Thursday, May 03, 2007

Creationists' obsession with Nazis

Red State Rabble has an excellent post about how the Discovery Institute has failed in its efforts to bring anti-science into the public school science classroom; how the media have become wise to the fact that Creationism (even if it's called "Intelligent Design") is not a valid scientific endeavor, on equal footing with evolution science; and how, in their decline, the Discovery Institute now resorts to merely trying to paint evolution and Charles Darwin with color from the Pot of Evil.

In their contempt for honesty (see, for example, Ed Brayton's discussion of DI fanboy and William Dembski's lickspittle Salvador Cordova at Dispatches from the Culture Wars), the Creationists often link evolution and Charles Darwin with Nazism. RSR mentioned in his post that the topic was raised by a Creationist at a Kansas hearing on proposed new science standards in 2005, and went on to follow the theme as it was repeated recently at Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., in speeches given by Discovery Institute Fellow John West. West's speech followed a presentation of dominionist D. James Kennedy's film, Darwin's Deadly Legacy, in which the lie was nurtured further. Finally, RSR takes the Nazism link to Christian Reconstructionist R.J. Rushdooney, founder of the Chalcedon Foundation, and one of its major financial backers, Howard Ahmanson. RSR recommends Chris Hedges' new book, The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism, which draws somewhat different conclusions regarding who has been emulating the tactics of Nazis than these people whould have you believe.

As usual, the real losers in this are the gullible public who believe those who are "lying for Jesus" (as the expression goes). One of those losers is H. Hoover Yount, who, in a letter to the editor of the York Daily Record May 1 said
...all the "offending board members [of the Dover, PA, school board] wanted to do was request that the science teacher tell the class that there was an alternative view of biology to the Darwinian theory, and it was contained in a book titled "Of Pandas and People," and several copies were available in the school library.
and
Banning books is what the Nazis did. Let's not "ape" them.
This was followed by another letter, by Katie Riley, on May 3. Riley said
With prayer, the Bible, and creation-supporting science removed from government schools, what remains is humanistic indoctrination...

Our government-sanctioned genocide of more than 47 million people towers over Nazi Germany's estimated 21 million.

These two individuals have swallowed the load that evolution=atheism=nazism, because persons claiming to be good Christians told them so.

Labels: , , ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Emanuel Goldstein said...

I certainly don't believe in a Darwin/Nazi connection because some Christians claim it.

I believe it because its a fact.

The Nazis were sold on eugencis, and Darwins connections to that are established by Edwin Black in War Against the Weak. (www.waragainsttheweak.com)

Hell, his cousin Francis Galton is called the "father of eugenics" and Darwin praises his work in The Descent of Man.

Pat Hayes is a liar.

6:17 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

So, Emanuel, you are telling me you believe in a Darwin/Nazi connection NOT because of any evidence, but because you claim it is a fact? I do not understand the logic here.

Hayes has made occasional, minor mistakes, but I find him to be very, very much more credible than most Creationists. You are quite unjust in calling him a liar; I consider your statement about him to be untrue.

The Nazis may very well have been strong advocates of eugenics. So what? That has no implications for the validity of evolution science. Which claims of Edwin Black do you believe support such a connection?

Although Francis Galton may be called by some the "father of eugenics," the concept of eugenics is far older than Galton. Plato, among others, wrote about eugenics in The Republic:
Obviously, then, we must arrange marriages, sacramental so far as may be. And the most sacred marriages would be those that were most beneficial.
...
I see that you have in your house hunting dogs and a number of pedigreed cocks. Have you ever considered something about their unions and procreations?
...
Do you breed from all indiscriminately, or are you careful to breed from the best?
...
...how imperative, then, is our need of the highest skill in our rulers, if the principle holds also for mankind.
...
...the best men must cohabit with the best women in as many cases as possible and the worst with the worst in the fewest, and that the offspring of the one must be reared and that of the other must not, if the flock is to be as perfect as possible.

[Book V, English translation by Paul Shorey]

This passage illustrates not only that the concept of eugenics predates Darwin by a long time, but, more importantly, that the ancients were quite familiar with animal husbandry and breeding for specific qualities, which did lead to the idea of eugenics in the absence of a coherent theory of descent with modification as put forth by Darwin. There is no doubt that selective breeding can change the frequencies of certain traits; the desire to apply selective breeding, forcibly if necessary, in order to "improve" a nation, is simply not a component of evolution science. It would be just a foolish to blame the law of gravity for the possibility of a disasterous exchange of nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.

More on the subject can be found in a recent this post by Andrea Bottaro at Panda's Thumb. Bottaro not only refers to pre-Darwinian eugenic thought, but he also points out that a number of Creationists have also found eugenics to be attractive.

9:35 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home