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."
Let's just assume that's correct. It still doesn't say one way or the other whether the theory of evolution is correct. And I think that's where Godwin's Law comes into play. People who link Hitler to Darwin usually do so to discredit the theory of evolution. But actually it's irrelevant.
You are obviously bereft of sound argument if you must revert to grammatical nitpicking. Your response is characteristic of liberals who revert to ad hominem attacks and trivial arguments when they cannot succeed otherwise. Quotation marks or not, the statement remains absurd as it stands.
They can be when willful. But I'll initially assume someone has merely been unaware of the logical incorrectness of the assertion. And I'll attribute some defense of it, after it being pointed out, to natural stubborness.
But it is true that some of these people who've been at it a long time do know better, and go ahead and lie for what they consider the greater religious good.
Actually, the whole link of Hitler to Darwin is an ad hominem attack on the theory of evolution.
If these people can't remember or understand what happened only two years ago, especially when they all lived through it, what chance do they have to understand what happened 70 years ago?
Makes you wonder what happened to the FreeRepublic of two years ago ...
Your post remains fraudulent no matter how much ad hominem you tack on.
Are you incapable of acknowledging that you made a mistake? It could have been a small thing if you had simply admitted it. Now it looks more severe and deliberate, with you hiding behind a wall of words.
The Ben Stien reference was in the American Spectator in one of his monthly Ben Stien's diary last few years. Also, my "claims" are only "non-sensical" to a person who "believes" in darwinism first and later looks for scientific justification. I have seen none, just made up eveidence that is either disproved or proved as fake from the start. If its your religion, thats OK, but its not a scientific theory, please.
Oh, gosh, another celebrity lawyer weighs in! And what do Paris Hilton and Rosie O'Donut say?
I can't disagree especially since there is zero scientific proof for the darwinist religion.
Education can help even people like you to live a normal life.
Take a look at my 586 and track back.
I think the evidence is sufficient for my conclusions.
And I did give the poster the benefit of the doubt initially. One mulligan? (Is that the phrase? I'm not a golfer.)
And, with that, I've got to return to work for a while.
Oh, come on, quit embarrassing yourself!
Can't you at least learn to spell his name correctly!
You are wrong.
I challenge you to cite five examples of "made up eveidence that is either disproved or proved as fake from the start."
That should be easy, if, as you claim, all the evidence falls into that category.
(By the way, don't rely too much on creationist websites in your research; they are filled with distortions and outright lies. They are doing apologetics, not science.)
LOL - this is coming from the guy who thinks he has editing rights over the Christian/Roman Catholic faith. I'm surprised he didn't demand the right to pick the most recent Pope. What's really curious is that it was Christians (Catholics to be specific) who saved his lame ass from the Nazis.
That's so lawyered that it is obvious you know that what you are saying isn't even remotely true.
Linking Hitler to Darwin to discredit the theory of evolution is classic ad hominem. No two ways about it.
Because it inverts the meaning.
Since you asked.
is citing the United States Holocaust Museum Memorial OK?
"Following Germany’s defeat in World War I and during the ensuing political and economic crises of the Weimar Republic, ideas known as racial hygiene or eugenics began to inform population policy, public health education, and government-funded research. By keeping the “unfit” alive to reproduce and multiply, eugenics proponents argued, modern medicine and costly welfare programs interfered with natural selection –the concept Charles Darwin applied to the “survival of the fittest” in the animal and plant world. In addition, members of the “fit,” educated classes were marrying later and using birth control methods to limit family size. The result, eugenics advocates believed, was an overall biological “degeneration” of the population. As a solution, they proposed “positive” government policies such as tax credits to foster large, “valuable” families, and “negative” measures, mainly the sterilization of genetic “inferiors.”
More specifically, placing a word in quotes implies the word is being used ironically. Saying Hitler was a "good Christian" is not the same as saying Hitler was a good Christian.
Removing the quotes changes the intention of the sentence.
That's a good point. The various theories of evolution must stand or be modified or fall on the basis of evidence.
Please show me where Adolf Hitler or Charles Darwin, both long dead, have posted on this thread. The linkage of Darwin to Hitler may be wrong, but it is not an ad hominem attack unless you have a definition of ad hominem different from the standard one.
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.