to fit the environmental niche that it lives in.  If WE were to try to live in its niche, we would fail utterly, just as it would fail utterly if tried to live in ours.  To say that one is "superior" and the other is "inferior", is scientifically meaningless.

              So not only can racism and eugenics NOT be based on evolution, but evolution in effect makes both racism and eugenics scientifically meaningless.

              That is why both racism and eugenics are SOCIAL ideas, not scientific ones.

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:50:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  scientific racism? (4+ / 0-)

          That is an odd term since race (outside of human race) is not a scientific term in and of itself.
          Racism is simply a pigment of the imagination.

          •  not my term... look it up (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Joy Busey

            Gould uses it.

          •  I want as bumpersticker! (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            MT Spaces, Calamity Jean, futurebird

            Racism is simply a pigment of the imagination.

            Love it!

            -7.50/-7.90 Everyone knows I'm out in left field.

            by WiseFerret on Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:02:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There are no human races (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            marina, Reepicheep, futurebird

            Race is a scientific term, but no group of humans fits it.

            The criterion is a population that contains alleles (=versions of genes) that are not found in other populations.

            •  indeed (0+ / 0-)

              there is more genetic variation  between different populations of black Africans than there is between a random population of black Africans and white Europeans.

              And there is simply no way to look at any random person's genome and tell what "race" they are.

              The concept is simply meaningless, biologically, when applied to humans.

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 09:27:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's even more dramatic than that... (0+ / 0-)

                There's more variation within a single population of black Africans. Here's a good explanation for lay folks:

                http://www.gladwell.com/...

                "In a sample of fifty Pygmies, for example, you might find nine variants in one stretch of DNA. In a sample of hundreds of people from around the rest of the world, you might find only a total of six variants in that same stretch of DNA-and probably every one of those six variants would also be found in the Pygmies. If everyone in the world was wiped out except Africans, in other words, almost all the human genetic diversity would be preserved."

                IOW, the group that first comes to mind when the term "race" is mentioned is the least racial of any human population.

          •  Read more (0+ / 0-)

            It's a very common term among historians, anthropologists, sociologists, and the like. And if you need evidence that it is still alive and kicking, you need look no further than that infamous fraud, The Bell Curve.

            •  indeed (0+ / 0-)

              it is a term amongst those scientists that study SOCIAL ideas and ideologies.

              It is NOT a meaningful term among those who study evolution and biology.

              Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

              by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Look, you may not like the fact (0+ / 0-)

                that the social sciences are sciences, but it is indisputable that they are--just exactly in the same way that biology, chemistry, and physics are. You don't get to privilege the "hard" or "physical" sciences over the "soft" or social sciences any more than you get to pick and choose between "liberal" science and "conservative" science.

                •  look (0+ / 0-)

                  Social Darwinism is a political ideology.  It's not science.  It's not even SOCIAL science.

                  If you disagree, then please by all means go ahead and demonstrate a scientific experiment, using the scientific method, that can show it to be true or false -- other than one's ideological decision to either accept it or not.

                  (And I do think it quite arguable whether most of the "social sciences" are actually "science".)

                  Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                  by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:03:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Assert until you're blue in the face (0+ / 0-)

                    It won't change the facts. And I'd just love to see you step up in a public forum and try to tell the social scientists that they're deluding themselves. I'd pay money to watch you lose that fight.

                    •  if you say so (shrug) (0+ / 0-)

                      You may have the last word.

                      Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                      by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  let me know (0+ / 0-)

                      when you have that scientific experiment, using the scientific method, which can demonstrate whether "social darwinism" is true or not.

                      Do that, and you're doing science.

                      Do it not, and you're doing ideology.

                      It really is that simple.

                      Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                      by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:14:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't need to (0+ / 0-)

                        You provided it yourself, when you pointed out that there is greater genetic diversity between the genomes of African peoples than there is between the so-called "African" and "Caucasian" races.

                        However, we didn't have that information 60 years ago. Which makes it a little difficult for you to argue that people should have known there was no scientific basis for social Darwinism at the time.

                        Have you ever, in your not-so-vast education, heard of the terms eisegesis or anachronism?

                        •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

                          What on eartrh are you babbling about?

                          Social Darwinism is an IDEOLOGY. It didn't NEED any "scientific justification".  Just as "let's go to the moon" didn't need any scientific justification -- because it WAS NOT SCIENCE.  It was a political program that oen either accepted or didn't, according to one's ideological view.

                          Same for Social Darwinism.  It was an ideology that one either chose to accept or chose not to.

                          That's what makes it an ideology rather than science.  In science, we don't get to choose what's true and what isn't.

                          Geez.  What's so damn hard to understand about this?

                          Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                          by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:37:40 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  can you devise a scientific experiment (0+ / 0-)

                  to demonstrate that, say, a free-market economics is better than a government-regulated economics -- using the scientific method?

                  Thanks.

                  Show me this "science" in action . . . .

                  Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

                  by Lenny Flank on Sun May 04, 2008 at 03:19:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  And I, I disapprove of rain! (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      1918, MT Spaces, coloradocomet, gsenski

      Water falling from the sky does not fit my belief structure.

      The opposite of war is not peace, it's creation - Jonathan Larson (-6.62, -6.26)

      by AndyS In Colorado on Sun May 04, 2008 at 05:50:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can't wait for your non-enlightening diar-ia. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      entlord1

      Evolution isn't a contentious issue. It's demagoguery.  

      "Somewhere. Someone's god is laughing." - Three Days Grace

      by Intercaust on Sun May 04, 2008 at 06:01:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  good point (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rick B, Joy Busey, ryan81

      Well, the theory of evolution isn't really the issue here-- It is, of course correct,but,  the issue is how humans see evolution as "moving from lower to higher" or as "moving from inferior to superior" -- people who look at the theory in this way are incorrect. Evolution has no "goal" creatures simply adapt, over generations, to their environment. They do not become "better" or "more superior" and moreover, the environment also changes through all of this.

      The notion that evo