Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, April 20, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

by Richard Dawkins

On 18th April, the day Ben Stein's infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew (referencing a past article that Shermer had written debunking the Holocaust deniers) whose identity I shall conceal as "David J".

Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!


Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:

Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit.


It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.

Richard



Dear Mr J

Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.

1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!
Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.

2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.

3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?

4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).

6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.

7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.

With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins

Comments 1751 - 1800 of 1954 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1751. Comment #172447 by Goldy on April 29, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Anyway, it's cool that people like Bonzai, MPhil, you, etc post here to lift the level of conversation from Goldy's and my interest in training marsupials....

Brian, I'm hurt you can say this behind my back! They just philosophise, I'm training bloody kangaroos! Or maybe they're training me... ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1752. Comment #172568 by TheTruthID on April 29, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Titania,

I would like the opportunity to clarify myself and answer some of your questions. Why did I not conduct myself with courtesy from the start? Well, I made the mistake, like everyone does at times, to stereotype and make assumptions. As in most instances in which I've attempted to discuss Evolution vs. ID previously, the usual initial response is a personal attack. Something you'll have to trust me on, but when starting with a simple question, like, Why does science not allow for the supernatural? A typical response would be "you are just a religious nut, and ignorant, go read a book. Not justifying my behavior, but this was the assumption I used when engaging this forum. As far as my apology, I did mention Elli by name in my apology, and you are right in that I should make amends to each directly. That will be done. We all are guilty of this behavior at some time. An assumption is made by non-Christians and or Atheist's that Christians think of themselves as righteous and holier than holier. I am no more righteous or holy then anyone else. We all fall short at times. You stated that you try not to do things that would require forgiveness from anyone. In your response though, you stereotyped Christians as one of three abuser groups who respond to disagreement with vitriol spew and that Christians often say and do horrible things to people. I take offense to this. We all say and do horrible things to people. We all are human. We are all guilty, and we all seek forgiveness at times. Would it upset you if I made the statement that Atheists are often evil and satanic? As for forgiveness, yes, I would like to be forgiven for my conduct., but this is out of my control. I, as well as many Christians, view forgiveness as a healing process for the one being asked for forgiveness. When one asks for forgiveness, they are hoping that the forgiver is sincere and genuine. If you can't forgive in a genuine and sincere matter, how are you able to ever request forgiveness yourself. I hope you understand what I just said. So yes, it is your choice in whether to forgive or not, not because I ask. Finally, in my apology letter, I did not use the word problems. I stated that I had indirect frustrations in regards to the Evolution-ID debate, which are more philosophical in nature.

Other Comments by TheTruthID

1753. Comment #172608 by Goldy on April 29, 2008 at 7:18 pm

I stated that I had indirect frustrations in regards to the Evolution-ID debate, which are more philosophical in nature.

TID, go to the Lying for Jesus thread - plenty of philosphical arguments going on there!
Have you mentioned what exactly it was about evolution that frustrated so? I should check through all the posts, I know...but I'm lazy :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1754. Comment #172623 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 7:39 pm

 avatar
Goldy: Have you mentioned what exactly it was about evolution that frustrated so? I should check through all the posts, I know...but I'm lazy :-)

Not wanting to put words into TTID's mouth but it seemed to be incredulity fueled by ignorance.

Other Comments by riandouglas

1755. Comment #172624 by raghu_mani on April 29, 2008 at 7:44 pm


1754. Comment #172568 by TheTruthID

I would like to be forgiven for my conduct., but this is out of my control.


I think most people have overlooked what you said earlier and are trying to answer your questions to the best of their abilities. As for the couple of people who still seem to bear a grudge, I hope you will acknowledge that they are the exception rather than the rule on this board.


Finally, in my apology letter, I did not use the word problems. I stated that I had indirect frustrations in regards to the Evolution-ID debate, which are more philosophical in nature.


