Just saw Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled" about the issues of Darwinism......

reply to post by melatonin


Maybe, you'll take University of Minnesota's word for it???
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies!

Ethnic state and racial hygiene in "Mein Kampf"

In "Mein Kampf", written in the fortress Landsberg in 1923, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) already expressed the fundamentals of the Nazi policy of racism, which was put into action after 1933. It contained both the eugenic goal according to which only human beings with "hereditary valuable traits" should propagate, and, with reference to the concepts of racial hygiene, the rejection of racial crossbreeding. Consequently, for the Nazi regime this meant the exclusion, or even the extermination of human beings of "non-Aryan" or "related" blood and, on the other hand, the prevention from procreation among members of one's own "race" considered as "inferior", the conscious discrimination vis-à-vis the citizens "of superior value", and finally the killing as "ballast" of no use for the "national unity". In any case, the welfare of the individual was subject to the interests of the "praised race", the "master race that needed breed improvement".

In his arguments Hitler made use of tendencies observed in eugenics and racial hygiene that, at the turn of the century, developed in different concepts in Germany and. in other countries and strove for a new demography. Their view was characterized by a "social biology" and inter-human relationships, that - in the case of Social Darwinists - even showed as a social model of the "Struggle for Survival" (Charles Darwin) observed in the animal kingdom.

Are you calling them a 'fundie' 'liar for jebus', too?

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt( A HIGHLY respected political Historian), 1951 she wrote;

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by melatonin

 

Maybe, you'll take University of Minnesota's word for it???

Whatchoo on about?

I said nothing about Mein Kampf not being a racist screed with eugenic underpinnings.

I asked you to support your claim about Hitler being a explicit Lamarckian, and your claim about Darwin and biological evolution in mein kampf.

You reply with a goal-post shifting non-sequitor.

Are you calling them a 'fundie' 'liar for jebus', too?

Nope. The quote just states what is generally known.

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt( A HIGHLY respected political Historian), 1951 she wrote;

Yeah, eugenics. Awful, eh? Hitler was big on racial superiority of the Aryans, he apparently took many of his ideas from de Gobineau, who was writing before Darwin. He was a french dude who said the Aryan's were Adam's stock.

You might as well whine about the understanding of gravity allowing people to fly planes into buildings, trying to blame the holocaust on Darwin is no different. Evolutionary theory is an explanation of the origin of species, says now't about killing jews and blood purity. Eugenics is actually a form of 'intelligent design'.

But Hitler did like to use the bible and Luther to justify his anti-semitism.

"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"

Again, just in case you missed it...

"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"

So, anyway, when you're ready we can get back to the relevant points - just support the claims you made earlier. Apparently Mein Kampf is full of darwin and evolution, and hitler was big fan of Lamarck.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Clearskies

Maybe, you'll take University of Minnesota's word for it???

yes ill take thier word for what theya re saying which really ISNT what your claiming

Their view was characterized by a "social biology" and inter-human relationships, that - in the case of Social Darwinists - even showed as a social model of the "Struggle for Survival" (Charles Darwin) observed in the animal kingdom.

lets look up social darwinism

While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin's cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century

social darwinism is a collective term for any ideology that suggest unnatural selection for the good of the race or country and predate Orginins by several thousand years

becasue it uses the same word doesnt mean its the same thing

Darwins theory of evolution and social Darwinsim are as fundamentally different as a Red Sox foam hand and a hand grenade ... same word very very different things waving one at a sports game is fine waving the otheraround may not be as popular

so while still being a creationist (how biological things dont spread into the many forms we see and majiked up all special)

he was a social darwinist (has even less to do with evolutionary biology and changes within species the creationism)

Are you calling them a 'fundie' 'liar for jebus', too?

no were saying you dont know the differance between social darwinism, the theory of Evolution and lamarkism

and your knoweledge of history is ...sketchy

he who fail to learn history is doomed to repeat it, he who fails to learn history accuratley is simply doomed

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, by Hannah Arendt( A HIGHLY respected political Historian), 1951 she wrote;

no offense intended here but you havnt read this book have you

and juging from the above examples of failing to understand lamarkism evolution and social darwinism and the massive differances between all 3

youve simply copy and pasted this from some website without even trying to check its accuracy have you?

the word says darwinist, evolutionary biology? social evolution?

