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."

[Tribune7]

But in any case, I have copies of both German versions of the Hitler monologues,

If Carrier claims that Nazism in general . . . was without doubt a Christian movement and cites the belt buckles and the Reichsconcordat he's not someone who can be taken seriously.

Further, even if you were to take his claims as correct i. e. we still have Hitler saying

"Christianity teaches 'transubstantiation,' which is the maddest thing ever concocted by a human mind in its delusions, a mockery of all that is godly."

And equating Christianity to syphilis as the two diseases that destroyed Rome.

And Christ was an Aryan.6 But Paul used his teachings to mobilize the underworld and organize a proto-bolshevism. With its breakdown, the beautiful clarity of the ancient world was lost.

It seems to me you are pretty much splitting hairs. Hitler was not a Christian and hated Christianity.

Then there is this as per Carrier, who is s a member of the Internet Infidels with numerous writings on the Secular Web:

There is no "disease of Christianity." Rather, in place of that phrase is a reference to what Hitler says in the preceding sentences, which Trevor-Roper's English doesn't even include: the idea of expediency, survival of the fittest,

I guess Hitler was a Darwinist, after all.

[Tribune7]

I didn't even bring up David Irving.

[Virginia-American]

Nazism was based on Paganism, not Christianity.

How many Jews were killed by Pagan Europeans? How many by Christians, both Catholic and Orthodox, and later Lutheran and other types of Protestant?

Is there any antisemitism at all in the Eddas, the Sagas, the Niebelunglied, etc.? No, the Odinists weren't even aware of the Jews' existence. Is there any antisemitism in the writings of prominent Christians? [rhetorical question]

[js1138]

Check out the Bet Stein reference, and while you are at it,

There is no Bet Stein reference, not any Ben Stien reference nor any Ben Stein reference.

[Virginia-American]

...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...

Please provide references that disprove

1) Some baby marsupials have egg teeth, but no marsupial ever has any use for them.

2) Baby platypuses have teeth in their jaws that never erupt.

3) Fetal whales have hindlimb buds that are usually reabsorbed, but that sometimes aren't giving rise to whales with vestigial hind legs.

4) All embryonic mammals, including people, have earbones that migrate from the jaw to the middle ear, just like in the fossil sequence from reptile to mammal.

5) Professional creationists disagree about whether Australopithecus afarensis, A. africanus, Homo Erectus, H. habilis, H. ergaster, et al, are "people" or "apes".

6) The Noah's Flood hypothesis predicts that fish bones should be found in all marine fossil assemblages, whereas the ToE predicts that before a certain age, no fish existed. No bone of any sort has ever been found in the Burgess shale or any other mid Cambrian or earlier stratum.

7) Some birds have been experimentally induced to grow teeth. Very early birds, like Archeopteryx, had teeth.

All of these facts are confirmatory of standard biology. Under the ID or creationism hypothesis they can be "explained" as the hypothetical designer's "whim", or "will", but so can anything. Many of them make no sense from an engineering point of view; I mean, why have genes for teeth in birds, platypuses, whales, etc, when they never have or use the teeth?

Are you seriously claiming all of these facts are incorrect?!

[flevit]

so nazism just had to be more effective to have better survival quotient.

precisely the cause for the rationization that it isn't Murder, if its a 'life negative of worth' 'primative' 'inferior' 'feeble minded' 'deformed' 'unfit'.

many societies experience genocides as well...btw they are becoming MORE frequent not less, as the 200 million in the "deadliest" 20th century attest.

http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/8313.asp

does that mean its gaining a selective advantage?

[Dimensio]

precisely the cause for the rationization that it isn't Murder, if its a 'life negative of worth' 'primative' 'inferior' 'feeble minded' 'deformed' 'unfit'.

This is not a logical conclusion drawn from the theory of evolution. I do not understand what point, if any, you are attempting to make with your comments.

[Wallace T.]

I'm not aware of any communists that promoted evolution.

In a letter to Fredrick Lasalle in 1861, Karl Marx stated that "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle. One does, of course, have to put up with the clumsy English style of argument. Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, ‘teleology’ in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained." (The quote is from a Marxist Web site, www.marxists.org)

The competent Russian biologists were killed or imprisoned for teaching genetics.

True enough, due to the influence of Trofim Lysenko, a Russian biologist who was a court favorite of Joseph Stalin and, to a lesser extent, Nikita Khrushchev. I am not aware Lysenko opposed evolution, just mainstream genetics.

[flevit]

did logic evolve? is it still evolving? perhaps your logic will evolve to be illogical? :D

nazism didn't really care that in your opinion their
premise was not a logical conclusion of the Theory...the point is matter of fact-ly, they still applied it to their ideology and with the backing of the German scientific/intellectual community convinced a great many that the survival of a healthier population was more important than compassion for an individual.

it seems quiet easy to do when the highest moral authority is that human which survives.

[Dimensio]

did logic evolve?

No.

premise was not a logical conclusion of the Theory...the point is matter of fact-ly, they still applied it to their ideology and with the backing of the German scientific/intellectual community convinced a great many that the survival of a healthier population was more important than compassion for an individual.

My point is that if their reasoning is not logical, then it is incorrect to say that they applied the theory of evolution.

[Coyoteman]

...and fake skulls

I challenged you back on #591 to document the fakes you are so fond of claiming, and haven't heard back from you yet. Now here you are, hours later, making about the same silly and oft-discredited claim.

You keep claiming all the evidence is faked; shouldn't you start backing up your claims with some evidence of some kind?

We're waiting...

[balrog666]

Learned to spell yet?

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>False Jews? What on earth are you talking about?<<<

False Jews are those who have left the Jewish faith. Many, such as Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, and some of the media and Hollywood elite, cling to socialist/communist ideologies which are in opposition to God.

[Coyoteman]

...and fake skulls.

Are you hiding? I have challenged you now twice on this thread to support your comments that all the evidence for evolution is fake (posts #591 and 671).

How about it? Is this skull faked? If so, please detail some evidence for your belief.

(Your credibility is sinking fast.)

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[b_sharp]

If Evolution is true and we are nothing more than technologically advanced apes our morals would not change since they must be the result of Evolution.

"Untrue. The process of evolution has led to the human species beign able to examine possibilities and project outcomes such that we can have some fair notion of long-term cause and effect, with a consequence that we develop a sense of empathy. (This appears to be well in advance of what the other critters think, though until we develop telepathy, we can't be sure.) Also, humans have developed the ability to record history, and can thereby learn from the past as we project scenarios into the future.

Methinks thou hast misunderstood my statement.

Remember the context of my post - I was talking about the creationist idea that without God human morals would be no different than the (creationist strawman) idea of 'red in tooth and claw'. I was also directly addressing the logic behind the statement 'If Evolution is true then we would have no morals'.

I was not suggesting that human 'morals' have not changed over time. In fact I have made exactly the same argument as you more than once. If you check my post you will notice that I divorced my argument from the qualification that morals are absolute, relative or a combination of the two. Obviously if morals are relative they will change over time.

The argument I made was that the *origin* of our morals does not change what we consider to be moral. Our society has the morals it has whether those morals were given to us by God or if they evolved along with our brains and our society. The change I was talking about was the change between origins. I was not claiming that morals are static.

[js1138]

I am not aware Lysenko opposed evolution, just mainstream genetics.

Lysenko destroyed biology in the Soviet Union, along with all its competent practitioners. This happens when politics and ideology replace methodology in science.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Or was...Ch. VI, Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin<<<

Immediately after that statement, was this one:

"... And this persuasion, with the kind hand of Providence, or some guardian angel, or accidental favorable circumstances and situations, or all together, preserved me, thro' this dangerous time of youth, and the hazardous situations I was sometimes in among strangers, remote from the eye and advice of my father, without any willful gross immorality or injustice, that might have been expected from my want of religion."

That doesn't sound like a deist to me (unless deists believe in divine providence). Nor do these statements:

"Having emerged from the poverty and obscurity in which I was born and bred, to a state of affluence and some degree of reputation in the world, and having gone so far through life with a considerable share of felicity, the conducing means I made use of, which with the blessing of God so well succeeded, my posterity may like to know, as they may find some of them suitable to their own situations, and therefore fit to be imitated. "

"And now I speak of thanking God, I desire with all humility to acknowledge that I owe the mentioned happiness of my past life to His kind providence, which lead me to the means I used and gave them success. My belief of this induces me to hope, though I must not presume, that the same goodness will still be exercised toward me, in continuing that happiness, or enabling me to bear a fatal reverse, which I may experience as others have done: the complexion of my future fortune being known to Him only in whose power it is to bless to us even our afflictions."

"I never doubted, for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern'd it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter."

And there is this summary of his belief:

"That there is one God, who made all things.

"That he governs the world by his providence.

"That he ought to be worshiped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving.

"But that the most acceptable service of God is doing good to man.

"That the soul is immortal.

"And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice either here or hereafter."

[b_sharp]

"Check out the Bet Stein reference, and while you are at it, check out the fossile record for darwinism - oops no evidence, and the fake embryo drawings, or the lack of RNA evidence, or the Cambrian explosion - oops another dead end for darwin and his disciples. Soon your religion will end up like Marx's and Freud's."

That you are repeating claims made by people *not* in the know really emphasizes your ignorance of the subject.

If you were to examine the primary literature, or at least the popular publications that explain the primary literature, you would at least understand what you are regurgiposting.

If you want to refute what I just posted may I suggest you explain, in your own words, what the Cambrian explosion was and how and why it supports creationism more than the SToE. Please be as specific as possible.

If you fail to refute my comments, I can only believe you know less than you pretend to.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>I live in good accord with friends, colleagues, and neighbours who both profess and practise identical values--and who are Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics or atheists. We may all find different foundations for these values in our personal creeds (or lack thereof), but the values we practise are common to us all.<<<

I see. You are a Moral Relativist.

>>>Or is it your contention--as your post implies--that non-Christians believe and advocate murder, theft, and hatred?<<<

It it your contention to take everything I write out of context?

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>I do not think this is your intent, but such a statement sounds very close indeed to "No non-Christians allowed." Is being Christian, in your view, a necessary condition of being a good American? No, I didn't think it was. But you expose yourself to that kind of misinterpretation.<<<

I am also suspicious of your claims that you are Christian. Why expose yourself to that kind of misinterpretation?