ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler

The Anti-Defamation League ^ | August 22, 2006 | The Anti-Defamation League

[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."

[razzle]

Well, I'll have to investigate this "quote", but I am reading a book by Dr. Wells (I believe, I'm at work now) called the politically incorrect guide to darwin and ID, who is the head or a leading scientist at Discovery Institute (you know there has to be a protected self financed Institute like Discovery to discuss ID since any researcher would be fired in another mainstream Institute or University by you fascists of the Left). Dr Wells does NOT share this view. Neither do I.

I don't know how one can "believe" in common descent and then question natural selection - how else would it occur (and baseing this belief on pseudogenes - weird).

I would like to add one more thing. If you think you darwinists are fooling anyone with your coordinated missionary zeal to try and counter any and all arguments to your faith, I am noticing a strange pattern to your coordinated activities. Why are you invading Free Republic with this stuff.

[js1138]

Speaking of missionary zeal, "Dr" Wells is a Moonie who got his PhD on orders from a guy claiming to be Jesus, for the purpose of discrediting science. Nice company you keep.

[js1138]

Here's the inspiration for your Wells book.

[WildHorseCrash]

Why are you [Darwinists] invading Free Republic with this stuff.

My guess is to show that just because a person is "conservative" doesn't necessarily mean he is ignorant, stupid, insane, wicked or brainwashed.

[ml1954]

All Those Skulls Are Frauds Placemarker

[razzle]

It doesn't matter who writes any book, btw, Dr. Wells has a PhD in biology from UC Berkley and a PhD in theology from Yale University. It's the facts that are lacking with darwinism (Wells doesn't mention the Bible or any religious source either). I've read many other books on darwinism that try so hard to show we humans were a mistake and evolved from a snail or something. All books say the same thing to me. I am not convinced by your evidence, and neither are Many others. (I shouldn't have mentioned Wells name since I just knew you rats would try to attack him personally - you darwinists really are low)

[js1138]

(I shouldn't have mentioned Wells name since I just knew you rats would try to attack him personally - you darwinists really are low)

As low as blaming Darwin for Hitler? I don't think so.

But motives do count when what you write is full of nonsense.

[ChessExpert]

I saw this show and thought it was very good. Did anyone else see it? I liked the following quote attributed to Charles Darwin:

A fair result can only be obtained by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. To present both sides of this argument is the only way to come to a fair result.

[js1138]

The question woul be, after 150 years of examining evidence, what is the "other side"? What is the alternate explanation for the diversity of living things?

I have seen on that can be called science. I don't know of any alternate naturalistic explanation, one that accunts for all the data and leads to research.

There are an infinite number of supernatural explanations. How many do you want taught in school?

[Coyoteman]

If you think you darwinists are fooling anyone with your coordinated missionary zeal to try and counter any and all arguments to your faith, I am noticing a strange pattern to your coordinated activities. Why are you invading Free Republic with this stuff.

To combat the science-deniers.

(Actually, I have been at FR a couple of years longer than you. Why are you invading FR with your stuff?)

[ChessExpert]

A fair result can only be obtained by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. To present both sides of this argument is the only way to come to a fair result.

"I don't know of any alternate naturalistic explanation, one that accunts for all the data"

Here is a question that has been asked. Is there a naturalistic explanation that accounts for all the data?

Presenting two sides to this question is almost impossible in public school and college today. We have a coercive environment. This is touched upon in the Kennedy video. On these matters, I think there was more academic freedom in Darwin’s day.

"There are an infinite number of supernatural explanations. How many do you want taught in school?"

Simply acknowledging that a supernatural explanation may be valid will do for me.

By the way, this can be played both ways. Yes, religion has been presented many ways, but so has evolution. For example, on some recent FR threads some evolutionists have relied on the phrase “survival of the fittest,” while on other threads evolutionists deny that the phrase has anything to do with evolution. It seems that evolutionists can use the phrase, but when critics of evolution use the phrase, they are wrong.

Again, I enjoyed the video, and wonder if anyone else saw it. We’ve had a lot of hot air, but I don’t know that many have been open minded or organized enough to see the video. The video did require an advertisement. But this highlights another aspect of the current debate: one side has ample taxpayer funding, and the other does not.

[js1138]

Simply acknowledging that a supernatural explanation may be valid will do for me.

OK. Any of thousands of supernatural explanations may be valid. Gnomes from the interior of the earth may control volcanoes and earthquakes. Sprites may control the weather. Does that add anything to the sum of useful knowledge?

Science looks for regular patterns. That is what science is and does. If you aren't looking for orderly phenomena, you aren't doing science.

For example, on some recent FR threads some evolutionists have relied on the phrase “survival of the fittest,” while on other threads evolutionists deny that the phrase has anything to do with evolution.

It has something to do with evolution, but it's not an accurate summary of evolution, and it's not a good description of what goes on in the world. It implies that there is some objective standard for fitness, and there is not. In the real world, individuals survive for many reasons, not all of which are foreseeable.

[js1138]

Why are you invading Free Republic with this stuff.

You have a lot of nerve, newbie.

[razzle]

"You have a lot of nerve, newbie."

I have nerve? You people have been stifling professional discussion about darwinism for decades. Hardly a tenant of a free republic. Your religion is as restrictive as Islam or Communism. And just like those 2 belief systems, your end is near.

[js1138]

You people have been stifling professional discussion about darwinism for decades. Hardly a tenant of a free republic. Your religion is as restrictive as Islam or Communism. And just like those 2 belief systems, your end is near.

It's true that people who make nebulous claims about physical systems being twiddled with by unnamed entieties having unspecified powers at unknown times and places using unknown methods for unknown purposes tend to be sidelined by science.

If alternative theories desire respect from science they will have to present themselves as actual theories, which involves committing themselves to some descriptive details. They might even suggest some lines of research. This is what's done in science, even in cases where the suggested research is currently impractical. The Discovery Institute understands this, and they continue making promises that someday they will have a research program.

[Coyoteman]

You people have been stifling professional discussion about darwinism for decades. Hardly a tenant of a free republic. Your religion is as restrictive as Islam or Communism.

Science, and the theory of evolution, are not religions.

Profession discussion is taking place where it should, in professional journals and conferences. They are not taking place here on FR, and they do not include non-scientists.

The objections to the theory of evolution by creationists are not "professional discussions" but rather religious beliefs pretending to be science, and failing to reach even the level of pseudo-science.

...your end is near.

Now that's very understanding of you.

[razzle]

"The objections to the theory of evolution are not "professional discussions"

ha, ha, ha - sounds good ole' Mao Zedong (a hero of the darwinist crowd no doubt)

[VadeRetro]

Well, I'll have to investigate this "quote"...

[Snort!] It's from a rather famous Pennsylvania trial. It would alsmot be surprising that someone with an interest in ID doesn't know about this, except that the ID crowd got their heads handed to them. Morton's Demon lets no bad news in the door in the first place, never mind remembering it.

[js1138]

I didn't even use the most unambiguous Behe quote, where he says he accepts common descent as a given.

[razzle]

"he accepts common descent as a given."

Its common knowledge the Behe "accepts common descent" so that he is not fired, sent off to Siberia, etc. You types also will still listen to him. Besides, its illogical to argue that irreducible complexity refutes darwins theory and then accept common descent.