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.]

[fish hawk]

You're right on all three points. It's just that I don't care to share them with you.

[ml1954]

The source for the article posted is...

http://www.icr.org/article/268/

ICR is the Institute For Creationion Research, a rabidly anti-evolution organization. So it's no surprise something like this is found there.

For those interested in the truth see the following links that address and refute these charges. Out of consideration for readers, I won't post the text found there. Those interested can use the links.

CA005. Evolution is racist.

CA005.1. Darwin himself was racist.

CA005.2. Darwin's work refers to "preservation of favoured races".

CA006. Evolution encourages eugenics.

CA006.1. Hitler based his views on Darwinism.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

In other words, you refuse to give any evidence to support your assertions, but expect me to buy in on them anyway.

[highball]

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

Nonsense. Human beings are not the subject of the book, as anyone who has actually read it can tell you.

Asking someone to prove a negative is another frequent strategy employed by creationists. This is a perfect example of it.

It is incument upon the person making a positive claim - that Darwin was talking about people - to substantiate it. You are trying to change the subject, which does not help the credibility of your argument.

[Dimensio]

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

The intent of my statement was to dispute the implication that the title of the book referred to human races. Your semantic arguments do not make EternalVigilance's claim correct.

[RegulatorCountry]

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

Had Darwin left it at that, you would have a point. He didn't; you don't.

[highball]

In other words, you refuse to give any evidence to support your assertions, but expect me to buy in on them anyway.

Yep, that's Creationism in a nutshell.

Nothing more than a modern-day PC, in which facts are subordinate to ideology.

[highball]

Your semantic arguments do not make EternalVigilance's claim correct.

In fact, that you have to resort to semantic arguments reveals EternalVigilance's claim to be fraudulent.

[Dimensio]

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

The subject of Darwin's later book does not vindicate a false claim made about the title of Darwin's first book. Your reasoning is not logical.

[EternalVigilance]

Darwin's, The Descent of Man:

1st ed., 1871 / 2nd ed., 1874

Natural Selection as affecting civilized nations. ... But some remarks on the action of Natural Selection on civilized nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr W.R.Greg, and previously by Mr Wallace and Mr Galton. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the mained, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. (133-4/138-9; first page numbers to the 1st ed., second to the 2nd ed.)

@

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; ... (134/139)

Great lawgivers, the founders of beneficent religions, great philosophers and discoverers in science, aid the progress of mankind in a far higher degree by their works than by leaving a numerous progeny. In the case of corporeal structures, it is the selection of the slightly better-endowed and the elimination of the slightly less well-endowed individuals, and not the preservation of strongly-marked and rare anomalies, that leads to the advancement of a species. So it will be with the intellectual faculties, since the somewhat abler men in each grade of society succeed rather better than the less able, and consequently increase in number, if not otherwise prevented. When in any nation the standard of intellect and the number of intellectual men have increased, we may expect from the law of deviation from an average, that prodigies of genius will, as shown by Mr Galton, appear somewhat more frequently than before. (136-7/141-2)

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.' (138/143)

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 the 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. (140/145-6)

Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations. (142/147)

With highly civilized nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on Natural Selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. Nevertheless the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of Natural Selection. The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs, and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through Natural Selection as one of the most important elements on the social instincts. (143/148)

[RustMartialis]

Which is it, eugenics as originated and described by Francis Galton and enthused upon by Charles Darwin to the point that he published same in "Descent Of Man,"

Except Darwin didn't 'enthuse upon' eugenics in Descent, or anywhere else for that matter.

Care to try again?

--R.

[highball]

"Had Darwin left it at that, you would have a point. He didn't"

Examples, please.

[WildHorseCrash]

One need not (and I don't) ignore the fact that people used Biblical claims in defense of slavery. However, Mississippi's "imperious law of nature" looks to be based more on evolutionary claims, than on Biblical ones.

Oh, come on. Mississippi's declaration was put out about 14 months after the publication in England of The Origin of Species. You can't seriously suggest that the ideas therein crossed the Atlantic and became so accepted and enmeshed in Mississippi consciousness that they based this passage in the declaration on it.

[Junior]

Really? And where in Descent of Man does Darwin state one race is superior to another? Please provide any references in context.

[RustMartialis]

thus we call it Social Darwinism, as opposed to Social Platonism.

Darwin not being around to express his horror at the misuse of his name.

--R.

[RegulatorCountry]

Above and beyond the fact that Darwin chose to publish Galton's eugenic theory in "Descent Of Man?" Well, here's one:

"Darwin congratulated Galton on the publication of Hereditary Genius, telling his younger cousin in a letter that, “I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original.”

[Dimensio]

Your excerpt from Descent of Man neither vindicates your false claim regarding the title of Darwin's first book nor supports your claim that Darwin propigated racism. Note that Darwin does not state any one "race" as being weaker than another in the passages that you have reproduced.

[r9etb]

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.

What a dishonest comment. I am comfortable in acknowledging the religious aspects of their argument. You, however, simply dismiss their written words as being of no consequence.

Nevertheless, I can point to the words of Mr. Lincoln in his first debate with Stephen Douglas:

. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

The point here being, although Lincoln makes no bones about his position that "the negro" is fully entitled to all of the natural rights he enjoyed, he balanced it against a claim of racial superiority based on physical traits -- an essentially evolutionary argument.

[Dimensio]

It is fascinating that Lincoln used as a premise for his claim of racial superiority a theory that was not to be published until a year later. It is curious that Lincoln did not use his precognative abilities to avoid his assasination.

[Junior]

...an essentially evolutionary argument.

Dude, check the date of the debate: August 21, 1858. Darwin did not publish until 1859.