I guess people on this message board can answer your scientific questions but I'd submit that this isn't exactly the best place for philisophical issues (unless you are talking philosophy of science). If you wish to find a Christian view of the evolution-ID debate (from a pro-evolution perspective) you can check out books by Ken Miller, Simon Conway-Morris and Francis Collins. There is also a very interesting set of talks about the whole issue online - the videos at the following links feature Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller and Michael Behe (who is pro-ID).

http://www.hallcenter.ku.edu/video/commons.shtml

They are all quite enjoyable - whether you agree with them or not and offer various interesting perspectives on these issues.

- RM

Other Comments by raghu_mani

1756. Comment #172638 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:11 pm

 avatar
I'd submit that this isn't exactly the best place for philisophical issues (unless you are talking philosophy of science).


There are several people here who have studied philosophy, Frankus and me for example. Steve also has philosophical talent.

I have studied logic, philosophy and philosophy of science... so I think I am qualified.

Unless you mean by "philosophical" something other than what is covered in academic philosophy.I once went to a bookstore and asked if they had philosophical literature... they told me to look under "esotericism" - I nearly vomited.

Little could be more antithetical to philosophy than esotericism *shudder*

Other Comments by MPhil

1757. Comment #172644 by Goldy on April 29, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Can't help on the academic philosophical front, but can help on the general science thing.
TID, if the thing is about why evolution is more accepted than ID, think about buying a second hand car. You go to the lot and there's a used Mercedes and a used Lada, both at roughly the same price. Now, you look a them both and you think that maybe the Lada, being newer is a better buy. But them Mercedes has a good reputation (or had before Chrysler...but that's a red herring) and they go for ever. Ladas keep breaking down and they're russian and everyone knows a German takes pride in his work and a Russian doesn't (don't trouble the argument by saying the German worker might really be Turkish...).
To me, that's evolution/ID. One is tried and tested and has a good reputation (all the research seems to suggest this). The other is...well, an unknown quantity (research strongly suggests any ID theory is wrong).
All depends, though. You trust German engineering more because of their reputation but maybe the simplicity of Russian engineered things appeals (I own a Russian motorcycle :-)). That's how I see the evolution/ID debate...

Other Comments by Goldy

1758. Comment #172646 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:30 pm

 avatar
(research strongly suggests any ID theory is wrong)


Logic and philosophy of science are absolutely clear on the matter that ID isn't science, no testable predictions, no parsimony, either ending in an infinite regress or in the supernatural as an explanation for natural phenomena (category mistake and contrary to the methodological naturalism of science) - as already admitted by TTID (very commendable).

Other Comments by MPhil

1759. Comment #172650 by Goldy on April 29, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Logic and philosophy of science are absolutely clear on the matter that ID isn't science, no testable predictions, no parsimony, either ending in an infinite regress or in the supernatural as an explanation for natural phenomena (category mistake and contrary to the methodological naturalism of science)

I'm taking baby steps here - many people reading these comments do not even acknowledge the wealth of evidence that underpins the theory of evolution. Indeed, as you read, they see it as another religion almost, with Darwin as some sort of Jesus figure (the only way I can explain the way I hear then mention "Darwinists"...though I'd like to think myself more a Wallaceian... ;-)).

Other Comments by Goldy

1760. Comment #172652 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:42 pm

 avatarI know... terrible.
I also don't quite get how the same people who say that religion has the answers, and is to be protected are the ones that attack Evoluton/Neo-Darwinism and Atheism as being some kind of religion, which it - of course - isn't.

Other Comments by MPhil

1761. Comment #172656 by Goldy on April 29, 2008 at 8:46 pm

I don't understand why people who tell me there is only 1 god brindle at the mention of any other god. I mean, if there is only 1, why the fuss of others, who obviously don't exist (like, I must add, their own god :-))

Other Comments by Goldy

1762. Comment #172658 by MPhil on April 29, 2008 at 8:52 pm

 avatarI guess the same answer holds for both what you and what I described... because they feel it is an attempt to undermine the autarchy of their religion.

Other Comments by MPhil

1763. Comment #172659 by Goldy on April 29, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Indeed. Always a pisser to the system wen there's people like us who just don't think like we're told!

Other Comments by Goldy

1764. Comment #172662 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:03 pm

 avatar
Goldy: with Darwin as some sort of Jesus figure

Surely Darwin=Yahweh and Dawkins=Jesus?

