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."
"There is no necessary connotation with biological evolution."
When the word is used in conjuction with policies of eugenics, as the Nazis invariably did, what other possible connotation would you assign to "hoherentwicklung," other than advancing evolution?
So much easier to bash aggressive Christians than terroristic Islamo-fascists.
ADL can stick it where it don't shine.
"pseudoscientific"
It's all too human, to apply a pejorative connotation to things we dislike. Other than having been discredited by societal consequences, what is "pseudo" about the science of eugenics, whether practiced in extremis by Nazis in the past, or with studied subtlety by birth control advocates to this very day (as you yourself noted) in our own country?
Better.
The Freedom fom Religion Foundation??? LOL
Sure enough, http://www.ffrf.org is the Freedom From Religion Foundation. A veritable fount of objectivity and fairness, I'm sure, lol.
I missed that. Thanks for bringing it back and leading me there -- looks like an interesting little organization with a nice purpose. I must remember to send them a big fat tax-deductible contribution this year.
The ffrl had the article available to the public.
The German Studies Association where the article was originally submitted (October 2003) is by paid members-only.
Of course you have something, anything, to refute the article; or do you just point and 'LOL'?
Maybe you can go one better, and set up a foundation for wayward atheists, so they can support themselves while spending their lives searching for the meaning of that life in volumes of Tolkien.
I never said Hitler was right about Christianity, only that he was influenced by those who call themselves Christian Socialists led by Karl Lueger.
They twisted Christianity into something it wasn't, rather like the liberals are trying to do today, and for the same reason: power over Christians.
The point is, Hitler was influenced by a warped view of Christianity and perhaps by a warped view of Darwinism.
But neither Christianity nor evolution caused Hitler. Christianity is not based on hate, and evolution isn't based on genocide.
In all, it's risible to attempt to discredit either by argumentiam ad Hitleriam.
I see. You can't discredit the material, so you try to discredit the source.
Give me a specific citation, please. 'Invariably' won't cut it.
But in any case, I have copies of both German versions of the Hitler monologues, and have examined Carrier's claims personally. He is absolutely correct; the English version contains anti-Christian passages that are in neither of the two German versions and were apparently inserted by a translator. If Tribune7 would like to come out to Central Washington and examine them, in the unlikely event he knows enough German do do so, or to call me a liar to my face, we can arrange that.
Pseudoscience is not a whimsical term. If someone is claiming to be applying a scientific technique and you observe them doing the opposite of what science would do, it's not just an opinion. There are always leading edge controversies, but this is not one of them.
What do you believe that the passage that you have quoted implies?
"Oh, come on, quit embarrassing yourself!"
Now your getting angry, come on let it out, I just dissed your religion that you are force feeding my kids with your phony drawings of embryos, and apes, and fake skulls. Don't you guys get tired of being fools.
Check out the Bet Stein reference, and while you are at it, check out the fossile record for darwinism - oops no evidence, and the fake embryo drawings, or the lack of RNA evidence, or the Cambrian explosion - oops another dead end for darwin and his disciples. Soon your religion will end up like Marx's and Freud's.
Can anyone name an atheist or agnostic from the Civil War era who thought slavery was OK? There were a number of atheist abolitionists, however, like Ingersoll.
Keep on aligning yourself with Paris Hilton and Rosie O'Donut - surely it will pay off for you someday.
Dimensio: Yes. No scientific theory can define morality
Your answer is correct, scientific theories are amoral. However, the question is ambiguous - it can be interpreted as asking if morality evolved.
IMO, the answer to that is an unambiguous yes. Cooperation and respect for others and their property have obvious, very strong survival value for the group. Any genetic trait that makes morality easier will be selected for. One of these traits is the ability to imagine what someone else is thinking or feeling, and to imagine oneself in the pother person's shoes. IOW, empathy.
All societies, from hunter-gatherer bands to modern cities, have strongly disapproved of murder and theft (at least within the group) and rape of another's wife. This is independent of their religious beliefs and the source of their laws.
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.