Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda
Richard Dawkins.net ^ | 4/20/08 | Richard Dawkins

Posted on 04/29/2008 8:38:43 PM PDT by Soliton

On 18th April, the day Ben Stein's infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew (referencing a past article that Shermer had written debunking the Holocaust deniers) whose identity I shall conceal as "David J".

Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!

Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:

Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit.

It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.

Richard

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

Dear Mr J

Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.

1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer. Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States! Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.

2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf. 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. Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.

3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?

4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).

6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.

7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.

With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins


TOPICS: Education; History; Science
KEYWORDS: atheist; darwidiots; dawkins; dummietrolls; evolution; expelled; fileunderstrawman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201 next last
To: The Spirit Of Allegiance

Excuse me but what is a “theofascist”?


41 posted on 04/30/2008 4:17:04 PM PDT by TradicalRC ("...just not yet.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TradicalRC; Jay777

> > > > > what is a “theofascist”?

That’s my newly-coined term for jackbooted atheists intolerant of any viewpoint but their own, particularly on public campuses.


42 posted on 04/30/2008 4:42:06 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance

Then wouldn’t atheofascist make more sense?


43 posted on 04/30/2008 4:55:44 PM PDT by TradicalRC ("...just not yet.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

If I agree that Hitler wasn’t a true Christian because he didn’t follow Christ’s principles, will you agree that he wasn’t a true “Darwinist” either because Darwin never advocated for artificial selection to be applied to humans? And spare us ever hearing that slander again?


44 posted on 04/30/2008 5:38:59 PM PDT by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

——If I agree that Hitler wasn’t a true Christian because he didn’t follow Christ’s principles, will you agree that he wasn’t a true “Darwinist” either because Darwin never advocated for artificial selection to be applied to humans? And spare us ever hearing that slander again?——

You are missing the point. Hitler went against principles laid out by Christ. Darwin never advocated for artificial selection of humans in Origin of Species, and said later in Descent of Man about what was later to be called Eugenics(by Darwins cousin and originator of the term Francis Galton)

“A most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr Greg and Mr Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degreded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves, and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr Duncan, they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr Greg puts the case: ‘The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts-—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sizth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal “struggle for existence”, it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed-—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.’”

“If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in teh history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence. Corporeal structure appears to have little influence, except so far as vigour of body leads to vigour of mind.”

He never advocated for eugenics. Yet this is his attempt at deflecting its use on humans....

“The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind”

He called a spade a spade, by saying the use of Eugenics on humans was evil. Yet in the same paragraph he laments the burden of being good.

Evil men will not care that Eugenics is evil and will seek to find every reason to implement it if so sought after as part of their plans. For the good of mankind you see!


45 posted on 04/30/2008 6:21:57 PM PDT by ResponseAbility
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
And spare us ever hearing that slander again?

Not likely.

They can't make any headway in the scientific debate over the theory of evolution, so they are trying to trash Darwin instead.

They probably figure that uneducated minds are easily swayed by that type of propaganda!

But in trying to equate Hitler and Darwin, they are actually following in the footsteps of Goebbels.

46 posted on 04/30/2008 6:22:09 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us How many more pictures would you like?
47 posted on 04/30/2008 6:35:42 PM PDT by ResponseAbility
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

"If I agree that Hitler wasn’t a true Christian because he didn’t follow Christ’s principles, will you agree that he wasn’t a true “Darwinist” either because Darwin never advocated for artificial selection to be applied to humans? And spare us ever hearing that slander again?"


Hitler was 'helping evolution'(paraphrase).

My understanding of Evolution is that the stronger animals kill the weaker animals.

It is also my understanding that, according to Evolution, humans are just a highly advanced animals.

So how were Hitlers actions out of line with the beliefs of Evolution?

Nothing artificial about it, He was just an animal fulfilling his Evolutionary role.

At least that is what his actions lead me to believe.


Just because Hitler used Darwin's hypothesis of Evolution as a vehicle for his depravity does not excuse Hitler's actions, nor is Darwin excused for popularizing an idea that fuels depravity.


That is probably not the answer you wanted, but it'll have to do.

You may agree with me if you wish, but it is not something I will barter for.
48 posted on 04/30/2008 6:38:52 PM PDT by Fichori (Truth is non-negotiable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; The Spirit Of Allegiance

“It is a science because it follows the scientific method.”

You mean the one where a test is devised and it is carried out under controlled conditions where the results can be observed? Like they do with double-blind studies to test new drugs?