MPhil: I also don't quite get how the same people who say that religion has the answers, and is to be protected are the ones that attack Evoluton/Neo-Darwinism and Atheism as being some kind of religion, which it - of course - isn't.

Religion has "Truth", science has only "theories". The "theories" contradict the "Truth" and are therefore false.
Evolution isn't a law!

Very frustrating, though thankfully I haven't had to deal with it in person, and do kind of enjoy it online :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

1765. Comment #172663 by Brian English on April 29, 2008 at 9:05 pm

 avatar
I also don't quite get how the same people who say that religion has the answers,and is to be protected are the ones that attack Evoluton/Neo-Darwinism and Atheism as being some kind of religion, which it - of course - isn't.

Simple projection. We see other peoples actions and motives through the prism of our actions and motives. In other words, they have religion to guide their lives and thus, so must we. The closest thing they can find to fit the bill is evolution. Probably why a lot of fundis thing we are hypocrites. We 'believe in' evolution, which to them is eugenics and yet we don't act on those 'beliefs' and go all Spartan on everybody who isn't fit or is old.....

Other Comments by Brian English

1766. Comment #172667 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm

 avatar
Brian English: The closest thing they can find to fit the bill is evolution.

Because we "cling" to it in the face of overwhelming evidence I suppose. No wait a minute...

I'm adding nothing to the conversation. Continue as if I'm not here :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

1767. Comment #172668 by Brian English on April 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm

 avatarTosswad, I regularly add nothing to the conversation and do voluminously (sp?). :D

Other Comments by Brian English

1768. Comment #172669 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:21 pm

 avatar
Brian English: Tosswad, I regularly add nothing to the conversation and do voluminously (sp?). :D

But you do it with such style. I've also caught you adding to the conversation, which is certainly out of character.

Why do I have the feeling I'm going to regret that "tosswad" thing? :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

1769. Comment #172670 by Brian English on April 29, 2008 at 9:22 pm

 avatar
Why do I have the feeling I'm going to regret that "tosswad" thing? :-)

It's so informal. Like we've been mates for years. Well anyway, that's the kind of terms I and my mates use to name each other. Perhaps I have weird mates.....

Other Comments by Brian English

1770. Comment #172673 by Goldy on April 29, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Surely Darwin=Yahweh and Dawkins=Jesus?

Nah, think Darwin is Jesus and Dawkins maybe a Paul...though I don't think RD is a spin doctor like Paul.

Other Comments by Goldy

1771. Comment #172675 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:30 pm

 avatar
EDIT: Incorrectly attributed to Brian English Goldy: Nah, think Darwin is Jesus and Dawkins maybe a Paul...though I don't think RD is a spin doctor like Paul.

So who in this little game gets to be Yahweh, or is his absence the point?

Other Comments by riandouglas

1772. Comment #172678 by Brian English on April 29, 2008 at 9:36 pm

 avatar
Brian English: Nah, think Darwin is Jesus and Dawkins maybe a Paul...though I don't think RD is a spin doctor like Paul.


I'm Goldy now. Wow, I do move in mysterious ways...

Other Comments by Brian English

1773. Comment #172679 by riandouglas on April 29, 2008 at 9:41 pm

 avatarWoops. Sorry Goldy :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

1774. Comment #172710 by epeeist on April 30, 2008 at 1:05 am

 avatarComment #172644 by Goldy
(research strongly suggests any ID theory is wrong).
Personally I would object to the word "theory" being associated with ID. At best it is a conjecture, it has no body of evidence associated with it, it makes no predictions that can be tested or falsified.

As Behe was forced to admit at the Kitzmiller-Dover trial any definition of science wide enough to include ID would also have to admit astrology.

Other Comments by epeeist

1775. Comment #172748 by Titania on April 30, 2008 at 3:30 am

 avatarThe TruthID: Please stop trying to paint atheists with your sin brush. We are not all guilty. That is a Christian concept. I do not know a single atheist who would say the things you did. My husband of 26 years is an atheist and I have never known him to say an unkind thing to anyone. He even asked me not to put a Darwin fish on my car because it might hurt the feelings of Christians.

I did not say all Christians say and do horrible things. I said that when I hear vitriolic spew like yours, it is often a Christian. Living in the Bible Belt of the US, I know a lot of Christians and most of them would never say anything like the things you said. Yet most of them would not hesitate to tell me and my children that we are going to burn in hell for eternity. If that is not holier than thou, I don't know what is. I could sit here all day and type horrible things that Christians say and do because of their Christianity. The sickening thing is they expect to be immediately forgiven; or worse they do not even comprehend how horrible it was.

If you called atheists evil and satanic, it would not upset me. I would think you are ignorant. Atheists do not believe in Satan.

I did not say I could not forgive. I said I think forgiveness (for me) is contingent on whether you make sincere amends and whether you are able to control your frustrations so that you continue posting in a civilized manner. Go and read about the cycle of abuse. You seem to fit the pattern. You strike out in a disproportional manner against undeserving victims, and then say that you are really a good person, just frustrated, and the victims are just as bad as you because they can't forgive like good little Christians. I hope you will not continue the cycle and strike out again. The others here have been willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am a little more cynical. I do not hold a grudge. I am guessing from your posts that you are young and I am willing to put it down to that so long as you show evidence of learning from your mistakes. So far, you appear to be trying to learn and I commend you for it.

Other Comments by Titania

1776. Comment #172806 by Titania on April 30, 2008 at 5:37 am

 avatarTheTruthID: I almost forgot another point. What chutzpah of you to come onto this site, call a lovely, intelligent young lady a pig with no provocation, and then to be offended because someone says Christians say horrible things. You do know what chutzpah is, don't you? A man kills his father and mother and then begs for mercy from the court because he is an orphan.

Other Comments by Titania

1777. Comment #172971 by GregR on April 30, 2008 at 8:07 am

Not only did the filmmakers resort to deception in order to gain "biased" interviews with several of the scientists in this film, they also used John Lennon's infamous song "Imagine" without permission, and Yoko Ono and Lennon's sons are suing.

The filmmakers however are claiming their right to "free speech", citing that the fair use doctrine allows the use of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary and criticism.

I haven't seen the film, are they actually using the song in order to criticize the song specifically?

Other Comments by GregR

1778. Comment #173048 by Richard Morgan on April 30, 2008 at 9:10 am

For my friends on RDNet, especially S.Z, P.K. and B.E.
And for those whose knowledge and wisdom have taught me so much, especially, S.Z., MPhil and Dr Benway.
And for those, who, behind intellectual brilliance hide a profound emotional anguish, especially.....





http://www.myspace.com/morgansoriginals

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

1779. Comment #173052 by Elli on April 30, 2008 at 9:19 am

 avatarA single furtive tear descends down my cheek...

Other Comments by Elli

1780. Comment #173055 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 9:24 am

 avatarElli-

is that a genuine or an ironic tear?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1781. Comment #173056 by Elli on April 30, 2008 at 9:26 am

 avatarGenuine. I find it incredibly sad when reasonable people reject reason.

Other Comments by Elli

1782. Comment #173057 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:26 am

 avatarQuetz,




I am trying to refrain from comment. To see the spirit of other posts.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1783. Comment #173058 by Quetzalcoatl on April 30, 2008 at 9:30 am

 avatarAl-

suffice it to say that I am not going to write what I think about sweeping generalisations. Been there, done that, didn't get posted.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1784. Comment #173060 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 9:36 am

 avatarToo late.




This is disgusting. An arrogant, and deeply disturbed man comes here, posting about the psychology of others, which he cannot possible know.

No doubt Jesus has personally vouchsafed him some secret information.

It goes to show, the damage done by the Mormon/Christian/FCOS brainwashing is not always reversable.

And now this narcissistic attention seeking behavior. His thanks to people is no doubt the same thanks he extends at the FCOS forum, saying he is glad we "have shown him the emptiness of rationalism."

I don't shed any tears, but it is truly pathetic.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1785. Comment #173062 by Geoff on April 30, 2008 at 9:40 am

 avatar1750. Comment #172158 by TheTruthID
The Evolutionary based books I have read, in which I have on me are:

-What Evolution Is (Ernst Mayr)
-The Evolutionists (Richard Morris)
-At The Water's Edge (Carl Zimmer)
In addition to articles and papers.


Not a bad start. I've read the Mayr book, and found it quite well written, although (predictably, for this website!) I think he's wrong about selection operating at the level of the phenotype, rather than the gene. Phenotypes do not replicate: genes do.

It's worth reading RD's "The Selfish Gene" after that one, for a comparison of their arguments. See which convinces you.

I haven't read Morris's book, although I have read and enjoyed his "Time's arrows".

Zimmer's book is one I've been meaning to get round to for some time (it was recommended to me by a friend), but: "so many books, so little time"! I'd be interested in your views on it (and the others, of course).

Other Comments by Geoff

1786. Comment #173063 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 9:44 am

Geoff

Bonzai, you were looking for biomorphs earlier:


http://physics.syr.edu/courses/mirror/biomorph/



Thanks for the link.

TruthID, I highly recommend this, See if it gives you a better feel about evolution. It is one thing to read about the idea in books, quite another to see a simple demonstration, even if it is only a caricature.

Other Comments by Bonzai

1787. Comment #173080 by MaxD on April 30, 2008 at 10:12 am

 avatarAl, Quetz, are you guys refering to the TruthID posts? OR the latest by Richard Morgan?

Other Comments by MaxD

1788. Comment #173082 by al-rawandi on April 30, 2008 at 10:14 am

 avatarMaxD,




RM.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

1789. Comment #173086 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 10:19 am

I think TruthID is honestly trying to ask questions, we shouldn't bear any grudge against him.

Other Comments by Bonzai

1790. Comment #173088 by Geodesic17 on April 30, 2008 at 10:21 am

If ThruthID wants to understand where we are coming from, I see no harm in that. As long as he is here to learn it is cool by me if he hangs out here.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

1791. Comment #173096 by MaxD on April 30, 2008 at 10:33 am

 avatarAl
It is a strange situation. I went to the myspacemusic page, and saw this on his comments chatter.
I am so proud of your decision. It will be the only eternal one that counts!

This was written by some chick named redeemer53.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=133718605
I then puttered over to her page and almost retched. For some reason I found the picture of the crying fireman with the angel on his shoulder the most offensive on the page. Though there is a disgusting one where Jesus is taking a big hit of someone else's heroin. Okay that one is actually pretty funny. There is another one that looks like Jesus is doing a bump and grind with some prostitute (I'm sure I am mis-interpreting the meaning of that.)
Check it out.

Other Comments by MaxD

1792. Comment #173105 by Bonzai on April 30, 2008 at 10:44 am

MaxD

Yeah, it looks like some kind of cult thing. Very disturbing, though some of the pictures are not bad.
Didn't see the one where Jesus is taking a big hit on someone's heroin though.

Other Comments by Bonzai

1793. Comment #173144 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 12:31 pm

 avatarI found the most disgusting picture to be the one with little girl praying and the caption

The best way to spend out time
...humbled before the lord


Sieg Heil Jesus, eh?

I nearly puked.

The one's with the Heroin and the Prostitute can be interpreted as very comical indeed - now we know who Jack the Ripper really was!... and a fixxer, too... tsk, tsk, tsk. I knew it. The delusions of grandeur, the hallucinations, the whole blood cult thing... some drugs had to be involved.

Other Comments by MPhil

1794. Comment #173206 by TheTruthID on April 30, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Titania,

Yes I know what chutzpah means. How do you know Yiddish?

Other Comments by TheTruthID

1795. Comment #173227 by Tad Trenton's Ghost on April 30, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Here is what I posted on Sam Harris:

I just got back from seeing Expelled. My opinion is that Ben Stein has made a very effective movie for his propaganda. Not so much during the first half, which was pretty much a Micheal Moore riff in satiric style. It is when he begins to explore the "dark side" of Darwinism is where the film becomes incredibly powerful in its message. This is not so much becasue of what the film actually says or omits, but the emotional charge devliered by Stein's choice of images at the precise moments. But even more becasue of soundtrack. The background music alternates from dreary and depressing to dark and ominous, as Stein gives us a tour of a asylum used for the ellimination of "inferiors" in Nazi Germany, then an abandoned Natural History filled with the staring vistages of human ancestors. Is this real science? he seems to be asking. Or could all this be a terrible, tragic error on the part of evolutionists?

The most haunting moment in the entire film occurs when Stein pauses before the life-sized statue of Darwin himself. I'm not sure what the subliminal message is here, but what I got was that here is a momument to a man who was tragically duped by Satan, and foolishly enshrined by disbelieving scientists (make no mistake, many Creationstis really beleive that evoultionary theory is Satanic at its core) After this, we're treated to the opinions of several Darwinists regards science and faith. The soundtrack here is ominous and threatening, and I sensed an implication that these scientists must harbor a sinister agenda.

At the very end, though, the track is rousing and triumphant, played with shots of the dismantling of the Berlin wall, beginning with small chip sand cracks. The implication that one person can effect an eventual sea of change is a very powerful one, and Stein uses to great effect. The demonsihling of the wall, and the rousing cheers from the audience pervey a hopeful message of change.

With all this appeal to emotion it is little wonder that some, such as the gentleman who wrote that letter to Dawkins, have been so completely taken in. Stein plays on the (already widespread) fear of science, seeming to imply that we could be looking another Holacaust in the face if these sinister sceintists have their way. What do you think of all this?

Other Comments by Tad Trenton's Ghost

1796. Comment #173244 by Goldy on April 30, 2008 at 2:35 pm

I just got back from seeing Expelled. My opinion is that Ben Stein has made a very effective movie for his propaganda

It's made not even a ripple here in Aotearoa :-) Not as effective as I think he'd wish it to be.
With all this appeal to emotion it is little wonder that some, such as the gentleman who wrote that letter to Dawkins, have been so completely taken in. Stein plays on the (already widespread) fear of science, seeming to imply that we could be looking another Holacaust in the face if these sinister sceintists have their way. What do you think of all this?

You have to have a reasonably large religious population for this to work. Odd people here and maybe in the UK might go away thinking his movie has a point, but they sure as hell won't tell their friends that in case of ridicule. And given the speed people go to the doctors here when ill, methinks the fear of science is not as strong as you may think. Fear of religion, onthe other hand...well, grow a beard, get a tan and get on a bus with a rucksack and watch the people around you.

Personally I would object to the word "theory" being associated with ID. At best it is a conjecture, it has no body of evidence associated with it, it makes no predictions that can be tested or falsified

I agree, Epeeist, but we're also arguing with people to whom the full meaning of "theory" is a bit nebulous. Evolution is a theory, ergo it is not fact, ergo it is just an idea...sort of thing. Doesn't seem to apply to gravity, mind... ;-) I then apply the word to ID to show that this works both ways - evolution is a theory, ID is a theory. One theory can be tested and is backed up by a wealth of evidence, the other is derived from a series of Middle Eastern myths with European veneers.
I will state again that I personally see ID as more a philosophy and that it can be taught at universities and schools but not in science classes - lump it in the arts subjects.

Other Comments by Goldy

1797. Comment #173250 by Steve Zara on April 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm

 avatarComment #173060 by al-rawandi

I don't think RM is arrogant. Disturbed, sure. Deluded, certainly. He is mistaken in calling me friend.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1798. Comment #173252 by TheTruthID on April 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Anyone tell me how I go about sending a private e-mail? When I click on a name in the comments, it tells me to log in. Then it tells me my ID is not active. But then how am I logged in if I'm not active? Confused.

Other Comments by TheTruthID

1799. Comment #173257 by MPhil on April 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm

 avatarTheTruthID,

logging in on the comments-section and logging in on the forum-portion of the site (where you can send Private Messages, change your profile etc) are separate. You need to log in with your screen-name and alias again when you click on a name.

Other Comments by MPhil

1800. Comment #173260 by Goldy on April 30, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Truth, you may have to register there. Clicking on your name tells me you don't exist.
You're not...God, are you? In which case, we athiests have been making a bit of a mistake all our lives ;-D

Other Comments by Goldy
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: