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 1901 - 1947 of 1947 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1901. Comment #174383 by Quine on May 2, 2008 at 10:51 am

 avatarWhile reading these recent invectives from the right wing I am trying to see what is causing the writers to go to such mental gymnastics to try to keep the public ignorant. There is a consistent linking of evolution, and science in general, to philosophical materialism as in the quote mining of Alfred North Whitehead in this piece.

Of course, it is easy to quote some philosopher of the past who has not seen the recent DNA sequencing results, and never heard of Tiktaalik. I think there is a deeper fear that without dualism there is no means of breaking symmetry with regard to who deserves to have the respect (and social/economic status) of righteousness and who does not.

Other Comments by Quine

1902. Comment #174467 by missmoo on May 2, 2008 at 1:16 pm

As a humanistic atheist jew, I must say I am appalled and shamed to see anyone taking advantage of such a horrific time in history (not only for the jewish history).

Half of my family was murdered in the holocaust, and my grand parents were saved by their teeth from that horrible time, so no one can say I am not "connected" to this tragedy. I am.

I didn't expect anyone to take advantage for their own benefit out of such a time in our world's history. Ben Stein's twisted lies and deceipts are one thing, but his twisting historical data and lies is even worse when it involves the holocaust.

Even before we discuss the merit of the movie itself, the fact Ben Stein used the holocaust in such a way - just to create more "drama" to his lie - should be enough to condemn the entire making of this movie. Right, wrong, true, false, it doesn't matter for this *SPECIFIC* point: the bottom line is that he took the suffering of millions of people and twisted it to make his lie dramatical, take advantage of the pain of survivors, and have his movie earn more money.

Ben Stein should be ashamed of himself.

For lying, and for taking advantage of people like my grandparents' suffering and loss just to make a lie dramatical.

I am appalled not only as a science-minded atheist, but as a HUMAN BEING.

~moo

Other Comments by missmoo

1903. Comment #174691 by ofir on May 3, 2008 at 9:12 am

The holocaust is the product of centuries of church based anti-jewish propaganda. This is why it's difficult for jews to oppose this Stein nonsense without sounding controversial and anti-christian.

Other Comments by ofir

1904. Comment #174777 by Cantonakenobi on May 3, 2008 at 1:00 pm

 avatarDear 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
PART DEUX

Other Comments by Cantonakenobi

1905. Comment #175192 by Quine on May 4, 2008 at 7:39 pm

 avatarChris Heard, Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University has written a review of Expelled on his blog. I recommend this link be given to any theists you know who might think that there is any truth in the movie. It contains things about Jonathan Wells that I did not know.

Chris also linked to this thread about the letter from Mr. J.

Other Comments by Quine

1906. Comment #176761 by Jenny Haskins on May 8, 2008 at 1:01 am

"but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest."

This is a silly comment from a previous poster.

And I think Richard Dawkins himself misunderstand evolutionary theory when he says "I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live."

Darwin's theory never said anything about intentional selection of choosing 'fit' individuals. In fact if anything Darwin's major ommission was not defining the simple principle that survival long enough to produce descendants who themselves live long enough to produce descendants (etc) is 'fitness'.

Now by purely Darwinian (ie natural) selection humans have evolved into an altruistic, empathetic and cooperative social species -- and purely by Darwinian (ie natural) selection the different races have evolved. And we are still living in a society based on natural selection -- because our tendency and ability to help the weaker members of our society has evolved through Darwinian (natural) selection.

Blaming Darwin OR his theories for 'Social Darwinism" is as silly as blaming Karl Marx for the atrocities committed by the dictatorial societies that choose to call themselves 'Marxist'. Or, dare I say Jesus Ben Joseph (aka Christ) is not responsible for the atrocities committed in his name either.

Not to mention that the tendency/ability of people to believe in an ill-defined deity is also a characteristic developed through natural selection :-)

Other Comments by Jenny Haskins

1907. Comment #176763 by MPhil on May 8, 2008 at 1:13 am

 avatar

Blaming Darwin OR his theories for 'Social Darwinism" is as silly as blaming Karl Marx for the atrocities committed by the dictatorial societies that choose to call themselves 'Marxist'.


Not true - science is purely descriptive, Marx's theory was not purely descriptive, but included also moral judgments.