they are so vastly different that without clarrifying either one but presenting it as evidence agaisnt one over the other is intellectual dishonesty, even judging from the subject matter its not a hard guess to go with social darwinists but to insist wouldnt be the correct or honest thing to do and well were discussing Evolutionary thoery not social darwinism which started before Darwin and the name got added later

so Hitler was still a catholic, a creationist, an artist, a sociopathic douche which he tied in with his faith, and a social darwinist which he tied in with his creationism, he had brown hair, a moustache and loved to dance the hustle ........ but none of that has anything to do with Darwins thoery of Origin by means of natural selection none of this shows how anything Ben Stein says i supposedly right ...

infact all the evdience presented so far is pointing the other way, Hitler and the holocaust were unrelated to ToE and Ben Stein should stop making mocumentaries and pretending they are documentaries to try and make some fast csh and get his stupid face all public and on tv some more



[edit on 15/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 15/2/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by DickieDee


what does it take to be a real scientist?! Is having a southpark character as your avatar a requisite?

I really hope you're not serious.

Originally posted by melatonin


Hmm, yeah, lol.

Gonzalez: tenure-track assistant professor. Fails to attract research funds, PhD students, or consolidate independent research. Few papers unrelated to previous PI (i.e., no independence). And you would give him tenure? A job for life as a researcher? lol. 4/12 failed to get tenure in a few years before him in the department.

Sternberg: non-paid research assistant. Subverts scientific process to get a ID screed into press just before leaving editors post. Still has job, but some people called him a doodie-head. He actually is a doodie-head. Still is a non-paid research assistant.

Caroline Crocker: part-time contract lecturer in cell biology. Teaches creationist idiocy in her university lectures. Fails to have contract renewed. No surprises, it was cell biology not theology, academic freedom doesn't stretch so far. Students are essentially paying customers, and universities have to give them the education they pay for. Probably a doodie-head, but don't have much personal experience with her idiocy.

Egnor: motivation for the new term 'Egnorance'. People said nasty things about him on the internet. Aww diddums. Another doodie-head, could even be classed as a douche-nozzle. Still employed at SUNY.

Robert Marks: employed at the religious university Baylor as an engineer. Got involved in the ongoing Dembski issues at Baylor by offering him a post-doc, although he was still employed as a professor at some backwater baptist university (a wyrd post-doc, lol). Posted a website that gave the impression that their 'evolutionary informatics lab' was part of Baylor. It wasn't. Made to change wording on website before allowing it back on servers. Although not mentioned, people also call him a doodie-head. Believes he is a finch, likes to eat sticks whilst giving a smouldering hunter-man gaze. Still employed at Baylor.

Of course, there was a strong possibility they were expelled just because they were IDers, lol. But some weren't 'expelled', just called doodie-heads. Others were both doodie-heads and incompetent, so had to get jobs elsewhere. There is no positive discrimination for incompetents, sorry. That's life.

Or it's just wrong.

Discrediting Ben Stein;

Dr. Sternberg's case:

Dr. Roy McDiarmid, the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian, admitted that there was no wrongdoing regarding the peer-review process of Meyer’s paper:

"I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process." (See Report, e-mail from Roy McDiarmid, “Re: Request for information,” January 28, 2005, 2:25 PM to Hans Sues, emphasis added.)

AND from the Congressional investigation Staff Report. . .

“Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights.” As NMNH officials wrote in e-mails:
“I suppose we could call [Sternberg] on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?” (Dr. Jonathan Coddington)

“a face to face meeting or at least a ‘you are welcome to leave or resign’ call with this individual, is in order.” (Dr. Rafael Lemaitre)

“if [Sternberg] had any class he would either entirely desist or resign his appointment.” (Dr. Jonathan Coddington)

“In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.” As NMNH officials wrote in e-mails:
“Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and a simple Google search would have exposed these connections.” (Dr. Hans Sues)

“In a memo prepared on February 8, 2005, NMNH scientist Marilyn Schotte admitted that after publication of the Meyer paper, Dr. Coddington wanted to know ‘if Dr. Sternberg was religious.’ Dr. Schotte further admitted telling Coddington that Sternberg ‘was a Republican.’ Schotte even conceded that Coddington may have asked her whether Sternberg ‘was a fundamentalist’ and whether ‘he was a conservative.’” (Description of a memo in discussed in the Report)

“NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him.” As one NMNH official wrote in an e-mail:
“From now on, I will keep an eye on Dr. (von) Sternberg, and I’d greatly appreciate it if you or other NCSE specialists could let me [know] about further activities by this gentleman in areas outside [sic] crustacean systematics.” (Dr. Hans Sues)

(For more details, see National Center for Science Education Asked to Spy for the Government According to Congressional Report.) [TBC: In an effort to discredit Ben Stein’s recent documentary exposing evolution, Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptic Society and editor of Skeptic magazine, has denied the film's claims that scientists Richard Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez were persecuted for their support of intelligent design. The following rebuttal exposes Shermer’s error.]

Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists [Excerpts]

Michael Shermer’s review of Expelled applies one-sided skepticism to anything that challenges Darwinism, withholding skepticism of claims made by pro-evolution sources. When claiming that Richard Sternberg faced no discrimination after sympathizing with Darwin-skeptics, but simply invented a “conspiracy," Shermer failed to scrutinize the blatantly false and contradictory claims by Darwinists trying to cover up what really happened. In that case, Eugenie Scott made private concessions that Sternberg did not do anything mortally wrong in his handling of the publication of Stephen C. Meyer’s paper on intelligent design (ID), and spoke as if Sternberg had been ousted. As I observed, Shermer’s methodology when dealing with the persecution of pro-ID scientists is as follows:

# (1) Ignore all the facts showing there was persecution;
# (2) E-mail the persecutor and ask them if there was any anti-ID discrimination;
# (3) Withhold all skepticism from the statements of the persecutors, and then trumpet their response as evidence that there is no persecution against ID proponents, blaming the victim for losing their job and then claiming those who feel there is persecution are just promoting a “conspiracy.”

Shermer Blames-the-Victim Case #2: Guillermo Gonzalez

Shermer blames pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez for being denied tenure at Iowa State University (ISU). Who is the expert that Shermer consults on Gonzalez's case? None other than Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Scott had many complaints against Gonzalez's academic record.

First, Scott claimed that while at ISU, Gonzalez’s “publication record tanked” while at ISU. But as I explained here, according to the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, Gonzalez has published 34 publications since 2001 (the year he joined ISU) and his normalized publication score is 2nd among all astronomers in his department. As Rob Crowther observed:

[H]e peaks in 2003 but ends in 2006 just as high as he was when he started at ISU. Moreover, he outperformed all ISU astronomy faculty in normalized publications during that period. The one year that is obviously less happens to be the same year that he co-authored an astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press.

Not only that, but as explained here, Gonzalez led astronomers in his department in a normalized count of citations to his work in other scientific papers: Gonzalez joined ISU in 2001, and for his publications since 2001 he has the highest normalized citation count of all astronomers in his department, including both tenured and untenured faculty! Moreover, despite the fact that he is much younger than many of the tenured faculty members in the department, he has the second highest lifetime normalized citation count among all astronomers in his department.

Given that Gonzalez apparently led all tenured ISU astronomers who voted against his tenure in both normalized publications and normalized citations since 2001, it's hard to see what grounds they have for complaining about his publication record. If Gonzalez's publication record went down at all during his probationary period at ISU, it still remained at an extremely impressive level that warranted tenure. If anything, this indicates that scientists should not be penalized for extraordinarily high academic achievements early in their careers if, like Gonzalez, they continue to produce outstanding publication rates during their tenure probationary period.

Next Shermer quotes Eugenie Scott claiming that Gonzalez “didn't have very many graduate students, and those he had never completed their degrees.” First, this is a blatant falsehood, first promulgated by anti-ID groups in Iowa. As I explained to Iowa Citizens for Science when they made the same claim: “Again, that statement is completely false. The truth is that in 2001, soon before Gonzalez left the University of Washington (UW) [to] join the faculty at ISU, he served as the primary advisor to a UW doctoral student in astronomy, Chris Laws. Gonzalez served as Laws’ primary scientific advisor over the course of Laws’ entire doctoral thesis, and Laws successfully graduated from UW with a Ph.D. in astronomy in December, 2004.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by Clearskies]

Continued from above;

You may want to also correct this false information as well and issue a retraction immediately.”

(Author's quote) "Dr. Gonzalez has over 350% more peer-reviewed science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for indicating the type of reputation that demonstrates research excellence."

The above data comes from citations in:
"Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists"
By: Casey Luskin
Evolution News & Views
April 18, 2008

Originally posted by Clearskies
Or it's just wrong.

