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.]

[DoctorMichael]

.....Darwin and Jesus both had beards......

Yes!

And since, as the esteemed and brilliant Dr. D. James Kennedy (President of Coral Ridge Ministries) has initmated, Darwin was the philosophical underpinning of Hitler and therefore is Evil, so is Christ Evil since he represents the underpinnings of the philosophy of Jim Jones.

Teach the Controversy!

[WildHorseCrash]

"You're engaging in the historicism that was being mocked just upthread... Either that, or you're seeking to diminish the importance of Darwin in authoring the theory of evolution, for the petty reason of covering for your own historical error."

You simply have your facts wrong. Darwin's theory was the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The "evolution" part was well known pre-Darwin. It was the "natural selection" part was the new and important thing.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Darwin's theory was the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. The "evolution" part was well known pre-Darwin."

Please name the scientific theory of evolution that predated Darwin, and the purported means to accomplish that evolution.

[Coyoteman]

You are anyone else living today have no actual real proof that an ape became a man. I believe that is why they call it a theory. You say science points that way but a fact of science has to be proved before it is no longer theory. Bottom line, it is still a theory, right.

Your understanding of the terms "theory" and "proof" as used in science is as flawed as your understanding of the concept of "missing link," which I just responded to.

You seem to think a theory is a guess, and that it requires proof to "grow up" into something better.

A theory is the highest goal in science. It never becomes proved.

Study the definitions below and you won't make these simple mistakes in the future.

Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

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; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

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 8/27/06]

[WildHorseCrash]

Please name the scientific theory of evolution that predated Darwin, and the purported means to accomplish that evolution.

There wasn't a single theory; there were many competing theories. One of my favorites was by Jean-Baptiste Lamark, which posited that evolution proceeded by the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Erasmus Darwin's ideas were similar, believing that God gave organisms the ability to acquire new characteristics that they could pass on to offspring. The theory of Orthogenesis believed that life was driven by an internal force to achieve greater and greater degrees of perfection or to achieve some final goal. The history of life was the story of that rise from simple and base to lofty and complex. There are more, of course. The history of this subject is actually very interesting.

[atlaw]

A non-thorough, but adequate, summary --

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_1.htm

[longshadow]

What happened to all the quoteminers? Did they die in a cave-in? Or did they asphyxiate on their own vomit?

[RegulatorCountry]

Darwin was just more of the same-old, same-old, nothing to see here, move along now, lol.

[PatrickHenry]

What happened to all the quoteminers?

Spent fury. Intense, venomous hatred, backed by nothing except glandular secretions, will only sustain a thread for a certain amount of posts. Then it dribbles out into slow, sad babbling.

[WildHorseCrash]

Darwin was just more of the same-old, same-old, nothing to see here, move along now, lol.

Not to anyone who actually understands the science. What he did was brilliant. While Dobzhansky said that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution, it was Darwin who put biology on the path to real understanding -- to start making sense.

[highball]

You're engaging in the historicism that was being mocked just upthread. Darwin apparently IS omnipresent and eternal, praise be! Either that, or you're seeking to diminish the importance of Darwin in authoring the theory of evolution, for the petty reason of covering for your own historical error.

I see that Newspeak continues to thrive in the Creationist community.

The only error was yours, and as I said before if you think that engaging in puerile semantic games will somehow cause people to overlook your series of factual errors, misstatements and flat-out ignorance, then you have a very low opinion of FReepers.

[RegulatorCountry]

"it was Darwin who put biology on the path to real understanding -- to start making sense."

And it was the "sense" that was made, that is objectionable, in the case of Galton, eugenics and the Nazi science derived from these sources. Back to square one.

[RegulatorCountry]

"The only error was yours, and as I said before if you think that engaging in puerile semantic games will somehow cause people to overlook your series of factual errors, misstatements and flat-out ignorance, then you have a very low opinion of FReepers."

Temper, temper. You're not above semantic games and misstatements, yourself. I won't stoop to calling you ignorant, though.

[andysandmikesmom]

Read a book, go out and commit murder....thats how you think things happen?....Hmmmmm?

[andysandmikesmom]

I agree completely with you...

[WildHorseCrash]

And it was the "sense" that was made, that is objectionable, in the case of Galton, eugenics and the Nazi science derived from these sources. Back to square one.

No, again, you are factually wrong as to the source of Galton's and the eugenicists' ideas. While they tried to gain respectability for their ideas by piggy-backing on the theory of natural selection and by citing to Darwin's work, the eugenicists' theories differed from Darwin's theory in a fundamental and dispositive manner: namely, the eugenicists theories invoked artificial selection whereas Darwin's theory posited natural selection.

This is not a distinction without a difference, because it goes directly to the heart of what Darwin's ideas were. In artificial selection and eugenics, someone decides who reproduces with whom and in what frequency, in order to achieve a pre-determined goal.

Natural selection is different. In natural selection, there is no place for a eugenicist, for someone to select. There is no room for a pre-determined goal. It is simply resulting diversity based on the differential reproductive success of organisms as a result of their genetic makeup.

To the extent that there is a similarity, it is because both natural selection and eugenics are derived from artificial selection. But that fact does not mean that the falsity of eugenics is attributable to natural selection.

[andysandmikesmom]

Tricky tagline...

[DoctorMichael]

"...... inheritance of acquired characteristics......"

This proposition was later updated by the esteemed anti-Evolution Geneticist (and proud member of the Soviet Communist Party) Lysenko.

Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jung-Il, and other wonderful and brilliant anti-evolutionists, were great advocates of this since the "inheritance of acquired characteristics" allows for the creation of 'Soviet Man'. If you lock people up in Totalitarian Re-Education Gulags for 'training' they will pass down the acquired characteristics to their progeny and the world will be a better place.

I am waiting for the esteemed and brilliant Dr. D. James Kennedy (President of Coral Ridge Ministries) to take his rightful place amongst such august company.

[ahayes]

Tell me, if Australopithecus is "ape-man", is he/it the actual missing link between man and ape? . . .

Coyoteman answered your question admirably, so I'll not answer to avoid redundancy. :-)

[ahayes]

Not at all, please see my post #438.