Evolution has always gotten a pass on that version of the scientific method. That’s why it’s not science, it’s only history, maybe at best forensics.


49 posted on 04/30/2008 6:42:54 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Nice pics. Got any more? Got any pics of modern clergymen and the Waco murderers by any chance?


50 posted on 04/30/2008 6:43:45 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (You're gonna cry 96 tears!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
My understanding of Evolution is that the stronger animals kill the weaker animals.

You understand incorrectly.

51 posted on 04/30/2008 6:43:58 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: webstersII
The scientific method used for Evolution would be Naturalistic Science.

Pure dogma.
52 posted on 04/30/2008 6:48:26 PM PDT by Fichori (Truth is non-negotiable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"My understanding of Evolution is that the stronger animals kill the weaker animals."

"You understand incorrectly."


Better tell Hitler.
53 posted on 04/30/2008 6:51:02 PM PDT by Fichori (Truth is non-negotiable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance
ID should be taught in science classes? YES, as hypotheses, not fact, given equal time with evolution or none to either.

Then if you really believe that ID should be taught in science classes as equal to scientific theory and given equal time to the scientific theory of evolution, then I presume you are open minded enough and prepared to demand that all the possible “intelligent designers” should be taught as an equally viable hypothesis including Vishnu and Shiva, Ra and Horus, Pele and Ranginui, Inktomi, Odin, Papatuanuku, Elohim and Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Or are you proposing that only the God of Abraham can be the only possible intelligent designer? And if so are you then prepared to teach that the creation stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have equal footing or just the Christian one?
54 posted on 04/30/2008 6:55:16 PM PDT by Caramelgal (Rely on the spirit and meaning of the teachings, not on the words or superficial interpretations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Caramelgal; The Spirit Of Allegiance
When only one side of an argument is taught, it is dogma.

The Nazis brainwashed their youth leaders with only one side of the story.


Dogma or Brainwashing, take your pick, its not science.


A good way to decide what to teach in balance to Evolution would be to hold debates in front of students between all competing ideas, and let the students decide which was the best competing argument.


But 'educators' know that their beloved Evolution cannot stand up to ID, and so they will do whatever it takes to make sure Evolution has no classroom competition.
55 posted on 04/30/2008 7:10:39 PM PDT by Fichori (Truth is non-negotiable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

“The scientific method used for Evolution would be Naturalistic Science.”

The classical Scientific Method wouldn’t work for Evolution to be true so they had to develop a new one, one that doesn’t require testing in a controlled environment and doesn’t require actual observation.

The worst thing about Evolution is that it has cheapened science in general. It has made it so that Algore and all his minions can ignore the scientific method to push their environmental agenda. It has made it so that all the enviro-wackos can make absurd prognostications and hardly anyone calls them on these non-scientific predictions.


56 posted on 04/30/2008 7:35:52 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

"The classical Scientific Method wouldn’t work for Evolution to be true so they had to develop a new one, one that doesn’t require testing in a controlled environment and doesn’t require actual observation.

The worst thing about Evolution is that it has cheapened science in general. It has made it so that Algore and all his minions can ignore the scientific method to push their environmental agenda. It has made it so that all the enviro-wackos can make absurd prognostications and hardly anyone calls them on these non-scientific predictions."


True, but with the new watered down Naturalistic Science, it is not only easy, but fun, to poke it full of holes with a pointy stick.

I'm assuming you read the link I posted...
57 posted on 04/30/2008 7:49:34 PM PDT by Fichori (Truth is non-negotiable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Fichori

“True, but with the new watered down Naturalistic Science, it is not only easy, but fun, to poke it full of holes with a pointy stick.”

Yes, but it’s amazing that the people on FR who deride ID for not being “scientific” are the same ones who accept the Naturalistic Science model as equivalent to the classical Scientific Method.

They admit that Evolution is not observable (because it takes so long) but still insist that it is based on the Scientific Method. They themselves are religionists but won’t admit it.


58 posted on 04/30/2008 7:59:52 PM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: webstersII

Pretty much...

In the end, when you get down to the bottom of it all, its just a theological debate.

Just by another name, though not rightly so.


59 posted on 04/30/2008 8:06:16 PM PDT by Fichori (Truth is non-negotiable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Fichori
Nothing artificial about it, He was just an animal fulfilling his Evolutionary role.

He lost the war, and died in the process. Darwin's prediction seems to have been correct.

60 posted on 04/30/2008 8:14:00 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson