Posted on 08/22/2006 2:04:20 PM PDT by js1138
ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler
New York, NY, August 22, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, "Darwin's Deadly Legacy."
After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy's project, Dr. Collins said he is "absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and inflammatory," he told ADL.
ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement:"This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.
"It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of 'Christian Supremacists' who seek to "reclaim America for Christ" and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law."
The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book "Evolution's Fatal Fruit: How Darwin's Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions."
A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program "features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin's theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler's ovens."
First of all, if evolution is true, then war is perfectly natural. What else could it be.
Second, how would you know, unless you're the master race; and how would you determine the master race, if not by physical components...since, of course, all that exists, are just physical processes.
Not that I'm making any causal connection, mind you, between Hitler and Darwin, but it's easy to see how one could get an immediate sense of compatibility betweeen the two, especially since both essentially posit a heirarchy to the human species.
Do you have any evidence to back up this particular slander? As a Calvinist Christian, Kennedy teaches salvation by faith alone through grace alone, and not by works. Reformation theology rejects the idea that the officers of the visible church provide the keys of salvation through sacraments, indulgences, etc.
If this has not been corrected by now, let me straighten it out.
Both gravity and evolution are facts and theories.
Things fall down go boom and each generation changes from the one before it (facts).
Explanations for these phenomena are theories.
Here are some definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread) which may help you to understand science a little better:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.
Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.
Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.
Based on these, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
[Last revised 8/21/06]
And, as Heinlein noted:
Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.
A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].
My 5th g-grandfather (maternal) was the last Quaker in my line. He was a pacifist who helped both sides during the revolution. But four of this sons joined the revolution. My ancestor fought in the battle of Kings Mountain, NC, and other battles.
My father's ancestors include Mennonites from the Lancaster, PA area, one who was one of the earliest ministers of the Groffdale Mennonite Church in Groffdale, PA (he became minister about 1735). Other paternal ancestors were Jewish. They converted to Christianity after arriving in America in the late 1700's. Other paternal ancestors arrived in Jamestown in the early 1600's, and in New Kent County, VA about 1635.
Please, show me. When have I ever mocked Christians? I think you're making this up. Please try to be serious.
Surprisingly, no Christian mocks Jews.
Really? Not one? Nowhere?
However, all Christians abhor false Jews: those who claim to be Jews, but who are not.
False Jews? What on earth are you talking about?
I've got six in the Rev., but only one anybody would likely have heard anything about, his name was Landon Carter. I've also got a lot of surnames in my lines that I suspect were once Jewish, but records don't go back much before 1500 for them; they came over to Pennsylvania from Pfalz Am Rhein, German speaking but the region is now in France. Surnames Schauss, Frey, Zimmerman, Meier and others. I suspect they may have fled Spain due to the Inquisition, if in fact they actually were Jewish. They were Moravian, a Protestant sect.
I think he means that it is not Christian to mock Jews. Not that there haven't been plenty of people in history who called themselves that, that did so.
Or was.
"Before I enter upon my public appearance in business, it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenc'd the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.
Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
-- Ch. VI, Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
These are among the highest of our human ideals and laudable in every regard. These are the values by which most of us live, and most of endeavour to inculcate in our children.
They are central values of my own faith as a Christian. But these values are not, however, uniquely Christian.
I live in good accord with friends, colleagues, and neighbours who both profess and practise identical values--and who are Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics or atheists. We may all find different foundations for these values in our personal creeds (or lack thereof), but the values we practise are common to us all.
Or is it your contention--as your post implies--that non-Christians believe and advocate murder, theft, and hatred?
I do not think this is your intent, but such a statement sounds very close indeed to "No non-Christians allowed."
Is being Christian, in your view, a necessary condition of being a good American?
No, I didn't think it was. But you expose yourself to that kind of misinterpretation
And Klaatu was an alien and his servant Gort was a robot.
You really are the paranoid sort, aren't you?
He certainly wasn't an objective scientist in the tradition of Newton, Pasteur, Einstein, etal.
His methodology was totally based on conjecture of what might have occurred that he did not observe to explain what he did observe.
In contrast, Pasteur knew precisely what did occur to explain what he observed.
Kennedy is a crafty self-promoter...
This thread is about a misguided attempt to blame Nazism on science, using fraudulent documents.
Free Republic should be somewhat sensitive to to use of fraudulent documents.
Thanks for the generous offer, but no. Though I despise sdvocates of slavery, I'd prefer they emigrate. I do believe there are places in the Islamic world where you can still enslave your fellow human beings.
You seem to be under the impression that because you embrace universally abhorred practices as a result of your religion, said policies are somehow rendered immune from criticism. I'm afraid not.
By the way, I have never heard anyone claim the Bible is an antisemitic document, and would consider such a claim idiotic.
No, but the apatosaurus did.
More to ittnan that.
Christian Creationists invited the Muslim creationist Mustapha Akyol to help support them in Kansas
Pot and Kettle come to mind.
This thread is about a misguided attempt to blame Nazism on science, using fraudulent documents.
Free Republic should be somewhat sensitive to to use of fraudulent documents.
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.