What's wrong? Are we still shuffling the goalposts? We appear to have moved to a different field now. When you're ready with the Mein Kampf stuff go for it, I'm waiting eagerly. You must have had some reason to post such claims, unless you extracted them from ya anus.

Discrediting Ben Stein;

Dr. Sternberg's case:

Dr. Roy McDiarmid, the President of the BSW and a scientist at the Smithsonian, admitted that there was no wrongdoing regarding the peer-review process of Meyer’s paper:

"I have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis [sic] the review process." (See Report, e-mail from Roy McDiarmid, “Re: Request for information,” January 28, 2005, 2:25 PM to Hans Sues, emphasis added.)

Dr Sternberg handled what he knew would be a contentious article in an inappropriate fashion. Firstly, it was from a friend of his (he and Meyer discussed publishing the article at an ID conference), in such situations he is not the best person to oversee a review. Indeed, he never even mentioned it to any of the associate editors. Secondly, the reason it is not the best approach is because it is very likely he also sent to be reviewed by people he knew would be sympathetic to such ideas, like he. And lo and behold, 3 reviews come back all positive. Next, the article wasn't even within the area that the journal publishes. It would be like publishing a paper on social psychology in one on educational psychology. The article was not even formatted in the society's format, might seem a minor quibble, but shows it was shoddily edited - and helped keep the article below the radar. Finally, although he claims he was the most qualified editor to oversee the review, he clearly wasn't. And he does all this as he was speeding towards the exit.

He should have sent it on to an associate editor. Indeed, that would be the norm in such circumstances (a very contentious manuscript, in an area where he has clear sympathies, outside the realm of the journal, and from one of his buddies). It did get reviewed, he sent it to some people with PhDs, and they reviewed it. But the review process was not normal. Indeed, it wasn't the first time he oversaw a shoddy review of a substandard manuscript. Peer review isn't meant to be a process of sending an article to your sympathetic friends, it is a quality control process. And the statement from the society outlines that they believe the process was inappropriately handled.

"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer in the Proceedings ("The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239) represents a significant departure from the nearly purely taxonomic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 124-year history. It was published without the prior knowledge of the Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, or the associate editors. We have met and determined that all of us would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings.

www.aaas.org...

Lets have the full quote, because the one you have left an important part out:

have seen the review file and comments from 3 reviewers on the Meyer paper. All three with some differences among the comments recommended or suggested,publication. I was surprised but concluded that there was not inappropriate behavior vs a vis the review process. Whether one would consider the reviews appropriate is another issue and I would be pleased to share my views on that with you if you so desire.

I know how I read that.

I don't care about the congressional review. It was a hack job by two republican creationist dolts.

Next Shermer quotes Eugenie Scott claiming that Gonzalez “didn't have very many graduate students, and those he had never completed their degrees.” First, this is a blatant falsehood, first promulgated by anti-ID groups in Iowa. As I explained to Iowa Citizens for Science when they made the same claim: “Again, that statement is completely false. The truth is that in 2001, soon before Gonzalez left the University of Washington (UW) [to] join the faculty at ISU, he served as the primary advisor to a UW doctoral student in astronomy, Chris Laws. Gonzalez served as Laws’ primary scientific advisor over the course of Laws’ entire doctoral thesis, and Laws successfully graduated from UW with a Ph.D. in astronomy in December, 2004.

Yes, I mentioned that he had one PhD student complete, he was from his previous institution - he had none at Iowa. That's poor. He also attracted funding of an overwhelming $22,000, whilst the average in the department was $1,300,000. And he published little independent research whilst there. He would have been a waste of space in such a good department.

They had every right to refuse him a job for life in a respectable research department. Nothing to do with his creationist fantasies. There's a few people with sympathies for the anthropic principle in cosmology, however, they are also productive scientists. Which Gonzalez wasn't.

(Author's quote) "Dr. Gonzalez has over 350% more peer-reviewed science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for indicating the type of reputation that demonstrates research excellence."

And they were all associated with his former PIs. I know you don't have even the slightest clue about the mechanisms of science, but the department was looking for the ability for independent research. Hiding behind your old PI's skirts don't count.

Under normal circumstances, Mr. Gonzalez's publication record would be stellar and would warrant his earning tenure at most universities, according to Mr. Hirsch. But Mr. Gonzalez completed the best scholarship, as judged by his peers, while doing postdoctoral work at the University of Texas at Austin and at the University of Washington, where he received his Ph.D. His record has trailed off since then.

