ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler

The Anti-Defamation League ^ | August 22, 2006 | The Anti-Defamation League

[js1138]

AScience doesn't study God.

[ml1954]

Evolution describes the the processes of life. But its proponents take it a step further by assuming there is no God behind the origin of life.

Broad brush much?

[ChessExpert]

For stations and times go to:

http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/watch.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301

But you might also want to consult local listings.

The website indicates it will be on at 7PM where I live, but local listings indicate 6PM. So I'm going to turn it on in 5 minutes.

[ToryHeartland]

[ToryHeartland] The moral values (which you specifed in your previous post) are absolute, and also common to most folks, as I indicated.

[PhilipFreneau] That is a myth perpetuated by Moral Relativists, like yourself. Answer this: prior to the Christians and early Jews, which nations practiced the Law of the Lord (e.e., "...all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..." - Matthew 7:12)? Just curious.

Ae you talking about 'nations practising law' or (as I was) 'people practising morality'?

The moral principle of Matthew 7:12 is of great antiquity, and probably close to a human universal. It would be a greater challenge to find creeds or moral systems that reject it (there have been such cults, granted; but arguably the exception proves the rule)

In Hindu scripture (the Mahabharata) dating from circa 500 BC, one finds "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". (5:1517)

In China, we find in the Confucian Analects (15:23) ""Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you", and also, from the Doctrine of the Mean (13.3) "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'"

Many examples abound, though as ever with on-line material, one needs to dig to satisfy oneself the quotes are accurate. Google on 'Golden Rule', or make a start here.

Now, as you demanded of me (I do not say "asked of me"), I have provided you with an answer, although you have provided no answer to my civil questions of you in posts 469 and 470--indeed, your only reply to those posts was to call me a "moral relativist" and state your "suspicious of your claims that you are Christian."

Do you consider your behaviour in our exchange in accordance with the teaching of Matthew 7:12.?

Or are you still intending, in accordance with the principle of recipricocity, to answer my original questions to you, to wit:

[Post 469] "is it your contention--as your post [291] implies--that non-Christians believe and advocate murder, theft, and hatred?", and

[Post 470] "Is being Christian, in your view, a necessary condition of being a good American?"

Just curious.

[flevit]

nope, it attempts (with much falibility because we aren't intelligent enough understand it all and we have egos and are biased) to study his creation which I must say are far more brilliant than I could come up with.

how bout you, can you create a self replicating sponge that is the envy of structural engineers everywhere?

[Dimensio]

But its proponents take it a step further by assuming there is no God behind the origin of life.

Not all who accept the theory of evolution make this assumption. You are employing an erroneous premise.

I do not think it is by accident the title of Darwin's famous opus is titled The Origin Of Species.

No one has suggested that the title of the book is an accident. It is quite clear intended for his book to have this tiile.

. If you begin with the concept God is unnecessary to the struggles of living things on earth, it is but a short step to the embrace of atheism.

While possibly true, this is a non-sequitur.

Now, if evolution allows for the existence of a divine creator, the most ardent defenders of the theory would want to welcome alternative explanations like Natural Design.

Only if such explanations were scientific. They are not, thus it is not honest to label them as science.

[razzle]

"Please give specific examples of phony darwinism evidence"

OK, I do have a job so I can't be trolling the darwinist blogs all day like you clowns. But here is some evidence of your phoniness off the top of my head - I'll get more later if you like (I have yet to visit one of your "creationist" web sites either). And just for the record lets keep this honest between us, its darwinism vs. ID (everyone believes in evolution even temporary microevolution of species - and creationism is a religious issue)

fraud #1 Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man "found" in 1912 in Sussex England turned out to be a 1000 yr old human skull with a jaw bone from a modern orangutan (monkey for you guys) proved via carbon dating

fraud #2 peppered moths from industrial England were staged by gluing dead moths to tree trunks

fraud #3 Haeckel's embryo drawings showing human embryos next to those of chickens and fish, etc. again turned out to be fake drawings (oh well can't win' em all right)

fraud #4 fossils found by Hans Thewssen and Gingrich purportedly showing the link between land mammals and whales. This as well as the rest of the frauds were trumpeted by the darwinists in school texts and elsewhere showing how wonderful darwin was and that his beliefs are really "facts" - later proven that the fossils could not have been related to the whale.

fraud #5 Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 created amino acids by electricity through a "primordial soup" of early earth atmosphere. The "atmosphere" they used was later (frauds are always caught after the text books are written to fool our kids - have you noticed this) proven to be modeled on Jupiter, not Earth. Of course this and other frauds are still taught in Biology class. (kinda like Bush lied people died, its catchy)

[js1138]

And how did creation science expose Piltdown? (Or was it mainstream science.) Many people think it curious that the Catholic Priest and ID writer (who was present at one of the finds) never wrote about Piltdown, despite a lifetime of writing about the subject of human evolution.

The peppered moth photos were staged. Actually, the scandal is much worse than that. Many illustration in publications like Scientific American are actually drawing or paintings.

Haeckel's drawing have inaccuracies, but bet you can't tell me what they are. In fact, many creationists, like the author of "Icons of Evolution" are so ignorant they haven't noticed that more resent versions of embryo drawings have been corrected. Anyway, photos confirm the main point of the drawings. Species that are descended from common ancestors have similar appearing embryos up to a point of divergence.

There is nothing fraudulent about whale transitionals. Where did you get that?

The Miller experiment demonstrates that complex organic compounds can form in the absence of life.

[Coyoteman]

fraud #1 Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man "found" in 1912 in Sussex England turned out to be a 1000 yr old human skull with a jaw bone from a modern orangutan (monkey for you guys) proved via carbon dating

This was a hoax, not a fraud, and it was discovered by scientists. Piltdown was largely ignored because it did not fit the pattern of all the other fossils (Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang). By the way, an orang is an ape, not a monkey. And the fossils were disproved by fluorine testing, not radiocarbon.

fraud #2 peppered moths from industrial England were staged by gluing dead moths to tree trunks

This was not a fraud, and only creationists still call it one. See the following links:

• CB601. The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable.
  • CB601.1. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them there were faked.
  • CB601.2. Peppered moths occur in uncamouflaged colors in many areas.
    • CB601.2.1. Dark moths never completely replaced light ones in Manchester.
    • CB601.2.2. In several areas dark moths were more common than expected.
    • CB601.2.3. Dark moths increased in s. Britain after pollution control began.
    • CB601.2.4. In places, light moths increased before lichens reappeared.
    • CB601.2.5. Light moths increased before trees got lighter.

fraud #3 Haeckel's embryo drawings showing human embryos next to those of chickens and fish, etc. again turned out to be fake drawings (oh well can't win' em all right)

• CB701. Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures.

fraud #4 fossils found by Hans Thewssen and Gingrich purportedly showing the link between land mammals and whales. This as well as the rest of the frauds were trumpeted by the darwinists in school texts and elsewhere showing how wonderful darwin was and that his beliefs are really "facts" - later proven that the fossils could not have been related to the whale.

• CC216.1. There are gaps between land mammals and whales.

fraud #5 Miller-Urey experiment in 1953 created amino acids by electricity through a "primordial soup" of early earth atmosphere. The "atmosphere" they used was later (frauds are always caught after the text books are written to fool our kids - have you noticed this) proven to be modeled on Jupiter, not Earth. Of course this and other frauds are still taught in Biology class. (kinda like Bush lied people died, its catchy)

• CB035. Miller's experiments had an invalid assumption of the type of atmosphere.
  • CB035.1. Earth's early atmosphere had abundant oxygen.
  • CB035.2. Earth's early atmosphere had no reducing gases.
  • CB035.3. Amino acids are not generated from just CO2, nitrogen, and water.

As you can see, your claims of fraud are so well known, and so oft-disputed that they have even been numbered. (See Index to Creationist Claims for the full list.)

Care to try again?

[balrog666]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

[js1138]

You have to admit, though, that a lot of scientific illustrations are just drawings or paintings and not unstaged photographs.

I have a poster sized framed print of the Audubon Carolina Parrot, and I suspect it was staged. I bet Carolina Parrots don't even exist.

[Coyoteman]

You have to admit, though, that a lot of scientific illustrations are just drawings or paintings and not unstaged photographs.

I have a poster sized framed print of the Audubon Carolina Parrot, and I suspect it was staged. I bet Carolina Parrots don't even exist.

Is this the one?

[razzle]

Dude, you sound like Dan Rather - Even though those papers were forged, the story is really true (ya gotta believe me....), you're all so sad, trying so hard to force your religion on every child in the world.

[Boxen]

Did you even read the claims?

[js1138]

Yep. Obviously phony.

[js1138]

Dude, you sound like Dan Rather - Even though those papers were forged, the story is really true

That's the subject of this thread: why a Christian minister would use fake documents to promote an absurd position.

[js1138]

Your analogy to forged papers might be interesting except for a few places where it falls down.

