Print
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".
Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:
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.
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.
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
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
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, April 20, 2008 | PermalinkComments 251 - 300 of 1954 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers252. Comment #165411 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Excellent comment, Steve. I almost asked the nut over on the Lying for Jesus thread if he and his gun club friends were getting ready to defend the country by shooting all the birds. Other Comments by Quine
253. Comment #165412 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Comment #165408 by annabanana I think it is a bug in the website. It may only take one person marking a post as troll for this to happen.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
254. Comment #165414 by annabanana on April 21, 2008 at 12:58 pm
I think it is a bug in the website. It may only take one person marking a post as troll for this to happen.
That's strange. I didn't think my comment was any more offensive or any less productive than someone coming to the site and saying "you guys still believe in evolution", but I could be wrong.
Other Comments by annabanana
255. Comment #165415 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Comment #165403 by TheTruthID Oh that one is easy - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
You ask, what does ID predict? How has MACRO-evolution predictions been tested and whether it can be falsified and misrepresented? I want to know what tests were cunducted and what the results were. I challenge you to show me one shred of scientific evidence that proves MACRO-evolution?
Now - get with the show. Answer the questions that have been put to you. How is ID science, what does it predict, how can it be tested and falsified, what tests have been done and what were the results?
Prevaricate once more and we will know that you actually don't have any answers.
Other Comments by epeeist
256. Comment #165416 by ofir on April 21, 2008 at 1:00 pm
So Steve - comment 210 - I take it from your post that you think it is perfectly legit for Dawkins to accuse the makers of Expelled of doing a 'wicked evil thing' for trying to dupe J, but when I use exactly the same words about what Dawkins is trying to do, this is an example of 'one of the nastiest people you have ever found on the net'. So RD uses this language - he is a hero. I use his language - I am nasty. Go figure!
By the way - what does an atheist mean when they speak of wickedness and evil? Does evil exist in the materialist world? Can it?
An atheist is just a person who doesn't believe in silly desert nomadic myths. They can still use the English language as described pretty well in the dictionary. Religion is a poor source of morality anyway.
The evil thing here is to manipulate and lie. Throwing back an unfounded accusation is simply doubling the insult - that is what you are doing.
Other Comments by ofir
257. Comment #165417 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 21, 2008 at 1:00 pm
anna, I read it here on the thread, after I refreshed the page I noticed it was gone.
I frequently have issues with losing posts on this site. It's quite frustrating really.
Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle
258. Comment #165419 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 1:01 pm
MR. Zara,Why so defensive. Usually one turns to aggresiion and name calling when they feel inadequate or not confident in their point of view. Instead of defending your view you turn to name calling.
Your question of the Bird Flu. I agree, I want the scientists to use their ideas of MICRO-evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection, not Macro-evolution. I assume you know the difference?
Other Comments by TheTruthID
259. Comment #165420 by moderndaythomas on April 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm
This breaks my heart. This poor guy could have been set strait by Stein but instead was led to fester. Surely Stein knows what Hitler had wrote in Mein Kampf.
Having not read the book myself, I had come across many quotes by prominent writers of science, and anyone claiming to be well read would most certainly be at least as marginaly informed as I am.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
260. Comment #165421 by ofir on April 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm
How can you begin to explain evolution when you can't even begin to explain where life came from in the first place?
Admitting you don't fully understand something is a lot better than making up a dubious explanation which is what ID is. It's also honest and truthful - which is always the best policy for education.
Other Comments by ofir
261. Comment #165423 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Comment #165419 by TheTruthID Your question of the Bird Flu. I agree, I want the scientists to use their ideas of MICRO-evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection, not Macro-evolution. I assume you know the difference?Since Steve has a Ph.D. in biology then I guess he might.
I seen you still haven't answered any questions that have been asked of you. Why does that not surprise me. Come on, why is it taking so long?
Show us why ID is a better theory than Darwin's. In fact, show us why it is a theory rather than just creationism in a fancy vocabulary.
Other Comments by epeeist
262. Comment #165424 by Tyler Durden on April 21, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Comment #165403 by TheTruthID:
I challenge you to show me one shred of scientific evidence that proves MACRO-evolution?TheTruthID, welcome to RD.net
Before I answer your query, can I first ask if the evidence I present will in any way, shape or form actually change your mind to the fact of evolution?
