America's Taliban strikes again

Arkansas News Bureau ^ | 28 August 2006 | John Brummett

[PatrickHenry]

The Holocaust wasn't Hitler's fault. Darwin made him do it. Complicit as well are any who buy into the scientific theory that modern man evolved from lower animal forms.

That's the latest lunacy from one of our more fanatical right-wing American Christian television outfits, the Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Coral Ridge espouses that America is not a free-religion nation, but a Christian one. It argues there should be no separation of church and state.

Thus it's America's Taliban, America's Shiite theocracy.

It certainly has a propensity for explaining or excusing Hitler. A few years ago it brought in a conference speaker to argue that American abortion was a more horrible atrocity than the Holocaust.

One year it disinvited Cal Thomas as a conference speaker after Brother Cal got too liberal. You're thinking I must be kidding. But I kid you not. Brother Cal had displayed the utter audacity to co-author a book contending that American Christian conservatives ought to worry a little more about spreading the gospel from the bottom of the culture up rather than from the top of politics down.

Now this: Coral Ridge is airing a couple of cable installments of a "documentary," called "Darwin's Deadly Legacy," that seek to make a case that, without Darwin, there could have been no Hitler.

Authoritative sources for the program include no less than columnist Ann Coulter, noted scientist, who says she is outraged that she didn't get instructed in Darwin's effective creation of Hitler when she was in school. She says she has since come to understand that Hitler was merely a Darwinist trying, by extermination of a group of people he considered inferior because of their religion and heritage, to "hurry along" the natural survival of the Aryan fittest.

Also quoted is Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Project, who tells the Anti-Defamation League that his comments were used out of context and that he is "absolutely appalled" by the "utterly misguided and inflammatory" premise of Coral Ridge's report.

The documentary's theme is really quite simple: Darwin propounded the theory of evolution. Hitler came along and believed the theory. Hitler killed Jews. So, blame Darwin for the Holocaust. Blame, too, all others who agree with or advance Darwin's theory. Get back to God and Adam and Eve and all will be right again with the world.

"To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler," said Dr. D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries. "The legacy of Charles Darwin is millions of deaths."

Obviously, the theme is breath-taking nonsense. You can't equate academic theory with murderous practice. You can't equate a thinker and a madman, or science and crime.

And you can't ever blame one man for another's actions. That once was a proud conservative precept. In a different context, you'll no doubt find Coral Ridge fervently preaching personal responsibility. Except, apparently, for Adolf Hitler, to whom these religious kooks issue a pass. Ol' Adolf, it seems, just fell in with a bad crowd.

By Coral Ridge's premise, Mohammed is to blame for Osama bin Laden. Actually, Coral Ridge might not argue with that. So how about this: The pope is to blame for the IRA. And Jesus is to blame for Mel Gibson, not to mention Coral Ridge Ministries.

[Omitted some author detail and contact info.]

[LibertarianSchmoe]

Hitler was an embodiment of bad science and bad theology who found a willing audience to practice both.

Exactly. Even the most benign philosophy can be twisted beyond recognition by the actual driving force of these monsters: their own egos.

[RegulatorCountry]

"As such it is artificial selection."

Do you then regard war as artificial selection?

[Dimensio]

A restatement of what I said to you. All you're saying is that "better" traits -- whether alone or in combination, lead to improved probability of reproductive success. Thus, "fitness" is still in the picture -- and your argument merely demonstrates your agreement with that claim.

As the reproductive advantage or disadvantage of a specific trait is often relative depending on the environment, it is impossible to classify any trait as "superior" to another in an absolute sense. As such, it is impossible to use the theory of evolution to claim that one configuration of traits in "absolutely" superior to another.

Empirically, one might point to the fact that sub-Saharan African countries tend to be (and have pretty much always been) savage sh*tholes, whereas non-African countries tend to be less so. One might also point to the positive correlation between IQ and income -- and note which races appear at the upper and lower points of each scale.

What research indicates that these findings are a direct result of the races of the people involved?

[longshadow]

"Festival of Hysteria" placemarker

[RegulatorCountry]

"I only pointed out that "races" in the title of Darwin's first book does not specifically refer to human "races" and that it is dishonest to claim otherwise."

The word "specifically" was not in your initial response, which was to deny that the title referred to human races at all.

[Junior]

The people of the South, then as now, are not likely to have accepted evolution; it is an extremely-religious section of the country. Now, if you'd said Yankees had based their beliefs on Darwin, you might be able to make a point.

[r9etb]

It has been known since recorded history that human could be breed just like animals for specific traits. Breeding humans as a concept was not "taken from Darwin's theory of evolution."

The scientific basis, however, was provided by Darwin -- and in the spirit of his times, "science" was a much more powerful argument for eugenics than had been available in the past. Hence, "Social Darwinism."

Breeding isn't a form of evolution anyhow, as has also been pointed out to you.

Well, you can make the claim. But if one says that "breeding" is just the imposition of a specific type of evolutionary pressure, then your "pointing out" needs to be adjusted.