Also, while no actual communist state implemented the society Marx said was necessary, in an historical/ontological/metaphysical as well as a moral sense, (the Hegelian Synthese applied to the "progression" of society is also conceived of as a progression of moral status), he did advocate something quasi-collectivist, which itself is morally dubious.

Furthermore,
In addition to the fact that there is dispute over whether "the Jesus" that is supposed to be described (even if you substract the divinity and miracles) in the bible even ever lived, he did propose a morality so diverse and partially incompatible (explained by the fact that the stories about him and his ethics are largely fabrications, the writers of the texts imposed their own morality upon this character), partially very "inhumane" that there can be said to be responsibility given that he existed (which I doubt) - the responsibility lies with those who fabricated the stories, those who made the claim to their authority and those who defend and indoctrinate the dogma.

The teachings of "Jesus" are not all fluffy "love everyone"-morality.

Other Comments by MPhil

1908. Comment #176858 by grillem on May 8, 2008 at 7:22 am

Early years
Stein was born in Washington, D.C., the son of Mildred (née Fishman), a homemaker, and Herb Stein, a writer, economist, and presidential adviser.[2] He was raised Jewish and grew up in the Woodside Forest neighborhood of Silver Spring, Maryland. Stein graduated from Montgomery Blair High School in 1961 along with classmate journalist Carl Bernstein; actress Goldie Hawn (class of 1963) was two years behind. Actor Sylvester Stallone was a schoolmate at Montgomery Hills Junior High School. He went on to major in economics at Columbia University's Columbia College, where he was a member of Alpha Delta Phi society and the Philolexian Society. After graduating with honors from Columbia in 1966, Stein went to Yale Law School, from which he graduated as the class valedictorian in June of 1970. On December 21, 1970, while visiting his father at work,

Other Comments by grillem

1909. Comment #177610 by leviticus on May 9, 2008 at 11:03 am

 avatarTo - Layla Nasreddin

Just a note. -- "Darwin's Blind Spot: Evolution Beyond Natural Selection" by Frank Ryan had nothing to do with creationism or Social Darwinism as it seems you post implies, it is about symbiotic evolution (symbiogenesis), which is a topic i find interesting, although i found Mr. Ryans book to be one the driest books on the topic. The idea originated with Russian scientists, Konstantin Mereschkowsky. Dr. Lynn Margulis book aquiring genomes was an interesting read although there were many printing errors (color diagrams with no color) and the tone is sometimes a bit snively complaining about neo-darwinist ignorance of the topic I'd still recommend the book as something that could enrich one's understanding of biology and evolution even if you do not agree with some of the claims.

Good Day,
Leviticus, Levi J. Morris

Other Comments by leviticus

1910. Comment #177646 by TikiHead on May 9, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Zaphod:

"The theory of evolution had as much to do with the holocaust as the theory gravity has to do with apartheid in South Africa."

But, but, but... without gravity, apartheid would not have been possible.

You have to admit that!

Other Comments by TikiHead

1911. Comment #177981 by grillem on May 10, 2008 at 5:57 am

"Eugenics is the self-direction of human evolution": Logo from the Second International Eugenics Conference [10], 1921, depicting it as a tree which unites a variety of different fields.
Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust. The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[2] drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. From its inception eugenics was supported by prominent people, including H.G. Wells, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, William Keith Kellogg and Margaret Sanger.[3][4] G. K. Chesterton was an early critic of the philosophy of eugenics, expressing this opinion in his book, Eugenics and Other Evils. Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities. Funding was provided by prestigious sources such as the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Harriman family.[5] Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York. Eugenics' scientific reputation started to tumble in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany.

Other Comments by grillem

1912. Comment #178691 by psaturn on May 11, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Dear Professor Hawkins, you are right that Darwin did not propose Eugenics but rather his family:

[quote] Eugenics, the belief that certain "genetic" traits are good and others bad, is associated in the public mind mostly with the extreme eugenics policies of Adolf Hitler, which ultimately led to the Holocaust. The study of eugenics did not begin with Hitler or his German scientists, but rather was first promoted by Sir Francis Galton, in England. Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, who expanded on Darwin's theories and applied them to the human population. In an article entitled "Hereditary Character and Talent" (published in two parts in MacMillan's Magazine, vol. 11, November 1864 and April 1865, pp. 157-166, 318-327), Galton expressed his frustration that no one was breeding a better human:
"If a twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create! We might introduce prophets and high priests of civilization into the world, as surely as we can propagate idiots by mating cretins. Men and women of the present day are, to those we might hope to bring into existence, what the pariah dogs of the streets of an Eastern town are to our own highly-bred varieties."