In other words: are you looking for evidence in order to learn, change your current position, or become more knowledgeable on the subject of evolution - or are you simply ignorant of the facts with regard to evolution and so wasting my/our time?
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
263. Comment #165425 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Ofir,I don't understand something. Please inform me of what I do not understand?
Other Comments by TheTruthID
264. Comment #165427 by Geoff on April 21, 2008 at 1:11 pm
261. Comment #165419 by TheTruthID You don't seem to understand the conventions of rational discourse. Your question has been answered; it seems only fair that you now answer one of ours. If you want to learn more in the meantime, read some more pages on the excellent site that epeeist linked to.
If that question was too hard, try an easier alternative: can you provide links to a selection of peer-reviewed papers from creationists?
Other Comments by Geoff
265. Comment #165429 by Teratornis on April 21, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Comment #165279 by Dr Benway:
Ever notice how the various conspiracy theorists now back each other? It's not uncommon, for example, for a global warming denier to say something positive about intelligent design. Or an ID advocate to express skepticism regarding vaccines and Big Pharma.
Speaking of nonsense backing nonsense, here's a YouTube clip of Ben Stein and Pat Robertson fawning over each other:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYTTkenu60Y
I was hoping Pat would ask Ben to share his thoughts on the divinity of Jesus, and Ben would ask Pat if Jews go to hell, but the clip features nothing but softballs.
A free press has been the proper antidote to propaganda. Isolated crackpots generally haven't been able to maintain a sufficient illusion of support in the face of real expertise. But the Interwebs might be shifting the way the fraud game is played.
Sure, on the non-collaborative "interwebs." However, crackpots have a rough time setting the agenda on a collaborative site such as Wikipedia.
Google has been elevating Wikipedia articles in Google search results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-02-19/Google_again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank
Google does this because Google's business model depends on giving "good" search results. Search results are "good" if they tend to satisfy the largest percentage of searchers. Google judges Wikipedia articles to be generally "good" (or at least heading in that direction, for the Wikipedia articles that aren't yet very good), because Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view, cite reliable sources for all claims, and so on.
Both Google and Wikipedia are on vigorous growth curves right now. Google illustrates the for-profit side of providing reliable information; Wikipedia illustrates the non-profit side.
Do we see any commercial search engine companies making billions off catering to the people who hunger for bullshit? Is there a volunteer collaborative bullshit project enjoying as much success as Wikipedia? Where are the equally successful counterparts to Google and Wikipedia in the world of bullshit?
The problem with people who prefer bullshit is that they tend to schism, because they don't base their beliefs on facts, and there are infinitely many different ways to ignore the facts.
There's also the problem that bullshit isn't worth as much as reliable information, so it doesn't spawn many success stories like Google and Wikipedia. Almost everyone who uses a computer, regardless of their personal biases, finds something of value in Google and Wikipedia. In contrast, the bullshit providers only have a niche appeal, to people who share particular points of view and want to have their views reinforced.
Will Free Press save the day once the cranks merge to form Big Bullshit?
It may actually be better to get all the bullshit purveyors to back each other, because discrediting one will damage all the rest.
By promoting his movie on Pat Robertson's show, Ben Stein is dispensing with any pretense to rationality. That's a rare gesture of honesty for Ben.
Other Comments by Teratornis
266. Comment #165430 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Your question of the Bird Flu. I agree, I want the scientists to use their ideas of MICRO-evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection, not Macro-evolution. I assume you know the difference?
Being a scientist with close to 30 years experience in the subject, I am very sorry to admit that I don't. I have a B.Sc, an M.Sc. and a Ph.D. in biology. If you don't believe me, you can look them up. The first and last were from University of London, the second from University of York. I have also published many papers after the Ph.D. In none of my education or research was the term "macro-evolution" mentioned. The reason is that it does not exist. It is a lie spread by creationists. Macro-evolution is a jump in evolution that can't be explained by a series of individual mutations. Biologists have never found such jumps. We have seen, even within human history, the formation of entire new species based on nothing more than individual mutations or a series of individual mutations.
I think this comes down to who you really trust when your life is in danger. Scientists like me, who believe in evidence, or Ben Stein and his friends and their prayers?
Who would you trust?
Other Comments by Steve Zara
267. Comment #165431 by ofir on April 21, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Your question of the Bird Flu. I agree, I want the scientists to use their ideas of MICRO-evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection, not Macro-evolution. I assume you know the difference?