"It looks like it slowed down considerably," said Mr. Hirsch, stressing that he has not studied Mr. Gonzalez's work in detail and is not an expert on his tenure case. "It's not clear that he started new things, or anything on his own, in the period he was an assistant professor at Iowa State."

That pattern may have hurt his case. "Tenure review only deals with his work since he came to Iowa State," said John McCarroll, a spokesman for the university.

scienceblogs.com...

So, there you go. He did nothing of note at Iowa, and didn't deserve tenure. Almost as pathetic a martyr as Sternberg.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I used to work in research labs and plenty of them just want some grant money. Some, if they have any capacity for individual thought, spend all their time trying to prove to themselves what they claim they believe. Not unlike the religious person constantly looking for reassurance of their own faith.

If neither side is willing to concern themselves with the origin of all existence then that makes their pretend concern with creation vs. evolution that much more pointless doesn't it? Given a definite answer to the question still would not resolve and questions about before creation or evolution came into play. It's like watching mold grow and rather than wondering where the mold came from you're stopping yourself at how more mold was able to grow from the already existing mold.

If this is as deep as this whole argument goes then it really is a pointless shouting match for no reason between two people who have neither anything to gain or lose regardless of the outcome.

What is to gain besides petty bragging rights should there be a definite answer?

I hear that brother. Unfortunately everyone in this world only looks to confirm their views and validate themselves. With the advent of capitalism the whole issue of advancing mankind for the purpose of simply doing good has become almost obsolete. Its just like politics. Once money is thrown into the mix, everything can be swayed in one's favour.

So it is the claim of the religious that their god didn't exist before the big bang?

I always wondered why some people use that old argument. If life wasnt created by God, what was there before life? You can reverse it the other way too. Who cares? I dont care what happened 10 minutes ago, let alone all that hooey before.

Both accepting some big bang from nowhere and a big magic man just "creating" the Earth are simplistic and have dead ends. Neither is complete and both as equally ridiculous.

Yup, I just know it'll turn out EVERYONES wrong in the end.

Originally posted by dominicus
Again, I see intelligent design everywhere I look; at you, at myself, at these discussions, evolution itself is a design that has intelligent properties, as does nature, the universe, atoms, cells, and everything that exists. I mean it's rather obvious to some one with half a brain cell and some observational skills. The odds of all this happening randomly and evolving are preposterous.

Whoa, dont go calling anyone who doesnt believe in Creationism stupid! Oh wait you did. Now that's preposterous! Just saying, just because they disagree and have a good chance of being wrong doesnt mean they're stupid. And randomly? Have you ever heard the quip 'everything that can possibly happen will eventually happen!' ? All it takes is time.

I've known for 8-10 years that there's EGO blockade in academics. These Dawkinses and all his other minions, because they have doctorates...have this Super Inflated EGO club that stands in the way of anybody else who questions the norm. And if your a self professed inventor or biologist....HA !!!! Good luck trying to find ears that will listen.

I mean I understand that we have to hold the highest prestige and credentials in science, but when it's gotten to peoples heads and formed a biased against other ideas....thats just wrong and if this bias and ego club didn't exist....I garuntee we'd progress by leaps and bounds.

It's ironic you dont realise the exact same can be said about religious dogma! In every church circle I have ever been in, anything that did not have religious validation got discarded immediately. If this bias and ego club didnt exist... well imagine how far science would come! Im deeply religious but I still cant imagine how much more advanced we'd be without religion calling science devilry. If not for curious people outside the religious norm, nothing would progress! It would be all "Who cares? God did it." The difference between religious people like me and you is that I have the common sense to know that Creationism is not science, just like ASTROLOGY is not science!! And I can see that Ben Stein is a bigoted biased putz.

Originally posted by Lasheic
Consider the progress we've made in the last 200 years of naturalistic science, especially the last 50 years, compared to sciences which make allowances for spiritual, supernatural, or godly interventions.

Consider what the 'naturalistic sciences' were built on before dismissing the foundation. Consider the possibility that there never was an either or and that we needed the former logical confused start to get where we are today?

Consider the rate of technological advancement in both the Hellenistic and Enlightenment eras compared to.. say.. the Dark Ages.

Right and what happened during the dark ages that made them so dark? Would the scientific process in use ( if any) have mattered much at a time when such social upheavals and climatic conditions where reigning in Europe? Do you think a scientific process is constructed outside of the events of the day and the environment?