Galton in the same article described Africans and Native Americans in derogatory terms making it clear which racial group he thought was superior. Francis Galton, the founder of the Eugenics Society, spoke hopefully about persuading people with desirable genes to marry and have large families. Galton's successor at the helm of the Eugenics Society was Major Leonard Darwin (1850-1943), a son of Charles Darwin. Leonard Darwin, who ran the Eugenics Society until 1928, made the transition from positive to negative eugenics, and promoted plans for lowering the birthrate of the unfit.
Built into the idea of natural selection is a competition between the strong and the weak, between the fit and the unfit. The eugenicists believed that this mechanism was thwarted in the human race by charity, by people and churches who fed the poor and the weak so that they survived, thrived, and reproduced. [/quote]

Other Comments by psaturn

1913. Comment #178697 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 12:04 am

 avatarpsaturn: Dear Professor Hawkins, you are right that Darwin did not propose Eugenics but rather his family:
It's Professor Dawkins. And Darwin spoke out against Eugenics in "Descent of man":
"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

psaturn: [quote]Built into the idea of natural selection is a competition between the strong and the weak, between the fit and the unfit. The eugenicists believed that this mechanism was thwarted in the human race by charity, by people and churches who fed the poor and the weak so that they survived, thrived, and reproduced. [/quote]

I'm not really sure what the point of your post is.
"Fit" or "strong" in darwinian terms is that which survives to have more offspring.
Eugenics is akin to "artificial selection", like breeding dogs or horses, or the way in which the spartans operated. Darwinian natural selection has no guiding force, no "plan".

Other Comments by riandouglas

1914. Comment #179129 by psaturn on May 12, 2008 at 6:11 pm

riandouglas

The point is quite simple...Eugenics were proposed by the inheritor of Darwin: his cousin and his son. His cousin founded the Eugenics Society and it seemed to be quite racist..

Darwin's son, Major Leonard Darwin, also ran the Eugenics society until 1928 and he made the transition from positive eugenics to negative eugenics.

People repeatedly disavow Eugenics as being part of Darwinian thinking but his family did not seem to think so...

Other Comments by psaturn

1915. Comment #179131 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 6:20 pm

 avatar
psaturn: The point is quite simple...Eugenics were proposed by the inheritor of Darwin: his cousin and his son. His cousin founded the Eugenics Society and it seemed to be quite racist..

How are they his inheritors? As eugenics amounts to selective breeding in homo sapiens, somehing which had been done for centuries (see sparta's treatement of their children), it seems unrelated to Darwin's undirected process.
Europeans at the time believed themselves to be superior. It would have been common knowledge. Singling out one group which represented those views doesn't seem fair.

psaturn: People repeatedly disavow Eugenics as being part of Darwinian thinking but his family did not seem to think so...

It really doesn't matter what his family thought.
In the quote I gave above, Darwin disavowes eugenics. Darwinian evolution, like the modern synthesis, is descriptive, not proscriptive. It doesn not say something should be done, only describes what has happened.
Eugenics is selective breeding, the thing we do for dogs, horses, cattle etc, ie not darwinian natural selection.

Other Comments by riandouglas

1916. Comment #179134 by Brian English on May 12, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Pst Tosswad. Great comment, but I think the word is prescriptive (as in a doctor), not proscriptive (as in deny). ;)

Other Comments by Brian English

1917. Comment #179139 by Goldy on May 12, 2008 at 6:43 pm

People repeatedly disavow Eugenics as being part of Darwinian thinking but his family did not seem to think so...

Given the squabbling when wills are read and then contested, this is hardly a link between eugenics and Darwin's (and Wallace's) theory of evolution, is it?
As Rian points out, eugenics is not evolution, it is selective breeding. There is a slight difference :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

1918. Comment #179150 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 7:33 pm

 avatarGive me a break Brian, I was in a hurry! :-)

Other Comments by riandouglas

1919. Comment #179156 by riandouglas on May 12, 2008 at 7:45 pm

 avatarStumbled upon this interestiong quote from one Ben Stein:
"As a casual observer of what makes this country work and what stops it cold, I hereby offer a few suggestions on how we can ruin American competitiveness and innovation in the course of this century. I think the reader will agree with me that we are already far down the road on many of them...

12) Elevate mysticism, tribalism, shamanism and fundamentalism--and be sure to exclude educated, hardworking men and women--to an equal status with technology in the public mind. Make sure that, in order to pay proper (and politically correct) respect to all different ethnic groups in America, you act as if science were on an equal footing with voodoo and history with ethnic fable..."


â€" How to Ruin American Enterprise, by Ben Stein
Forbes Magazine, 12/23/02

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1223/225_print.html

I suppose nobody was working hard enough to bring them about, so Stein decided to take it into his own hands

Other Comments by riandouglas

1920. Comment #179160 by Brian English on May 12, 2008 at 7:50 pm

Give me a break Brian, I was in a hurry! :-)

I'm a bitch. :P

Other Comments by Brian English

1921. Comment #179394 by lorifoxbane on May 13, 2008 at 7:52 am

Good evidence for those who don't pay attention in school. He got his answer then how and why something like the houlocoust could happen. Ignorance, self perpetuated ignorance.

I'm thankful this link was passed on to me. Richard, your argument is pretty obvious for anyone who paid attention in sophomore history and science class 3rd grade and up. So this certainly reveals one slacker. School is certainly not proganda for core beliefs but certain facts are facts.

Other Comments by lorifoxbane

1922. Comment #180832 by grillem on May 15, 2008 at 11:15 pm

I have not kept up with all of the postings so please excuse this comment if it has been dealt with before. It seems to me that Darwinism, eugenics and selective breeding are all comcepts that have much in common. Society, in general, today shelters and protects those that are less bright, able and fit. They do not die off and fail to breed as they normally would have done throughout history. Thus natural selection does not have a chance to opperate as it has in the past. For example, folks that are less bright with poor impulse control tend to have children at a higher rate than more intelligent individuals with good impulse control. Their lack of intelligence and poor impulse control would have done them in, in the distant past, and they would not have nearly the opportunity to breed and carry those traits forward. Much of Darwin's observations that have gone on forever in the distant past, no longer operate as they should. Does not the concept of eugenics and selective breeding come to the rescue to help stop the human race from actually moving backwards? This seems to me a very logical connection that should not be avoided. Also, since there are no absolute moral values to get in the way, would we not be serving the human race in positive way by utilizing these kinds of options?

Other Comments by grillem

1923. Comment #180850 by MaxD on May 16, 2008 at 1:00 am

 avatargrillem,
Does the human race really have goals? I know some societies do. But does the race? Does nature have any goals for us?

Other Comments by MaxD

1924. Comment #181690 by rbannella on May 18, 2008 at 12:36 am

There are a lot of neo fascists, neo nazis, racists, fanatics in Europe.. But they don't talk of Intelligent Design nor they attack Darwinism.. Why this happens in the US? Who is paying for these campaigns? What they hope to gain from their financial investments?
Roberto Bannella (Rome, Italy and Levallois, France)

Other Comments by rbannella

1925. Comment #181848 by stevmg on May 18, 2008 at 11:53 am

Ben Stein is among the anomlies of conservative Right Wing Jews (I myself am Jewish) which have been a minority up until now.

This element which includes Senator Lieberman are poised to become Messianic Jews when the time is ripe.

When the Christian Fundamentalists do strike, this element wants to be included in the ruling group.

Sad fact is that they will succeed as belief, even if totally incorrect, will always win over non-belief. Fanatics will always beat out free thinkers.

Mr. Dawkins has spelled out in the God Delusion book what the Fundamentalists intend to do with those who don't agree with them.

I hope that day is a long way off, but I feel that it is fairly close.

Other Comments by stevmg

1926. Comment #197032 by LilyBean on June 21, 2008 at 12:38 am

Great letter Richard.