Scientists use whatever knowledge they have when faced with a problem. The chances of finding cures for diseases will be reduced if school students waste science time learning about false religious presumptions.
Other Comments by ofir
268. Comment #165432 by al-rawandi on April 21, 2008 at 1:14 pm
TruthID
I don't understand something. Please inform me of what I do not understand?
Tell us what you think evolution is, and we can probably find a point or two... Just a shot in the dark there.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
269. Comment #165433 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Comment #165425 by TheTruthID I don't understand something. Please inform me of what I do not understand?No, you don't have a free pass.
Answer the questions that have been put to you. What makes ID science, what predictions does it make, how can it be tested, what tests have been made and what were the results.
Don't forget - every time you make a post that doesn't answer the questions an angel loses its wings.
More importantly - every time you fail to answer marks you out to be a complete no-nothing and we deduct another 10 from your estimated IQ. Not long before you are down to negative numbers.
Other Comments by epeeist
270. Comment #165434 by NFT on April 21, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Comment #165387 by TheTruthID
I would love to see how evolution is recorded in the fossil record?
Since you are keen to learn about evolution you obviously need to do some reading. I suggest you start with The Human Evolution Coloring Book by Adrienne L. Zihlman.
Other Comments by NFT
271. Comment #165435 by BillySands on April 21, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Comment #165318 by MPhil
Well said.
Robertson, you are a disgusting little cunt!
Other Comments by BillySands
272. Comment #165437 by BillySands on April 21, 2008 at 1:20 pm
You ask, what does ID predict? How has MACRO-evolution predictions been tested and whether it can be falsified and misrepresented? I want to know what tests were cunducted and what the results were. I challenge you to show me one shred of scientific evidence that proves MACRO-evolution?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/fourfinned-dolphin-an-evolutionary-throwback/2006/11/05/1162661544728.html
Now go away and stop bothering us with your ignorance - unless you can show me some evidence of creation. A film of god doing it would do it - any god
Other Comments by BillySands
273. Comment #165439 by al-rawandi on April 21, 2008 at 1:21 pm
epeeist,
complete no-nothing and we deduct another 10 from your estimated IQ. Not long before you are down to negative numbers.
Another deduction and we will have a garden salad.... Fat free dressing.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
274. Comment #165441 by BillySands on April 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm
More importantly - every time you fail to answer marks you out to be a complete no-nothing and we deduct another 10 from your estimated IQ. Not long before you are down to negative numbers.
You are in a more generous mood than me here. I fear that when he left whatever fundie site he came from to come here, that he significantlly lowered the average IQs of both sites.
Maybe he will tell us why ID is science, but I have a feeling that he wont
Other Comments by BillySands
275. Comment #165442 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 1:27 pm
To all,Let me explain myself.
First of all, I'm not the one who immediately resorts to name calling.
In addition, let's get off this creation/religion attachment as a defense. I never mentioned a GOD or someone to worship as in a religious concept. I am referring solely to a source/creater/designer for our existence. If it did not happen by chance, the only alternative is purpose.
I have yet to find one shred of evidence which clearly proves that MACRO-evolution occurred. I accept MICRO-evolution, which is soley the adaptation or modification within a species.
Why I accept ID. The science today has proved without a doubt the intricate and complexity of even the smallest cell(NANO science). If someone can show me how something simple can evolve into something complex, I'd be more than willing to listen.
Please don't tell me to read a book or go to some gibberish website. You explain to me the process.
Multiple mutations do not turn simplicity in complex better functiong things.
If I were walking in a desert and came upon a highly detailed intricate sand castle, would I assume it developed by chance because I did not see the creator? This is why I have no doubt about ID. There is no way possible that due to chance our universe and world and life evolved.