Consider that the scientific method itself was designed and shaped primarily by the principals of two very religious men who had ardent beliefs in god. Ibn Al-Haytham, a devout muslim - and Galileo Galilei, a devout Catholic. Yet they did not allow their faith to circumvent their reason.

As i believe that faith is merely a tool for most ( admittedly a tool that frequently ends wielding the owner) i don't think there is much of a chance that religion seriously gets in the way of enquiring intelligent. In fact i would argue that for most of human history it wasn't religions that got in the way but the power brokers of the day that didn't see advantages in it for themselves.

If anything, mixing religion and science has only ever served to retard the acquisition of knowledge and the advancement of technology.

I disagree but will admit that religion is first to be blamed by naive scientist who think that 'the truth' is the preeminent motive of the powers of any given time.

Be it by substituting untestable and unprovable "magic" to fill in gaps, or at worst by proactively going out and burning acquired knowledge.

Well the god of the gaps is alive and well today in all our sciences. They do not call it god but presumptions and assumptions are made whenever they serve the interest of the patron or those who needs their paychecks signed. As for burning scientist we should be so lucky to hold their feet to the flames for every mistake and misrepresentation vested interested in any given field defended long past a time where the writing could be seen on the wall; there are as many heretics deserving of getting burned in the sciences as there are in most religions with those holding the power at any given time largely deciding on who to burn to maintain their status.

Complain all you like about academic institutions firing religious employees (a fallacious charge, anyhow) - at least we're not forcing them to drink hemlock or scraping off their skin with oyster shells and burning them alive.

I don't really care if they do fire such people as it's pretty obvious that you don't get fired for being religious but fired for your views; whether they are in line with currently 'acceptable norms' or not.

The scientific method isn't perfect... but thus far, it has proven to be the best system for acquiring knowledge.

Which is the type of arrogance that probably allows for dark ages where where those in power don't think progress would be in their favor and have the power to retard it.

----------------

As for the rest of your post i could disagree with your emphasis but not with conclusion that the MSM and scientific institutions themselves perpetuates mythologies that are often horrid misrepresentations, and not surprisingly so, given the attempted defense of capitol hoarding capitalist and general energy independence destroying stratagems.

Happy to realise that at least a few more people understand that survival of the fittest is bunk and that it's more accurate to call it a cosmic lottery.

Stellar

reply to post by melatonin



I was wrong in using the german term for evolution as a pointer to Hitler's belief in Lamarkian or Darwinian evolution.
I don't speak German.... anyway,

At least in Mein Kampf, I didn't read any Atlantian mythology on the Aryan origins.
What Hitler DID allude to, was Lamarkian evolution.
Struggle, leading to advancement in racial evolution.
Also, it gives context to what Hitler was REALLY saying about the species transition when he said that "a fox is still a fox, a goose, a goose", actually he was referring to animal behavior.
Mein Kampf

The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance,etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice.

Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development.

Evolutionnews

What Expelled has to say about the Darwin-Hitler connection is more along the lines of something a far more distinguished writer had to say in the very same newspaper just a month ago.

John Gray, political philosopher at the London School of Economics, wrote an essay in the Guardian. In passing, he noted how,

Always a tremendous booster of science, Hitler was much impressed by vulgarized Darwinism and by theories of eugenics that had developed from Enlightenment philosophies of materialism.
Which is entirely correct.
The key chapter in Mein Kampf is Chapter XI, “Nation and Race,” where Hitler discusses the imperative to defend the Aryan race from the Jewish menace.

His argument is couched from the start in transparently Darwinian terms. He writes:

In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right of opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a mean for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of higher development.
He praises “the iron logic of Nature” with its “right to victory of the best and stronger in this world.”
But what if the strong (Aryans) choose not to dominate and exterminate the weak (Jews)? This would be against Nature, whose “whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow.” And so on and on.

Here's the actual transcript of the
congressional hearing;
Intoleran ce and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian

Also, Dr. Sternberg's testimony on his position at Smithsonian;(Better than Sherwin(what'shisname)
www.rsternberg.net... and his passing of Meyer's work.......
Who are you going to believe?

More later, hopefully.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by melatonin

 

I was wrong in using the german term for evolution as a pointer to Hitler's belief in Lamarkian or Darwinian evolution.
I don't speak German.... anyway,

Jawohl. Ich spreche little deutsche, heh.

Was honorable of you to admit you were wrong, though. Doesn't it bother you that yet again in the space of a few days a creationist source has spun you a wicked deceitful web? The whole creationist enterprise is replete with such deception and poor scholarship.

Readily packaged for people like you to digest and excrete for others to harvest lulz from.

What Hitler DID allude to, was Lamarkian evolution.
Struggle, leading to advancement in racial evolution.
Also, it gives context to what Hitler was REALLY saying about the species transition when he said that "a fox is still a fox, a goose, a goose", actually he was referring to animal behavior.
Mein Kampf

Oh noes, not Weikart, lol. The book is full of religious language. You can try to interpret the book in a particular way, but it is nowhere openly based on Darwin and evolutionary biology. It depends on apologists like Weikart and others to paint it so.

It is very explicitly based on religious sentiment. However, I'm honest enough not to blame christianity for his bloodthirsty deeds. Although, I'm sure the undercurrent of anti-semitism throughout history didn't help. Why that day for Kristalnacht? Did Darwin mention it? Why Jews? Did Darwin mention them as a lower race? Why Aryan? Did darwin call them the chosen people? Why label Jews with a symbol? Did darwin suggest so?

But, still, Hitler just used christianity as another tool in his murderous campaign. A jew probably pissed him off in his psychopathic youth.

His argument is couched from the start in transparently Darwinian terms. He writes:

In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right of opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a mean for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of higher development.
He praises “the iron logic of Nature” with its “right to victory of the best and stronger in this world.”
But what if the strong (Aryans) choose not to dominate and exterminate the weak (Jews)? This would be against Nature, whose “whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow.” And so on and on.

And yet nowhere does he actually talk of Darwin in Mein Kampf. But he has a lot to say about god and the creator. Look, nowhere in Darwin's work does it suggest wiping out Jews or other human races. The ideas behind eugenics have been around for thousands of years - it's just selective breeding. Intelligent design. That's not natural selection. It is absolutely not darwin's fault that others misused his ideas to justify eugenics. Take it out on Mendel who spent much of time using selective breeding to uncover the 'laws of heredity'.

Listen, even if Hitler had posters of Darwin on his wall and actually called his allie 'Charlie' rather than 'Blondie', and based his whole Nazi ideology on Darwin, it still says absolutely nothing about whether it be true or not. It is an explanation of nature, and the evidence strongly supports it.

The truth isn't determined by your wishful-thinking. We don't tell people with terminal cancer they just have a cold because it's a nicer 'truth' for them.

You're an adult, I assume. No need for a blankie.

Who are you going to believe?

More later, hopefully.

lol, not Sternberg, and certainly not anti-science republicans Souder et al.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

This is the best thing for this thread at the moment;


LULZ are good, sometimes.

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by melatonin

 

This is the best thing for this thread at the moment;

LULZ are good, sometimes.

lol, I like.

I don't see why you want to argue for this anyway, CS. If you want to attempt to pin blame on Darwin, I can even more readily pin blame on christianity. It really does mean nothing about its scientific status. People have used Einstein's work to create the most destructive weapon known to humankind. Again, says nothing about the truth status of the science.

Cancer's horrible, it kills millions every year. Would be better if it didn't exist. Took my mum. But I accept it exists and hope that science and, yes, even evilutionary biology can help to eradicate it. Sometimes the truth hurts, but denying and resisting it doesn't make it go away.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by Astyanax


Briliant. Thanks for the links. I learned a lot

reply to post by melatonin


I'm sorry for your loss!
My biological dad died of it.
I also take hope, currently in the case of the child in England who was cured by his grandparents using alternative treatments! We surely need some good medicine with the NWO chemtrails spreading pollution. I know you probably don't believe it, but despite stringent air quality controls, you can go on any mountain or hill and see the particulates!
DISGUSTING.
My username is pro-clean air!

Originally posted by Clearskies
but despite stringent air quality controls, you can go on any mountain or hill and see the particulates!
DISGUSTING.
My username is pro-clean air!

Cheers. I actually felt relieved when she passed. Dreadful to experience. Sorry to hear about your dad.

Anyway, you're dragging me even more off topic you minx. I actually moved away from a surburban/city area, and I readily noticed the difference in air quality. My son also has asthma no longer.

reply to post by melatonin


Edited by me for being off-topic.
Thanks.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by Clearskies]