Although I myself am an atheist, my grandfather's family were all German Jews. Nearly all of them were killed by the Nazis. I cannot describe the rage I feel that people like Stein will use what my relatives went through in this manner. This film is an insult to every person murdered by the Nazis. Is this really the reason that my relatives died? To be used as pawns in some idiot's fundamentalist propaganda?

Seriously, as soon as someone starts doing what I call the "Hitler comparison", their credibility is dead to me.

And by the way Stein, belief in something for which there is no evidence: NOT INTELLIGENT.

Other Comments by LilyBean

1927. Comment #197181 by Misael on June 21, 2008 at 9:47 am

just wondering what became of my comment.
Here was i trying to stick around in case anyone wanted to argue...but I can't see it anywhere.
How does this work? I'm new to internet forums. It wasn't rude or anything

Other Comments by Misael

1928. Comment #197185 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 9:56 am

 avatarComment #197181 by Misael
just wondering what became of my comment.
According to the "Other Comments" link this is the only one that you have posted.

It may be that your login timed out if you took a long time to type a comment in. It is best to use a simple editor like Notepad to compose your post. Once you have completed it then you can cut and paste from your editor into the comment posting box.

Other Comments by epeeist

1929. Comment #197197 by TeraBrat on June 21, 2008 at 10:21 am

I feel bad for German people. No one lets the Nazi thing go. No one brings up the fact that the pilgrams that formed the US and Canada massicured 80% of the 100 million or more natives in the americas.

Not as if I am saying to forget about it, but it seems no one can shut up about it, while at the same time being completely ignored of the actual events and causes of the events. I think Japan is barely even mentioned in this because they got nuked, and people don't like to mention that. Though Germany too a massive beating to it's population and cities as well.

Anyone, I just think it must be increasingly frustrating if you're German. It seems no one can mention German without Nazism being in the sentence along with it. Which simply isn't fair.


I haven't read all 2000 comments so maybe this was already raised and in that case I apologize.

My grandfather left Poland in 1935. The rest of his family was killed in the Holocaust. The entire villiage they lived in was wiped out.

1. I don't hate all Germans. There were Germans who helped the Jews at the risk of their own lives. There were those who passively defied out of fear and I can't blame them. This does not take away from the HORROR of what the Nazi's did and that will NEVER be forgiven.

2. I definitely do refer to the massacre of the native Americans quite often. Americans often need to be shaken out of their complaceny and smuggness.

3. Japan is not referenced when the Holocaust is mentioned because, while they faught on the side of the Germans they never had anything to with that genocide.

Your sympathy for the Germans is misplaced. I don't hate them any more than I hate the British for allowing so many Jews to be killed under their watch or all of the countries that denied Jews entrance. Shiploads of Jews were returned to Germany because they were not allowed into any other country. The allies knew about the death camps and refused to act on that knowlege. A few bombs to destroy the gas chambers and crematoreums would have save so many lives.

But I don't hate the whole world any more than I hate all Germans.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

1930. Comment #197205 by Misael on June 21, 2008 at 11:01 am

Thanks epeeist, mate, I must have done it wrong somehow.
This is what I said, roughly:
I think Professor Dawkins' terminology is over the top in his "open letter".
"unscrupulous", "wicked", "evil", "deliberate and calculated deception..."
I felt that in plain English , what he was saying was that he disagreed with Stein on the interpretation of certain historical data.
More worthy of an Oxford academic to express it like that, then.
Secondly, I was unsure what actual HARM had been done to the guy, even assuming he had been misled. He was already in a vulnerable state, which I reckon could only be compounded by having his letter publicly described as "revolting" and "truly horrible".
Is that troll-speak? I hope not, having NO intention to offend -- it's simply what I felt when I read the letter.

Other Comments by Misael

1931. Comment #197220 by epeeist on June 21, 2008 at 11:45 am

 avatarComment #197205 by Misael

I think Professor Dawkins' terminology is over the top in his "open letter".
"unscrupulous", "wicked", "evil", "deliberate and calculated deception..."
Actually I think he was straight on the money - have a look at http://www.expelledexposed.com/ for the lies and deceptions behind the film.