I have open ears.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
276. Comment #165443 by mperakh on April 21, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I doubt very much that the letter in question was indeed from a Jew whose relatives perished in the Holocaust. The letter writer's real identity is betrayed when he writes that "We, Jews... will expell Shermer..." etc. It looks like a provocation aimed at inflaming anti-Semitic passions. No Jew in his/her right mind would write such a sentence. Jews in the US are not under delusion of having such a power as to be able to expell anybody, while anti-Semitic propaganda indeed often promulgates such a notion. Neither are normal Jews inclined to expel anybody, even if they could. The letter's writer most likely is an anti-Semite, or, if indeed a Jew, then a crazy one. Btw, my grandparents, aunt, and nephews (one 7 and the other 5) were indeed murdered by the Nazis in 1941, in the city of Stalino (now renamed Yusovsk), betrayed to the Nazis by their Ukrainian neighbors who hardly have ever studied "Darwinism." Shame on Stein.Other Comments by mperakh
277. Comment #165444 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Comment #165439 by al-rawandi Another deduction and we will have a garden salad.... Fat free dressing.I suggested a tactical switch this weekend. Stop being nice and explaining stuff and ask for answers from them. I think you need to add another cause of death to the canonical list - "I am not coming back because they asked me hard questions for which there are no answers on the AiG website".
Other Comments by epeeist
278. Comment #165445 by jonwes on April 21, 2008 at 1:32 pm
TruthID:Why should anyone on this site be forced or obliged to explain something to you? If you don't feel like reading or seeking out the MOUNTAINS of information available to you then frankly that's your own fault.
Other Comments by jonwes
279. Comment #165447 by clodhopper on April 21, 2008 at 1:36 pm
ID: "I have open ears."
Please add filtered. Answer the questions!
Other Comments by clodhopper
280. Comment #165448 by BillySands on April 21, 2008 at 1:36 pm
If someone can show me how something simple can evolve into something complex, I'd be more than willing to listen.
Enjoy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
Pay attention to the flagellum, and ignore the disgusting prayer at the start.
Other Comments by BillySands
281. Comment #165449 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Comment #165442 by TheTruthID Why I accept ID.If you accept ID then you can tell us how it works. We want the process. How do organisms get designed? Who or what does the design? How can this be tested and falsified. Show us some of the tests that have been made and what the results were.
If you won't read a book then how are you going to learn? The Theobald paper on the link I gave you gives a whole stack of evidence for evolution by natural selection, how it can be tested and how it can be falsified. That explains the process.
Please don't tell me to read a book or go to some gibberish website. You explain to me the process.
We are not here to educate you. That is your responsibility.
All we want is for you to show us what makes ID a theory in the Popperian sense. Just get on with it.
Other Comments by epeeist
282. Comment #165450 by Steve Zara on April 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I have yet to find one shred of evidence which clearly proves that MACRO-evolution occurred. I accept MICRO-evolution, which is soley the adaptation or modification within a species.
We have lots of that. But it isn't fair for us to give it to you. You need to prove your "God did it" theory first. I would like you to review the history of the Spartina grass species over the last two centuries and come up with evidence of divine intervention, please. Any evidence of God doing things would be appreciated.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
283. Comment #165451 by al-rawandi on April 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm
TruthID
If I were walking in a desert and came upon a highly detailed intricate sand castle, would I assume it developed by chance because I did not see the creator?
Not a creationist per-se. Not religious? You just used the textbook Christian anti-logic. My question who made the person who made the castle? You have only prolonged your problem a moment. (By the way Muslims use the pocket watch instead of the castle, you might try that if you really want to fool anyone).
I never mentioned a GOD or someone to worship as in a religious concept
What's that you say?
I am referring solely to a source/creater/designer for our existence. If it did not happen by chance, the only alternative is purpose.
Oh a designer that gives purpose to our existence, not god. I see the enormous difference there. Thanks for clearing that up.
I have yet to find one shred of evidence which clearly proves that MACRO-evolution occurred.
Steve Zara already said there is no such thing as Macro Evolution. So let me counter your strawman with "I have found no evidence of unicorns, therefore god is false" (Damn I am soooo smart, where is my medal?)
Please don't tell me to read
No one assumed you could.
Multiple mutations do not turn simplicity in complex better functiong things.
How do you know? You are trying to prove a negative, as a Goddidit guy isn't that a "sin" of sorts?
There is no way possible that due to chance our universe and world and life evolved.
No but God randomly appeared and started creating shit. That makes way more sense. Good critical thinking. You are about as bright as a burned out bulb.
If god has existed forever, you are simply admitting things can exist forever. Therefore, by your logic, the universe could have existed forever, without begininning or end.
You have proved the basis for a random universe. Good work.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
284. Comment #165452 by clodhopper on April 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Robertson: Tell me you're going to retract that despicable post. Other Comments by clodhopper
285. Comment #165453 by righton on April 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm
truthID-iot"The science today has proved without a doubt the intricate and complexity of even the smallest cell(NANO science)."
Ummm, NANO science works on a scale much smaller than the smallest cell. You might want to read up on that also.
Other Comments by righton
286. Comment #165454 by annabanana on April 21, 2008 at 1:37 pm
I'm not the one who immediately resorts to name calling
Actually, one of your first comments was:
you guys still believe in evolution
Which implied that we all are stupid. I suppose that it isn't directly name-calling, per se, but your implications are clear.
Please don't tell me to read a book or go to some gibberish website. You explain to me the process
No one has sent you to any gibberish websites. Also, it is lazy to come here and expect us to do all the work for you. Many of us will be happy to point you toward resources that explain evolution in much more depth than we can in a single post. I don't understand why you refuse to take a look at the credible sources.
Other Comments by annabanana
287. Comment #165455 by Tyler Durden on April 21, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Comment #165442 by TheTruthID
Why I accept ID. The science today has proved without a doubt the intricate and complexity of even the smallest cell(NANO science). If someone can show me how something simple can evolve into something complex, I'd be more than willing to listen.TheTruthID, are you saying that because you don't understand Darwinian evolution by Natural Selection, that it could not happen, or ever have happened?
This is simply an Argument from Personal Incredulity. Are you actually that self-important to think that becusae you don't understand something, it cannot occur? Wow.
Other Comments by Tyler Durden
288. Comment #165456 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 1:39 pm
jonwes,I have done my reading and sought out the mountains of information available thus came to my belief in ID. I'm simply trying to educate yourself in properly defending yourself in a area you have such a stand on. According to you, I have found the wrong answer, thus I am seeking your help in finding the right answers.
Please help.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
289. Comment #165457 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm
TheTrughID, first answer this question: if I start with a small pile of sand and add grains of sand, at which grain does the pile become a sand dune? Other Comments by Quine
290. Comment #165459 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Comment #165456 by TheTruthIDI have done my reading and sought out the mountains of information available thus came to my belief in ID.Then share it with us. You constantly avoid giving answers. It really is very simple. Scientific theories have evidence to back them up, they make predictions, the predictions can be tested and failures in the tests falsify the theory.
You have shown us nothing. No evidence, no predictions, no tests, no results. You claim to have mountains of information, show it to us.
Other Comments by epeeist
291. Comment #165463 by clodhopper on April 21, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Please include the references to peer reviewed scientific findings published. Other Comments by clodhopper
292. Comment #165464 by al-rawandi on April 21, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Quine,
You can't use the Sorites Paradox on a creationist. That isn't fair.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
293. Comment #165466 by AdrianB on April 21, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Your question of the Bird Flu. I agree, I want the scientists to use their ideas of MICRO-evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection, not Macro-evolution. I assume you know the difference?In common with most people that understand the sheer simplicity and beauty of evolution, I find it puzzling why creationists need to invent a Sorities Paradox to cloud their understanding. Why do they feel the theory needs extra complication with this micro or macro nonsense?
Anyway (and I can't believe I'm actually getting involved in this debate), if you really want actual in-your-face evidence for evolution, instead of looking at the evidence over geological time (which seems a little to hard for you), and look at the evidence here and now over geological distance:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Edit: Bugger somebody just pipped me to it with mention of Sorities Paradox!
Other Comments by AdrianB
294. Comment #165469 by moderndaythomas on April 21, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The TruthID. Wow, how's it going brother?
At the end of every day I place all that I know on the scale and I weigh it.
I do this at the end of every day!
On one side I have geology, biology, astronony, and genetics, to name a few; and on the other, and going by many names I have the Book of Genesis.
At the end of every day the magnitude of the unifying theory of biology (evolution), comes out on top.
In the few decades that we've been watching the clock (genetic), there has not been any maco evolution as it requires far more geologic time than we have in one life. But the hard evidence of micro evolution, coupled with geology and the fossil record provides much in the way of positive prodictions and evidence.
And I must say that's significant in comparison to ID claim.
So while you are at making requests for evidence, can I have a little spontaneous generation?
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
295. Comment #165470 by The Reverend Dark on April 21, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The TruthID lied,
To all,
Let me explain myself.
First of all, I'm not the one who immediately resorts to name calling.