1. The Rather documents were never seen. The "originals" were never made public. This is not true of Piltdown, Haeckel's drawings, peppered moths, Nebraska Man, archeopteryx, or any of the other items you mentioned. In every case of science fraud or hoax, the original documents or data is available for anyone to study. In the case of the peppered moths, the change in color during industrialization is indisputable.
2. In Rathergate, the documents were the ONLY evidence for the alleged scandal. Evolution has hundreds of independent lines of evidence collected and analyzed by tens of thousands of investigators over two centuries.
3. Rather has never admitted a problem. In the case of biological scandals, creationists would not know there have been hoaxes except that mainstream scientists have exposed them.
4. Few people believe there is any truth behind the Rather documents. In the case of evolution, its educated critics like Behe, Denton and Dembski, accept the historical chronology of mainstream science and only question details. The age of the earth and common descent are not questioned by ID advocates.

[razzle]

"...common descent are not questioned by ID advocates."

You have got to be kidding!!! ha ha ha (good one). You are confusing temporary micro evolutionary changes (within species, such as pointed beaks that return to normal after a few generations) with common descent (I hope). ID points out that darwin's "tree of life" has only branches, no common descent. I have no problem believing in common descent if there were any evidence of just one species evolving into another.

[js1138]

Here's Michael Denton, author of "Evolution, a Theory In Crisis," in his latest book:

"...it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school".

Start spinning.

Want more?

Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."

Would you like to know what Michael Behe, consultant to the Discovery Institute, thinks of common descent?

[RunningWolf]

Whether Piltdwon was hoax, fraud or honest mistake is not as important as the fact that the the vast majority of the scientific community was duped by it. Granted there were a very few who questioned it almost immediately, but they got only a small podium in the 'scientific community'.

Coyote you need to quit obtaining your history sources from talk-origins, because it does not take a lot of digging at all to reveal that talk-origins on this (like most issues) is wrong.

Contrary to what you say, Piltdown was largely accepted and was considered a pivotal event at the time. Why? it was what they wanted to find, or rather an ancestor (fake) to fit their expectations. This event highlighted a great deep and vast weakness in this field and that is "More troubling, it is a case of scientific predisposition toward interpretations that validate contemporary ideas about evolutionary events. Once such ideas gain wide acceptance, they are sometimes judged by the strength of opinion, not strength of evidence."

The following are quotes from various major news sources contemporaneous with that period.

Most English scientists subscribed to theory that Eoanthropus dawsoni was a

legitimate hominid fossil, and most of the English and U. S. press agreed with that.

:

British 1912-1917

Manchester Guardian: The Earliest Man? REMARKABLE DISCOVERY IN SUSSEX.

A Skull "Millions of Years" Old Manchester Guardian (November 21, 1912)

The Earliest Known Man. Manchester Guardian (November 21, 1912)

The Earliest Skull. "A HITHERTO UNKNOWN SPECIES."

STORY OF THE SUSSEX DISCOVERY. Manchester Guardian (December 10, 1912)

Paleolithic Skull Is a

Missing Link

Human Remains

Found in

England Similar in

Some Details to

Bones of Chimpanzee

FAR OLDER THAN

CAVEMEN

Bones Probably That of a

Direct Ancestor of Modern

Man, While Cavemen

Died Out.

Special Cable to

THE NEW YORK TIMES.

---

---

Darwin Theory Is Proved True

English Scientists Say the Skull

Found in Sussex Establishes Human Descent from Apes.

THOUGHT TO BE A WOMAN'S

Bones Illustrate a Stage of Evolution Which has Only Been

Imagined Before.

CREATURE COULD NOT TALK

Probably Lived at a Time When Other Species of Human Had

Developed Further Elsewhere

Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES December 22, 1913

LONDON. Dec. 21.–A race of ape-like and speechless man, inhabiting England hundreds of thousands of years ago, when they had for their neighbors the mastodon and other animals now extinct is the missing link in the chain in man's evolution, which leading scientists say they have discovered in what is generally described as "the Sussex skull." To this Dr. Woodward proposes to give the name of "eoanthropus," or "man of dawn."

Prof. Arthur Keith says that the discovery marks by far the most remarkable advance in the knowledge of the ancestry of man ever made in England and supports the view that man was derived not from a single genus or species, but from several different genera. He goes on:

"It gives us a stage in the evolution of man which we have only imagined since Darwin propounded the theory."

Prof. Keith expresses the opinion that the skull is what anthropologists have been seeking for forty years, namely, a tertiary man, mankind of the pliocene age, which was the beginning of the first great glacial period.

"There is no doubt at all," he said, "that this is the most important discovery concerning ancient man ever made in England. It is one of the three most important discoveries of the sort ever made in the world. The other two were the discovery of the individual known as Pithecanthropus, made in Java in 1802 by Prof. Eugene Dubois. The other, which equals it in instructiveness and importance, is the skull discovered at Heidelberg six years ago.

W.