[fish hawk]

I picture you standing out in the rain pondering all of this.

[Junior]

Oh, dear me. The term "race" had a bit different meaning in the 19th century than it does now. For example:

We see an astonishing improvement in many florists' flowers, when the flowers of the present day are compared with drawings made only twenty or thirty years ago. When a race of plants is once pretty well established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but merely go over their seed-beds, and pull up the "rogues," as they call the plants that deviate from the proper standard. With animals this kind of selection is, in fact, likewise followed; for hardly any one is so careless as to breed from his worst animals.

[Dimensio]

EternalVigilance claimed that the title of the book referred specifically to human races. It does not. Your continued statements on this subject do not change the fact that EternalVigilance was making a false claim.

[r9etb]

What research indicates that these findings are a direct result of the races of the people involved?

What I said, and you're dodging this very hard, is that people use evolutionary theory to justify racist claims. You asked me how evolutionary theory could be used to justify such claims.

That you're now asking me to prove these claims is a tacit admission that I've answered your question. Please note (again) that I am not making the claim -- I am merely pointing out, in response to your request -- how one can use the theory to make the claim.

Given the context of the discussion, there is no need to prove the claim that evolutionary theory justifies racism -- the point in question was in whether the claim has been made at all: and it has been. QED.

[Dimensio]

But it's worth it occasionally for the lurkers...

Are you admitting, then, that you misrepresented the meaning of the title of Darwin's book for the benefit of lurkers who may not research your claim and discover that it is not true?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

IF you don't know, you have already bought the farm.

I'm sorry, I am unable to read minds, and hence cannot divine your specific objections to the theory of evolution without some explanation from yourself.

Now, I am, of course, making some really dumb assumptions here, which I shall list:

1. That you have actually studied the theory of evolution in sufficient detail to have an idea of what you're arguing against (many ;
2. That you have identified specific shortcomings in the theory of evolution--i.e., that there are specific falsifiable predictions made by the theory of evolution that are not observed in the field;
3. That, finally, you have developed an alternative hypothesis that makes specific falsifiable predictions that are verified by observations in the field.

So, with that . . . how about laying out your specific objections to the theory of evolution?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Oh, dear me."

Oh, bother. Split hairs over the meaning of "races" in that subtitle all you want; your contention is rendered moot by "Desent Of Man," regardless.

[r9etb]

As the reproductive advantage or disadvantage of a specific trait is often relative depending on the environment, it is impossible to classify any trait as "superior" to another in an absolute sense. As such, it is impossible to use the theory of evolution to claim that one configuration of traits in "absolutely" superior to another.

You keep adding things to what I said. There is no need to invoke "absolutely" in a racial application of evolutionary theory: "relatively superior" is sufficient to support a racist argument.

[RegulatorCountry]

"EternalVigilance claimed that the title of the book referred specifically to human races. It does not."

We've since established that the subtitle does not specifically exclude human races, either, so you're splitting hairs.

[curiosity]

This article makes a couple good points, but it's also unfair on numerous occaisons.

It is not unreasonable to compare the evil of abortion in to the holocaust: abortion's deathtoll is greater.

[highball]

"Transparent attempts to change the subject by taking quotes out of context."

OK, then, does the subtitle "The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life" apply to human beings, or does it exclude human beings? Put it into your perception of proper context, please.

For the final time, it refers to plants and animals. had you read the book, you would know that.

Now may we please stop the silly game of pretending that it says any different?

Creationists have insisted for some time that it refers to humans, and that Darwin was therefore a racist. Even a casual reading of the book puts the lie to that assertion.

Making such a claim reveals profound ignorance of the subject. Continuing to make the claim after it has been refuted indicates something more sinister - a reckless disregard for the truth.

[WildHorseCrash]

I see your point, but disagree. Somebody else (Right Wing Professor, I think) once stated that animal husbandry -- or eugenics -- merely imposes a different sort of evolutionary pressure, but that the underlying mechanism was the same.

That's true, as far as it goes, however, the modern theory of evolution (i.e., Darwinian evolution) is a theory about natural selection. Animal husbandry has worked, and eugenics purports to work, via artificial selection. Though related, they are different. And that difference is why this whole "Hitler led to Darwin" idea is bunk. Darwin described natural selection; artificial selection was already well-known and well-established in 1859.

The underlying principle of eugenics, though, was taken from the TOE, in the sense that the theory of evolution implies the existence of "superior" and "inferior" traits.

Actually, you have them reversed. The theory of evolution, at least in Darwin's formulation, was based upon artificial selection (i.e., animal husbandry.) At the time that Darwin wrote Origin of Species it was well known that humans could change the morphology of populations of animals by selective breeding. He just figured out how nature does something very similar, but with nothing but nature itself doing the selecting.

The notion of humans affecting change though selective breeding was well established before Darwin.

[highball]

I know, bro. But it's worth it occasionally for the lurkers...

Be careful - the lurkers will undoubtedly notice that you have refused to provide any actual evidence to substantiate your false claims.