No laughing boy, you started by making inflammatory statements, coupled with assertions that would be laughable coming from a grade school child, let alone an adult. Name calling is the least of your worries.
In addition, let's get off this creation/religion attachment as a defense. I never mentioned a GOD or someone to worship as in a religious concept. I am referring solely to a source/creater/designer for our existence. If it did not happen by chance, the only alternative is purpose.
Not only are you duplitious, but you lack conviction.
I have yet to find one shred of evidence which clearly proves that MACRO-evolution occurred. I accept MICRO-evolution, which is soley the adaptation or modification within a species.
I can only assume that you are blind, deaf, or ignorant. I'm pulling for the last one.
Why I accept ID. The science today has proved without a doubt the intricate and complexity of even the smallest cell(NANO science). If someone can show me how something simple can evolve into something complex, I'd be more than willing to listen.
Please don't tell me to read a book or go to some gibberish website. You explain to me the process.
Awww. Perhaps you would like someone to tuck you into bed too, and read you a nice story and fetch you a glass of milk. Perhaps pat you on the head and say what a nice little boy you are.
You lazy twat.
The 'gibberish' from talkorigins is hardly that. It does require that you actually put your tender little nose to the big bad grindstone and read. You are ultimately responsible for your own education, and if I may say so, have done a piss poor job so far.
The process of evolution, simply put, is the non-random survival of random mutations. Once you get past that, I am afraid you are going to have to dig into a variety of subjects, biology, geology, physics, chemistry... One of the reasons that evolution is so powerful as a theory is the amount of different proofs from other fields that support it; coupled with the predicitions it makes. I am going to advise you to read "Your Inner Fish" by Shubin; it is pitched at the neophyte, so you should not be, ironically given the title, out of your depth.
Multiple mutations do not turn simplicity in complex better functiong things.
True, but you show your fundamental failure to understand the most basic premise of evolution. Bad boy. No cookie. Evolution is not simply multiple mutations, it is random mutation followed by a selection process.
If I were walking in a desert and came upon a highly detailed intricate sand castle, would I assume it developed by chance because I did not see the creator? This is why I have no doubt about ID. There is no way possible that due to chance our universe and world and life evolved.
That is the argument from incredulity tacked onto the argument from design. That is an uninformed opinion.
I have open ears.
Let me be the first to say, I have my doubts about that statement. Nothing you have said so far has indicated a willingness to learn.
Twat.
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
296. Comment #165472 by religulous on April 21, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Did anyone see Ben Stein on Pat Robertson 700 show? Ben was stating that Social Darwinism is what caused the Holocaust and so Charles Darwin was dircectly responsible. How rediculous! Apparently he hasn't read the bible - genocide was around long before Charles Darwin. Of course Pat Robertson just ate it up. Does Ben Stein have a blog or website to write to - this guy used to be an interesting character now I think he is an idiot.I would like to see a debate between Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris with Ben Stein
- It could be called "Win Ben Stein's Money He Got From Expelled".
Other Comments by religulous
297. Comment #165473 by clodhopper on April 21, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Sorities Paradox.
When is a heap not a heap?
When is a drunk not a drunk?
ad hic?
Other Comments by clodhopper
298. Comment #165474 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Mr. Zara,I will look into the Spartina grass species you recommened. You seem like the only one who will have respectful dialouge. Is there any way I can e-mail you privately in order to continue this dialouge?
Thanks
Other Comments by TheTruthID
299. Comment #165475 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Comment #165470 by The Reverend Dark We are knocking 10 points off his estimated IQ every time he refuses to come up with any answers.
No laughing boy, you started by making inflammatory statements, coupled with assertions that would be laughable coming from a grade school child, let alone and adult.
At the moment I think it is down to about the level of a very small beetle.
Other Comments by epeeist
300. Comment #165476 by Quetzalcoatl on April 21, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hmm. I see David Robertson has appeared once more.
Annabanana-
why have you been moved to the alternate comment thread? Are you being controversial again?
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
More Comments: First | Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 | Next | Last
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quote:
"The universe is a strange and wondrous place. The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudoscientific charlatans."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Intelligent Thought
John Brockman (Editor)
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
251. Comment #165410 by ofir on April 21, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Maybe you should provide your brain some food for thought. You simply misunderstand what's being said due to self-denial and possibly ignorance.
Other Comments by ofir