Other Comments by epeeist

1932. Comment #197225 by black wolf on June 21, 2008 at 11:54 am

 avatarA general comment:
Please people, stop confusing Hawking and Dawkins.
Stephen Hawking - physicist
Richard Dawkins - biologist
They are two different people. Write that down one hundred times.
I see this confusion every day, and it seriously grates on my nerves. Is it really so hard to avoid that sloppy mistake?

Other Comments by black wolf

1933. Comment #197258 by Misael on June 21, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Thanks epeeist --
yes, I'd already seen that Ncse thing, but the point was a) the letter wasn't addressing Stein or Premise and b) that's not the right language for an Oxford scholar to express what WAS basically a scholarly disagreement, a question of the interpretation of facts. Misdirected aggression was how it came across! To reiterate the slightly distinct point, it's also hard to see how the film, even if it misled "David J", could be said to have "cruelly" injured or harmed him.
Incidentally, (if you don't mind me using you as a handy reference source) what's with the AM time on the post? Isn't RD in the UK? and to my knowledge it's night there!

Other Comments by Misael

1934. Comment #197259 by Brian English on June 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Misael, the RD website is hosted in the US I believe. And only Zeus knows where Richard himself is.

Other Comments by Brian English

1935. Comment #197261 by Misael on June 21, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Darn it -- I'll never know what time anything is

Other Comments by Misael

1936. Comment #197262 by mordacious1 on June 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Misael

If I'm not mistaken, the site posts the time where ever you are. So for me all times are Pacific time zone.

Other Comments by mordacious1

1937. Comment #197264 by Brian English on June 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Well, it's 6:37 am June 22 here which is GMT plus 10

Other Comments by Brian English

1938. Comment #197281 by Corylus on June 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm

 avatarMisael
Misdirected aggression was how it came across!
I would say vicarious rather than misdirected.

I often find myself more infuriated when thinking about offences against others than I do when I think about offences against myself. Anger on behalf of others is much harder to channel and control than simple anger.
... it's also hard to see how the film, even if it misled "David J", could be said to have "cruelly" injured or harmed him.
Really? Let's put this in context. How many letters to total strangers (not newspapers, but individuals) have you penned because you wish to express your anger and disappointment? What would it take to make you write the letter below?
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!
The quote above appears to indicate a deeply agitated and emotional individual (by the exclamation marks if nothing else).* It is not surprising that he was lashing out in an uncontrolled fashion. He was viewing something he saw as an attack against his family (that vicarious anger again!) and, by extension, himself.

A huge amount of our self image is based upon who our family are, and who our family were. How they lived and worked, and how they died. I'm not Jewish so I can only dimly attempt to understand how magnified this feeling would be if I had family who were murdered in the holocaust.
what he was saying was that he disagreed with Stein on the interpretation of certain historical data.
If this were the impartial debate that you appear to be envisaging then this would be about the facts. It was not about the facts. The facts were deliberately misrepresented. Arguments about facts involve both parties sticking to them.

Civilised debate also necessitates that personal attacks are disallowed. This is not only because emotion clouds the judgement and the truth is often missed, (leading to a waste of everyone's time) but also because basic care for others entails a respect for the privacy of others and a disinclination to cause pain. I agree that Mr J was not physically harmed, but there is clear evidence of emotional harm here.

This Stein individual wasn't just childishly unaware of where emotional sensitivities might lie. He actively sought out scar tissue, he cut it open and prodded. Stuck his grubby little fingers in it and pulled it apart.

There is a technical term for this. (I rarely use such words, but there is really no other way to convey what this is about.)

It is called "mindfucking" and it is vile.

I get angry when I see people indulging in such tactics.

This was all to make a rhetorical point - to play upon other people's feelings in order to persuade them that evolution might be wrong. Why did Stein want evolution to be wrong? Well, I don't believe in psychic links, but I do have a theory on this one...

Stein wanted to demonstrate that evolution could not satisfactorily explain his own infinitely complex and marvellous existence. His narcissistic, selfish worldview demanded that he be at the centre of the universe. The arrogance and egocentrism shown by this man was astonishing and disgusting. He disregarded both the feelings of others and the facts.

This double assault against both countless other people (who have done him no harm) and the truth was breathtaking.
More worthy of an Oxford academic...
Well, well, it does appear that Dawkins is a human being before being an 'Oxford academic'.

I can't say that I am sorry to see evidence of that.

Misael,

I can see how on a first reading you might think that the language used was unwarrented. I am not trying to get at you :-)

However, when I sit and deeply consider this situation I find myself thinking it mild.

---

* There is a alternative possibility that this letter was itself from a deeply dishonest agitator, but let's set that scenario aside for the sake of argument.

[Edit: Grammar correction]

Other Comments by Corylus

1939. Comment #197294 by TeraBrat on June 21, 2008 at 3:39 pm

I can see how on a first reading you might think that the language used was unwarrented. I am not trying to get at you :-)

However, when I sit and deeply consider this situation I find myself thinking it mild.


Thank you. I often winder if other people are capable of understanding how deeply the Holocaust affected us.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

1940. Comment #197658 by Misael on June 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Thanks Corylus :-)
I have been trying to reply, but can't always get it to let me!!
don't know why.
Thanks for that.
"vicarious aggression" ok, I understand, and you put it well.
I think it's true, but I also think that the party RD is coming to the defence of is less the Jewish victim than his own constituency. He's extremely concerned not to allow any link whatsoever between Darwinism and Nazism. Fair enough, but still over-zealous, because nobody would argue that Darwin himself, or "Darwinists", or atheists, are automatically and ipso facto capable of genocide. The problem here is not with individuals, but ideas. All which throws us back on assessing the interpretation of historical data. I didn't want to go there because a) the subject is huge and b) it seemed unlikely it hadn't been gone into, -- for all I know exhaustively -- already.
But I will just say that although it's true anti-semitism has always and everywhere been around, even Luther (in the work RD refers to) is crystal clear on one point. He says:

[let them] be on their guard against the Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. .

The idea of actually exterminating the Jews, as a realistic practical project, could never have been conceived without the "cultural preparation" of the widespread, and widely accepted eugenics movement, which in turn owed its being to Darwin's thinking -- if you credit evolutionism in its entirety to him, that is. I wouldn't, really, because it had plainly been around a lot longer in one form or other, and all he did was kick-start its perceived scientific legitimacy. So that lets him personally off the hook you could say,even if he was otherwise on it. (I have often been surprised by how extremely protective people can be of Darwin's personal reputation for probity and decency -- is that really what's at stake?)
TeraBrat --

no, I'm afraid none of us who aren't Jewish can POSSIBLY understand. Though that doesn't let us off trying

Other Comments by Misael

1941. Comment #197663 by TeraBrat on June 22, 2008 at 12:58 pm

no, I'm afraid none of us who aren't Jewish can POSSIBLY understand. Though that doesn't let us off trying


That's all we really ask for.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

1942. Comment #197735 by Corylus on June 22, 2008 at 3:05 pm

 avatarMisael
Thanks for that.
No problem - always best to keep talking. :-)

With regard to the rest of your post...

I think there is an issue with any analysis of history of falling into the abyss that lies between necessary and sufficient causation.

You know I haven't just heard Luther blamed for the holocaust, or eugenics, or the theory of evolution being widely discussed, I have actually heard the Enlightenment as a whole blamed! There is a point when the analysis of causation and the assignment of blame gets ridiculous.
a) the subject is huge
You have got that right!
b) it seemed unlikely it hadn't been gone into, -- for all I know exhaustively -- already.
I yes. I believe a few times on this thread. Why not read back a bit??

---

Oh re talking, if you decide to stick around on here and jabber away as much as the rest of us,(we are all addicted!) above the little text box into which you write your comments you will see "comment posting guidelines" click on that link box and you will get instructions about doing fancy things like putting things in bold and quotes in boxes.

Took me a while to realise it was there. Sigh, technology is not my strong point.

Other Comments by Corylus

1943. Comment #198637 by rima_gerhard on June 24, 2008 at 10:31 am

To make matters worse, Ben Stein appeared on CNN's Glenn BEck Show and made the following outraegeoulsy false statements regarding the current state of euthanasia in Germany:

Ben Stein: "And already in Germany, I am told, people are given this little pill when they get old and sick, and they take the pill and they go to sleep and don't wake up. Yes, that's happening a lot in Germany."
Beck: "What is the name of the pill?"
Stein: "I don't know"
Beck: "Is it prescribed by doctors?"
Stein: "Yes, yes. Apparently it's a super powerful barbituate and people take it and that's it for them."
[...]
Beck: "Doctors are prescribing this, killing people, in Germany.
Stein: "Well, again, you might say, yes. AGAIN. I mean, we've showed this, we've documented this in the movie, they've been doing this for a while."

This is completely inaccurate information. No such pill is in legal use in GErmany. Euthanasia is completetly illegal and anyone assisting it will go to jail. What is worse, Mr. Stein appears to believe that his jewish faith can be used as a protective shield to keep him from any criticism of spreading such appalling lies. Please read the whole story on my blog:
http://usmedialies.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by rima_gerhard

1944. Comment #199751 by Misael on June 26, 2008 at 10:13 am

,Corylus:
sigh, technology is not my strongpoint!

You mean like that??
I have only just found your reply. Still don't quite know why it wasn't underneath the other one...

Other Comments by Misael

1945. Comment #200904 by science_good on June 28, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Ben Stein appears on the Glenn Beck show on June 23rd and attacks Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most prominent atheists. To make his point, Stein claims that the Nazis derived their eugenics theory from Darwinism. Stein then goes on to claim that in the present time, German doctors are giving pills to old people for assisted suicide purposes. He also mentions that, close to where these events are said to have taken place, neo-nazis have desecrated jewish graves. The audience is supposed to believe "Darwinism=nazi=German". Stein is playing on the anti-German sentiment by associating Darwinism with Germans and nazis.

Other Comments by science_good

1946. Comment #223915 by Peter K. on August 3, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Richard Dawkins and "Hmmmm":

Why is it necessary for you to defame Herbert Spencer in order to defend Charles Darwin or criticize Ben Stein? Have either of you read Herbert Spencer?

Spencer was a classical liberal. He believed that people should be free to make their own choices without state interference. The fact that he coined the term "survival of the fittest" in no way implies that he believed in state action to decide who are "the fittest" or thus who should "survive".

He believed the opposite. He wrote in Social Statics:

"The desire to command is essentially a barbarous desire. ... Command cannot be otherwise than savage, for it implies an appeal to force, should force be needful. ... Command is the foe of peace, for it breeds war of words and feelings â€" sometimes of deeds. It is inconsistent with the first law of morality. It is radically wrong. ... 'You must do not as you will, but as I will,' is the basis of every mandate, whether used by a planter to his Negro, or by a husband to his wife. (pp. 144â€"5)"

Although the eugenecists and possibly Hitler thought there were social lessons to be drawn from Darwin, they were the opposite of the lessons Spencer drew.

The eugenecists drew the lesson that nature's results in the human race could and should be "improved upon" by force.

Spencer thought human nature should be left free, because in a state of freedom it would adapt and continue to improve humankind. Spencer believed as did Thomas Jefferson and the other American founders that man's natural state was freedom.

Other Comments by Peter K.

1947. Comment #242854 by supexcellency on September 4, 2008 at 3:17 pm

It is quite ironic, that a Jew is spewing hate towards people of other beliefs. It is almost as if I am looking into bizarro world. However, I can understand the psychological mechanism behind it. You find a person or group of people that have suffered a tragedy or misfortune. Then, you manipulate the facts in order to provide a culprit of such misfortune. What you get is a beautiful psychological "gut" reaction. Logic gets thrown out the window, and... as long as the victim has someone to blame, no further investigation is needed. For instance, parents of children with autism blame vaccination for this mental disorder. Reputable Science has been done on the hypothesis and there is no proof of such causation. The reason why people blame vaccines is because the diagnosis of autism is more or less done at the time that children are vaccinated. And, even though there's plenty of articles published that show that vaccines aren't the cause of autism, most parents can still not be persuaded.

The problem also, is that Stein is able to "sympathize" with Jewish people, since he is Jewish himself! (At least in last name). People in a certain group are bound to trust those who also pertain to a group, and I have seen it happening in atheist / skeptic groups also. It is the old argument from authority, except that it is not an authority but a "peer member".

The film Expelled, should not only be seen as propaganda and misinformation, it should also be labeled as "hate speech". It pushes forward the idea that atheists and Darwinism equals to nazism, which is not only false but damaging to atheism and Science, and is after all - Hate Speech.

Other Comments by supexcellency
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: