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 351 - 400 of 1953 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers352. Comment #165567 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 5:04 pm
steveZ,
so the notions of micro/macro arent in proper usage then? i kind of assumed they were until i realised that how the hell could they be disinguished! hence my post to TTID.
Other Comments by phasmagigas
353. Comment #165568 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Kenneth: The key should be to focus on the DEBATE.Uhh. What debate? Over whether Dembski is a wanker or not? Think that's been settled.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
354. Comment #165570 by Geoff on April 21, 2008 at 5:18 pm
#10 already? Without even saying goodbye? Other Comments by Geoff
355. Comment #165572 by NormanDoering on April 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm
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.
Stein was only a hired actor speaking the lines given to him by Kevin 11. He didn't necessarily know. Kevin 11, the screenwriter for "Expelled," is the one who did the "research" and crafted the blue print for this propaganda film. He has less of an excuse:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/04/kevin-eleven-is-lying-sack-of-santorum.html
Other Comments by NormanDoering
356. Comment #165576 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Hmm. The poster for the movie says, "Written by Kevin Miller and Ben Stein." Other Comments by Dr Benway
357. Comment #165577 by Diacanu on April 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Kenneth-
Science cannot find absolute truth.
And religion can?
Science is the educational search for the best description of absolute truth. If humans truly understood gravity (well at all), we would be able to defy it. Instead, we must "brute force" gravity. We use rockets, planes, etc.
No shit.
Don't make the mistake of believing that our description of gravity now is the best that it will ever be. That is foolish.
Well, whatever our understanding "Goddidit", will never be an adequate one.
That is foolish.
Other Comments by Diacanu
358. Comment #165578 by petergarayt on April 21, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Think the bankroller of this movie has his head in his hands yet?Other Comments by petergarayt
359. Comment #165579 by BW022 on April 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I read the article and the response and the one thing which I couldn't get my head around was how Mr. J could not know some basic facts about the rise of the Hitler, the Nazis, and the lead-up to WWII?One would expect someone with family background involving the Holocast would have some idea of the social, ethnic, and racial background of Germany in the 1930s. WWII is a pretty common subject in history classes in most western nations.
Personally, I don't blame Expelled for Mr. J false beliefs, I blame his school system, parents, etc. for not giving him a reasonable background in one of the most important events of the previous century. Anyone with a reasonable understanding of this, should be saying "Hey, wait a second?" upon seeing Expelled.
Yes... false facts are common, there are folks who deny the entire Holocast. But at what point are individuals to blame for believing stupidity? At some point, I've got to say that anyone with a "moderate" education wouldn't by this non-sense, and even more would know that it is non-sense and could tell others.
My response would have been to rent the "World at War", pick up a high school history book, etc.
Other Comments by BW022
360. Comment #165581 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 6:04 pm
TheTruthID,
I think an ID theorist such as yourself would have some cogent explanation for the arrangement of the fossils in the strata. I mean why are there no rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrian strata? What do you even expect of a fossil record? What should it show and why? I would expect you to have an explanation of why it is the simplest forms are found in the oldest rock and progressively more complex as we move forward in time. And why can we so precisely predict where we might find certain developments in the fossil record.
Shubin et al put this predictablity to work for them with their ground breaking find of tiktaalik when they were looking for the origin of hands. They knew, based on other findings that somewhere between time x (no hand template) and time y(clear hand template) there must be some intermediate forms between the two periods. They estimated a 15 million year window, looked for sights of the appropriate age and strangely they found tiktaalik. A fish with the first rudiments of hands and fingers and wrist. Why should this be the case? At all? Why should the fossil record conform so narrowly to an evolutionary expectation. WHy should it yeild important finds to such a precise prediction?
Does ID have anything to say? It doesn't. All you have is the negative campaign, and the imagined shortfalls of modern evolutionary theory. By all means if you have some novel finding, go and get it published. But please don't come in here being beligerant and insulting.
Other Comments by MaxD
361. Comment #165582 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Comment #165558 by ficklefiend:Quine posted a couple of links on the comments, and I scrolled through ... This has put me in a pessimistic mood. I hope this letter gets a response because it seems there's a long way to go still.
I am sorry, ficklefiend, for the disturbance this has caused. I am just doing this to encourage the community to write "letters of enlightenment" to these folks, and as early warning on the kinds of falsehoods that we are going to have to wade through.
Note: I am not putting up links the to the truly vile pieces that have been going up at the Discovery Institute about every 2 hours. They are fanning the flames on this and milking Expelled for every new grifting mark they can get.
Other Comments by Quine
362. Comment #165585 by tman on April 21, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Being raised jewish myself. I am glad that Richard addressed this issue. I am very disappointed that the jewish community is not directly answering to the this misinformation, anti-Semitism and revisionist history about the holocaust.
This makes me very proud of the atheist community, which I am part of.
Compasion rather that contempt is the right approach.
Thank you Richard for educating this person.
Other Comments by tman
363. Comment #165588 by 82_28 on April 21, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but this episode immediately brought to mind this scene in Bronowski's Ascent of Man:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA
Other Comments by 82_28
364. Comment #165593 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Thanks, 82_28, a powerful scene indeed. Other Comments by Quine
365. Comment #165601 by jac12358 on April 21, 2008 at 7:25 pm
238. Comment #165371 by MaxD on April 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Jac12358,
If David decides to respond he will not address a single substative point. He will make heavy weather of the any vitriol and play the victim. This is his method.
It is disengeious, as his blanket attacks in his own letter to the hurt jewish guy amply demonstrate. In fact he didn't really wish to make his case for theology but rather just imply that it was again atheist who is the problem and imply the only option is his religion. This is strangely the same tactic of the ID/creationsist studies folk. DR only offers the false dichotomy and not much of substance.
It is for this reason people tire of him, and get uh..."short" with him.
Okay, got it. I didn't know the history of him, his tactics or the conversation. In general I still try to answer all questions for the principle of it. Sorry for the confusion and my very late response time!
Other Comments by jac12358
366. Comment #165607 by mmurray on April 21, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I am very disappointed that the jewish community is not directly answering to the this misinformation, anti-Semitism and revisionist history about the holocaust.
Good point. I was thinking the other day that the best way to squash this bit of nastiness would be some kind of open letter or something from a suitable collection of willing Jewish scholars or Rabbis or similar. Has anyone got any suitable contacts ?
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
367. Comment #165615 by Roland_F on April 21, 2008 at 10:10 pm
336. Comment #165531 by mjosefFirst, Shermer is not just relaying a message about the wonderfulness of the current economy - he explicitly states his fondness for how "moral" it is, how this alleged "unseen hand" is a factual and powerful as "natural selection."
Can you back up your claim by some quote of Shermer ?
What I was finding in his book and typed in here before was his quote about free market economists view - he hasn't stated it as 'his' view.
I also don't find any mentioning of the word 'moral' not even indirectly and not if he likes market forces or not, so please back your claim "Shermer hail free market economy as ultimate moral" with a quote from Shermer (type from his book or link to www).
About the attempt of Shermer to 'buy in' the religious right wing hardliners by pointing out the similarities between their economic orientation with Evolution to persuade them stopping their attacks against science : well this tactical approach could be discussed.
Charles Darwin and before him Adam Smith described the forces of selection in nature and in economy - it's a scientific description not a moral code of guidance. Nature can be very rude predators hunting their prey, viruses infecting humans etc. so when you can't back up your attacks with quotes why you attack this person, I think you fall into the same trap like religious people attacking Darwin just for describing (the sometimes unmerciful) nature, or the lead article of this tread here where 'David J' attacks Evolution scientist as Nazi's .
Also this discussion here is about evolution versus ID, so what have the political or economical orientation of someone to do with this discussion ? There are atheist who are communists and some are capitalists, there are humanists and persons who hail the Iraq invasion (Hitch), there are atheist worshipping the (US) flag not God, other find the peer review as brilliant other are more skeptical that good ideas might be pushed out. So should every atheist attack and distance himself from the other atheists ?
Other Comments by Roland_F
368. Comment #165619 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 10:46 pm
I was surprised to find that there is an Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center at Baylor University according to this piece from the campus press. Of course, there should be the freedom for them to do so, but I am concerned that the falsehoods spread by Stein's movie will be used to attract students under false expectations (i.e. that what they would be studying is actually science). Other Comments by Quine
369. Comment #165675 by sbooder on April 22, 2008 at 3:07 am
To All IDists and Creationists.
First off' we do not believe in Evolution, we use Evolution as the best method of evaluating the progression of the biological world, belief is the acceptance of something that can not be proven.
If IDists were to publish a body of evidence that could be scrutinised and its theories (and I mean theories in the scientific sense, not the, I have a theory that; dogs play chess when we aren't looking, sense) it could be given credence then we would take it seriously. The same applies to ID if you want it taught in the science class of schools.
If you want to teach it in Theology or RI (Religious Instruction) then please fill your boots.
We are not trying to stop you believing in ID, that is your prerogative, but if you want it widely accepted; then it has to transform from ideology to science, and that can only be done with evidence.
And Darwinists no more believe in Eugenics any more than they believe in Creationism.
IDists and Creationists seem to think that scientific knowledge is gained by opening THE BIG BOOK of SCIENCE and learning all science from one text…I think you will find that this sort of thinking is reserved for THE BIBLE or KORAN.
Science is ever changing, because we are forever questioning it. Science of course dose not have all the answers, that's why it is constantly trying to find the answers, and if existing theories are to be proven wrong, we will embrace the new theory with open arms, but it must based on evidence not on supernatural dogma.
Other Comments by sbooder
370. Comment #165683 by manamo on April 22, 2008 at 3:29 am
"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." Mitchell Gilks.
It is part of the winners bonus to be able to create a hegemony of ideas and define much of what is remembered in history and manufacture consent for your own moral injustice.
Other Comments by manamo
371. Comment #165698 by Dogged2007 on April 22, 2008 at 4:04 am
RichardGreat letter. It must get so tiring responding to this mindless 'Hitler was an atheist' nonsense over and over again. Good on you for answering this issue yet again.
The open letter is a not a bad idea although I'm sure I don't have to tell you that most of those duped by Ben Stein wouldn't even dream of venturing on to your satanic website let alone read your words for fear of being deceived by your 'lies'.
You speak for quite a few of us sick to death with religiosity in our society, especially having to deal with self-appointed, self-righteous moral guardians. And in this case they seek to blinker education provided to children!!
This is my favourite website. Keep on punching!!
Other Comments by Dogged2007
372. Comment #165701 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 4:10 am
"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."
Extremely frustrating doesn't even begin to describe it. We have in our history some of the greatest composers, scientists, inventors, philosophers, novelists(and writers in general), poets etc...
Over a thousand years of culture, and for most people, Germany is not linked in their minds with Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Schumann, Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Kafka, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg - but with Hitler and those 12 years from 1933 to 1945.
It's very sad.
For a recent study, schoolchildren in Britain were asked to name "evil states"... guess what the top answers were? Iraq and Germany.
Among the less educated (and the averagely educated) in english-speaking countries, if you tell anyone you're from Germany, they lift their right arm to the "Hitler-Gruß" and shout "Sieg Heil".
But there are also extremely many people who know better :)
Nevertheless - something has to be done about it... and I would say it mostly has to do with the history education in schools.
Other Comments by MPhil
373. Comment #165724 by DamnDirtyApe on April 22, 2008 at 6:11 am
My final thoughts on this matter relate back to the God Delusion, specifically the chapter relating to addressing Hitler. I always felt that while the general points were addressed, that chapter was relatively weak compared to the rest of the book. Reading the Professor's letter, the argument here is vastly more solid. Great job. Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe
374. Comment #165742 by atheistrev on April 22, 2008 at 7:51 am
If education is the cure to ignorance, then Mr J needs a double dose.James
http://www.atheistrevolution.com
Other Comments by atheistrev
375. Comment #165749 by apathy on April 22, 2008 at 8:23 am
"I was surprised to find that there is an Intelligent Design Undergraduate Research Center at Baylor University according to this piece from the campus press. Of course, there should be the freedom for them to do so, but I am concerned that the falsehoods spread by Stein's movie will be used to attract students under false expectations (i.e. that what they would be studying is actually science)."
I attend Baylor and know Sam Chen, and I've never heard of that research center until today. I'm sure it's here, just not very big.
On an unrelated note, I'm embarrassed by Richard's performance in his final interview with Stein. It was rather disconcerting. Anyone else seen it?
Other Comments by apathy
376. Comment #165772 by TheTruthID on April 22, 2008 at 9:41 am
I find it funny that Dawkins, when caught off guard, admitted to ID in the movie "Expelled".Other Comments by TheTruthID
377. Comment #165776 by jac12358 on April 22, 2008 at 9:51 am
Richard, Great letter. It must get so tiring responding to this mindless 'Hitler was an atheist' nonsense over and over again. Good on you for answering this issue yet again.
I like the letter very much, but what I crave is a debate. We, in here, go at lengths to propose, criticise, counterargue, and so forth, for dozens of posts, taking "sides" and what-not. On the other hand, Dawkins does what might be best descibed as "drive-by posting" in which he drops off his post and then dashes off leaving the argument and debate and dirty-work to us. We shouldn't have to put words in his mouth or explain how he really meant this or didn't mean that, in which case some people are seen as apostles doing Dawkin's legwork by proxy. I know he is a busy man and has books to back up what he writes here, but I think most of us would agree that seeing an exchange between Dawkins and the author of the letter would be a whole lot more interesting, educational, exciting and dare I say entertaining than the way we might be going at it.
Less desirable drive-by / hit-and-run posts are from those who are "just anybodys" who post one provocative thing and are never heard from again, and one imagines them snickering at the heated debate that ensues which they started. Conversational pyromaniacs.
Does Dawkins ever follow up with new comments in an established post, as in "I've read some of the criticisms in this thread of late, some of which take me to task and so not to appear cowardly I am stepping up here to answer some of the more serious charges and points among which I was surprised to discover some very interesting thoughts I had not previously considered, to which I will also respond." ??? If so I'd like to read it.
Other Comments by jac12358
378. Comment #165779 by BillySands on April 22, 2008 at 9:56 am
I find it funny that Dawkins, when caught off guard, admitted to ID in the movie "Expelled".
Did he indeed? Or was he just taking the piss out of it and you fell for it?
Be a good boy and answer your questions
Other Comments by BillySands
379. Comment #165782 by epeeist on April 22, 2008 at 10:05 am
Comment #165772 by TheTruthID I find it funny that Dawkins, when caught off guard, admitted to ID in the movie "Expelled".Well, I was nice to you yesterday. However you have exhausted the patience I had.
You were asked to provide evidence that ID is science. You didn't do it.
You were asked to show what predictions ID makes. You didn't do that either.
You were asked to show how any predictions that ID makes could be tested. Did you answer? That would be no.
Finally, you were asked to tell us what tests had been conducted on ID and what results had been found. Anything? Well apart from an echo that is. Zilch.
In this post - http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2484,Interviews-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Michael-Shermer,Skepticality-The-Official-Skeptic-Podcast,page3#165735 I give some of the things one should not do in a critical dialogue. Included there are things like changing the agenda, not fulfilling the burden of proof or attempting to shift it, failing to reply to questions and being evasive.
All of these describe what you do here. The question is why you do it. It is very simple.You are an ignorant and gullible fool. There is no evidence for ID, no tests have ever been done, no results have ever been produced. In short, ID has the same empirical strength as extispicy.
So as clodhopper says - you might as well get the scriptural quotes and threats in now, that is what all theists like you descend to. It is all you have got, you certainly haven't got any valid arguments or you would have shown them to us by now.
Other Comments by epeeist
380. Comment #165785 by Caldur on April 22, 2008 at 10:20 am
Dawkin's concise and powerful wit never ceases to amaze me. I wish I could get a personal letter from him, although admittedly, not under similar circumstances as this one! Other Comments by Caldur
381. Comment #165786 by Quine on April 22, 2008 at 10:22 am
It looks like the main stream media have beat most of the crap out of Expelled in the reviews and op ed pieces, leaving the remaining (such as this little piece of crap) to be proffered up by the church groups and right wing nuts (and, of course, a certain institute of wack jobs who will go unmentioned). Other Comments by Quine
382. Comment #165801 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 11:25 am
Forgive me, I have not read each and every post in this lively discussion - perhaps I am arguing something that has been summarily dealt with 3 pages ago. I did read a few pages, and I seem to be reading the same question, carefully presented by the theists in our midst, and then pounced upon and devoured like a porterhouse cooked bloody rare and tossed before a pack of hungry lions. I'll attempt to present it again. I'll clench my fists and even my sphincter tightly, making every effort to be as persuasive as I can. I only beg that you answer the question I give, and do not attempt to assassinate my character as a foolproof method of silencing me - as I am sure you will find my question horribly mundane or perhaps miles beneath you.Dawkins claims to detest a society based on Darwinian principles. He is quoted as saying, "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 want to argue that like it or not, we live in that world, or we're rushing headlong into it. I won't suggest that it's Darwin who done it, but it's done nonetheless.
Perhaps a parable would best illustrate: Pete has an 11 year old daughter. He loves her deeply - would give his internal organs to save her, would run into traffic to snatch her from harm, would stand down a gunman and plead the shooter take his own life, rather than the life of his child. Pete believes his daughter feels the same way. He is convinced that her feelings for him are not a result of her simple evolutionary need to have a strong protector at this dangerous time in her anatomical development - she just loves him. He doesn't question it, but he believes it. But Randy Hawkins, The Good Professor Dawkin's perhaps more forthright doppleganger, wags his head in disapproval. "Tsk, tsk", he says, "oh poor, ignorant Pete. The love you are convinced your daughter feels for you, and in fact the love you feel for your daughter, is nothing more than a cascade of enzymes and electrical charges in your brain." He flashes a 3x5 card, "Here's the chemical composition of what you call 'love'."
Stick around long enough, and everything that we feel, every decision we make, every preference, every attitude will be instantly detectable by a biometric electronic wonder. They'll have wands you can wave over a person which will light up if they prefer Rembrandt over Renoir. They'll have quick and easy tests that can be administered at birth which will reveal the political persuasion of the child. They'll eventually add Bentham to Darwin and, by the power of the state, insist that children without a genetic predisposition for advanced cognition be bussed to the factories and the fields as soon as they can tie their shoes. Admittedly, you have to look several generations in the future to see this as anything more than paranoia, but it's very likely, in my opinion.
Believers see the unknown forces in the world, the motivation of one person to love another so strongly that they would be willing to risk their lives to protect them, and they are _comforted_. They have hope in the unknown. They apparently have a missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle of their life that only spirit can fill. Neo-anti dogmatists (as you perhaps prefer to be called) offer nothing to assuage them. On the contrary, they ask the believer to first accept willingly that they are insane, that their behavior is harmful to others, that their world view is despicable. Wait around long enough, and we'll have a pill for that, if they'll only take it.
How can a person who accepts Evolution as the ultimate explanation for the origins of everything living---indeed as the only explanation for the love you feel for your daughter---fill that spiritual void? Is the longing for spirit a neuroses, plain and simple?
Other Comments by chewmanfoo
383. Comment #165804 by jac12358 on April 22, 2008 at 11:32 am
Extremely frustrating doesn't even begin to describe it. We have in our history some of the greatest composers, scientists, inventors, philosophers, novelists(and writers in general), poets etc...
Over a thousand years of culture, and for most people, Germany is not linked in their minds with Beethoven, Bach, Schubert, Schumann, Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Kafka, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Einstein, Plank, Heisenberg - but with Hitler and those 12 years from 1933 to 1945.
It's very sad.
For a recent study, schoolchildren in Britain were asked to name "evil states"... guess what the top answers were? Iraq and Germany.
Among the less educated (and the averagely educated) in english-speaking countries, if you tell anyone you're from Germany, they lift their right arm to the "Hitler-Gruß" and shout "Sieg Heil".
But there are also extremely many people who know better :)
Nevertheless - something has to be done about it... and I would say it mostly has to do with the history education in schools.
It is frustrating, unfair and unfortunate, but I imagine in the history of things that are hard to "live down" the holocaust is pretty high on the list. The last French and German WWI veterans just died this and last year, so there are plenty of people still alive from WWII who were on both sides of the battle and remember what happened firsthand. I think it is great that we've become allies and the past is behind us, but it still exists as history and a valuable lesson. One shouldn't hold grudges, but when a country like the USA is held to such high standards and criticism it is understandable that people would want to remind everyone of the heroic contributions and body count far exceeding anything in Iraq that we accumulated on the world's behalf back in the 1940's.
My girlfriend is half German and half Italian. There are no Hitler jokes in her family, and her German father is such a sweetheart and winner of many humanitarian awards, that the most dinner table banter I hear about it has to do with the relative stereotypes of the Italians in the family beong more open with their affections and the German side being better with engineering, keeping busy and strict time-tables.
When I visited Guam I found it very strange to see Japanese tourists visiting an island they or their fathers half a century ago visited when they beheaded most of the unarmed indiginous Chimorro. What a change having tourism your biggest cash cow is!
What I find harder to swallow are grudges held FAR beyond living memory for events arguably less egregious than the holocaust. For example, as a white male I sometimes feel made responsible for the relatively sad state of affairs and "disenfranchisement" of African Americans. The abolishment of slavery happened a few decades before my Italian ancestors set foot here and the civil rights movement was before I was born, but I too often have to hear that I "owe" them still, and it saddens me to realize it is all very political and unfortunately I think only perpetuates a cycle of welfare, low expectations and dependancy. But that is another matter!...
The perpetual Muslim-Jew hostility if probably the worst, since it takes the cake of being the only one I know to last a millenium and being the most pointless over who has this dry piece of rock.
Nevertheless, I often wonder why given this and the recent holocaust why people give the Jews a hart time to this day while absolving the Germans of anything they've ever done bad.
Too often people cherry pick their statistics, as I've pointed out many times. Sure, let's all forgive the Germans, to which I'd agree, but when one needs a handy put-down for the USA one is only too eager to mention Vietnam (while forgetting the French-connection there) and things like the Iran-Contra and slavery. All I am trying to say is I see this sort of "past coming to haunt you" from both sides, and done rather selectively and unfairly, equalled perhaps only by the personal attacks on political opponents from each other digging up each other's dirt and skeletons.
Other Comments by jac12358
384. Comment #165806 by Caldur on April 22, 2008 at 11:47 am
chewmanfoo, all I can say to that is, have you ever tried? When I was a Christian, I thought I needed it to be happy. I thought that if I wasn't a believer that I would have this huge void that nothing else would be able to fill.Fast-forward to now, and I'm happier than I ever was as a Christian and I have no regrets. Religion, in my opinion, gives the very false sense of a need for that religion, when in reality, I don't think that it is generally needed.
All I'm saying is, try it before you knock it. I challenge you to live as an atheist for a week and see how you feel about the question you posed. I took this challenge, and by the end of the week, there was no way I was going back to the way things were.
A person doesn't need religion to love or feel loved. Even if these feelings are only chemical balances shifting inside our carbon shells, they are still feelings.
Other Comments by Caldur
385. Comment #165808 by The Reverend Dark on April 22, 2008 at 11:50 am
Chewmanfoo,
You scenario is based upon the eggragious assumption that the world will fall into a strange, neo-Orwellian, thought controlled police state. I would fear such a state as the result of a theocracy far more than any other political system.
As such, your conjecture is pure fear mongering, and while an interesting subject for science fiction (Gattica springs to mind); it remains that, fiction.
You can be atheist and spiritual - Einsteinian religion. I find a great deal of peace in the flash of a properly wielded sword or the intricate folds of an origami nurse shark; it is spiritual, but without a hint of theism about it. I understand enough breath control to influence my emotional state; I just don't need any mystical ju-ju to get me there.
The danger is in belief without evidence. I can demonstrate evidence I love my wife; and evidence that she loves me. As an added bonus I can prove she exists and I am not merely stabbing my genitalia into empty space and filling in the rest through the power of imagination and some questionable literature (What is commonly called the Jesus model)
Has anyone on this site demonstrated evidence that god loves them? Real evidence; as opposed to a lot of wish thinking?
Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark
(Listens for the twang of Foo's starfish unclenching in relief at a non-threatening answer)
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
386. Comment #165811 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 12:00 pm
twang!Other Comments by chewmanfoo
387. Comment #165813 by annabanana on April 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Damnit, RD.net ate my post! Fortunately, I copied and pasted. Here it is:Chewmanfoo,
I will address all of the portions of your post as clearly as possible. I am being polite, so please do not read any malice into this post.
I want to argue that like it or not, we live in that world, or we're rushing headlong into it. I won't suggest that it's Darwin who done it, but it's done nonetheless.
Why do you think this? What evidence do you have to suggest that we are heading in a cruel direction? If you are basing this assumption on anecdote, I would urge you not to do that, but to look at any evidence and data on the subject. I would argue that the opposite of what you are posing is happening. In the Darwinian world that we live in, members of our species who have exhibited compassion and empathy have obviously been the ones who have been selected for and therefore dominate the population. There is no evidence that this trait is being slowly phased out of the population. In fact, human rights movements are present all over the world. We have just very recently (especially with respect to the geological time scale) rid of ourselves of a nasty practice known as slavery. Civil rights and women's rights are even more recent progressions. If history is any indication of future trends, then it suggests that we are progressing indeed.
"Tsk, tsk", he says, "oh poor, ignorant Pete. The love you are convinced your daughter feels for you, and in fact the love you feel for your daughter, is nothing more than a cascade of enzymes and electrical charges in your brain." He flashes a 3x5 card, "Here's the chemical composition of what you call 'love'."
No one who is an atheist, I would wager, including Dawkins, would ever want to undermine positive emotions like love. The fact that these emotions are indeed chemical passing across synapses in the brain doesn't mean that we feel them any less. It doesn't make it any less wonderful when I am in love. Being in love is just like it always has been.
How can a person who accepts Evolution as the ultimate explanation for the origins of everything living---indeed as the only explanation for the love you feel for your daughter---fill that spiritual void? Is the longing for spirit a neuroses, plain and simple?
First I would like to say that simply because it is comforting to believe something to be true, that has no bearing on whether or not what is believed is actually true. Second of all, evolution does not posit how life began ultimately, only how life progresses once it is already in existence. Third of all, once you have cleared your head of all the "what if" nonsense that goes along with religion, you will feel not only exonerated, but more fulfilled than you can ever imagine, but maybe that's just me.
Other Comments by annabanana
388. Comment #165814 by mesomodel on April 22, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Comment #165801 by chewmanfoo
How can a person who accepts Evolution as the ultimate explanation for the origins of everything living---indeed as the only explanation for the love you feel for your daughter---fill that spiritual void? Is the longing for spirit a neuroses, plain and simple?
This has been addressed in previous threads from many angles, but I can understand how it would be difficult to find the appropriate responses in a sea of comments.
Let me give you my personal and abridged take on this:
1) I don't have a spiritual void. I suppose it's been filled by other things in my life, assuming that there was a latent void of some kind to begin with. Wife, kids, friends, and the wonders of the universe are just examples of what keeps me happy and in no need of religion. I get along perfectly fine. Maybe you'd find that you could fill your spiritual void in other ways if you tried.
2) You make the assumption that humans have a need or require spirituality or they are left with a void. This may be the case, but it may not be. Perhaps there is no void at all. Perhaps it can be filled in other ways. I think I support the idea that there is no need for religion to find meaning, purpose or happiness in life.
3) Even if there humans require a spiritual void to be filled, that has nothing to do with whether a god (or gods) exist. Santa Claus makes kids happy, but that doesn't mean he's real. No doubt, some do find comfort in religion. That can be good. But it doesn't mean that the religious beliefs are true.
4) It's possible that some atheists would like a god to exist; I'm not one of them. But, most if not all atheists put there feelings and desires aside and simply look at the facts. Whether we like it or not, there is no evidence for a god or god(s). Reason trumps faith. I accept evolution because it's reality. It's up to us humans to ensure that the truth of evolution is not used in immoral ways, just as most other science truths can be used for good or bad. And, just to nip in the bud, I'm not going to discuss whether morality requires god. That has also been discussed elsewhere. The answer is you don't need god to define morals.
Other Comments by mesomodel
389. Comment #165815 by Geoff on April 22, 2008 at 12:09 pm
382. Comment #165782 by epeeist extispicy.
The second addition to my vocabulary today!
Thanks!
Other Comments by Geoff
390. Comment #165817 by flying goose on April 22, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I must admit that I wince every time I read that bit about the God of The Old Testament being the most unpleasant character in fiction. I would have been much happier with the God of the Bible. Its not the God bit, if God exists he/she can defend him/herself ,neither is it the fiction I wince at the term God of The Old Testament, Richard may be inadvertently buying into Christian anti Judaism. What Jules Isaac called the theology of contempt. I don't blame him for it, the Jesus of the New Testament/God of The Old Testament dichotomy is so embedded in our culture we don't even notice its anti Judaic under tones. New Testament Old Testament language is based on Christian replacement theology. It has been argued that there is a direct line between the Christian the anti Judaism of the Christian scriptures and later antisemitism. We must be careful in our use of language.
This post is in no way an accusation of antisemitism.
Other Comments by flying goose
391. Comment #165819 by MaxD on April 22, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Chewmanfoo,
Isn't the fact that we have these wonderful relationships filling enough?
I mean when I am hanging out with my daughter I don't find that experience would in any way improved by imagining a God or entertaining a sense of the pre-ordained. A sunset for instance doesn't have to be for me to be any more beautiful.
Other Comments by MaxD
392. Comment #165820 by jwh082742 on April 22, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Hitler was born a roman catholic just as Stalin was born into the russian orthodox and Mao was raised as a Buddhist. These facts prove nothing, as many people reject their religious upbringing as these three men did. Hitler regarded Catholic teaching as a religion only fit for slaves and detested it's ethics.How to account for his claim that he's doing the Lord's work in Mein Kampf?
During his ascent to power, Hitler needed the support of the German people--both the Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans-- and to secure this he occasionally used rhetoric such as "I am doing the Lord's work."
Mr. Dawkins, to claim that this rhetoric makes Hitler a Christian is to confuse political opportunism with personal convictions.
Hitler's objection to the Jews was not religious. A jew could not escape Auschwitz by pleading, "I no longer practice Judaism." or "I am an athiest," or "I have converted to Christianity." This mattered nothing to Hitler because he believed the Jews were inferior racial stock. His anti-semitism was secular.
"Hitler's Table Talk", a collection showing his private conversaions assembled by a close aide during the war years shows that Hitler was rabidly anti-religious, calling Christianity one of the great "Scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease."
Darwinism is not a sufficient intellectual explanation for Naziism, but it is a necessary one. Without Darwinism, there might not have been Naziism.
~ Dinesh D'Souza
Other Comments by jwh082742
393. Comment #165821 by Quine on April 22, 2008 at 12:18 pm
chewmanfoo, I find it emotionally satisfying to work on the problem of what makes something emotionally satisfying. 
Other Comments by Quine
394. Comment #165823 by MPhil on April 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Everything except that last paragraph from this piece by Dinesh is true, but in no way enough:He didn't only now and then use religious rethoric.
I don't believe he was a Christian either, but read my long post on this thread... he was very very friendly to the churches, and without the help of the churches, priests, and other religious institutions (such as the CV) he would have never made it. They all welcomed him with open arms. They bought his religious rhethoric and approved of him as Christians.
And again - not Darwinism...Lamarckism and artificial selection.
Other Comments by MPhil
395. Comment #165824 by The Reverend Dark on April 22, 2008 at 12:29 pm
First time poster quoting D'Souza
Darwinism is not a sufficient intellectual explanation for Naziism, but it is a necessary one. Without Darwinism, there might not have been Naziism.
Darwinism doesn't speak to artificial selection; You could more accurately blame Mendel
So, how is the weather up your own arse? Without puppies and sunshine there might not have been naziism either.
The Reverend Shayne Dark
Other Comments by The Reverend Dark
396. Comment #165826 by annabanana on April 22, 2008 at 12:33 pm
jwh082742,Your post does not demonstrate that Hitler was an atheist any more than anyone has demonstrated that he was a Roman Catholic. What it demonstrates is that he was dishonest and there is no way of knowing what he was. The only person who could truly tell us what his religious beliefs were, if any, is Hitler, himself, and well...he's dead.
Darwinism is not a sufficient intellectual explanation for Naziism, but it is a necessary one. Without Darwinism, there might not have been Naziism.
This is simply ridiculous. First of all, it's like saying with out the theory of gravity, I wouldn't have fallen and broken my ankle. Curse that Newton fellow for figuring out gravity! Second of all, Eugenics has been repeatedly demonstrated to be based on artificial selection, not natural selection!
Other Comments by annabanana
397. Comment #165829 by mesomodel on April 22, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Comment #165824 by The Reverend Dark
Darwinism doesn't speak to artificial selection; You could more accurately blame Mendel
I think you could back even further, to the very earliest start of civilization when farmers and herders realized they could control the quality of their plants and animals through artificial selection. PZ discussed this in a recent article posted on RDnet.
Here's food for thought. If Darwin had died of scurvy early in the voyage, would Hitler and the Nazis have risen to power? Would the holocaust have occurred anyhow? While there's no way to rewind the clock and know for sure, I think the answer is yes and yes.
Other Comments by mesomodel
398. Comment #165831 by Steve Zara on April 22, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Darwinism is not a sufficient intellectual explanation for Naziism, but it is a necessary one. Without Darwinism, there might not have been Naziism.
This is a very strange link to make. Darwin focussed on Natural Selection - how Nature can, unaided, produce the complexity of living organisms. Darwin did not invent racism, or the idea of evolution, or eugenics, or even the term "survival of the fittest", or the idea of inheritance of characteristics. In fact, the thing that marked Darwin out from almost every other "evolutionist" - his ideas of Natural Selection - was something that has absolutely no connection whatsoever with anything with Naziism. Naziism was not about allowing Nature to determine the future of humanity, it was about taking charge through artificial means. No-one educated about the history of evolutionary ideas could possibly link Darwin to Hitler.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
399. Comment #165844 by chewmanfoo on April 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm
annabanana all I was suggesting is that sooner or later there will be a logical, scientific explanation for everything. That is a Darwinian world, in my book. Dawkins would disagree, presumably, because he would welcome such a world, but claim emphatically that our knowledge of all things would not in any way influence our behavior. We won't immunize for religious belief, even though we know it both wrong and harmful. I say we eventually will. You say we won't.What does this have to do with the debate? I'll be bold and say that, in spite of our recent successes in scientific research, philosophy, ethics etc., we still don't know everything. Believers err on the side of the whimsical when confronted with the unknown. I do believe that behind the clockwork function of the cosmos, behind the wonder of evolution and the remarkable programming of DNA, there is a designer who has great love toward her creation. I marvel over the amazing powers of natural selection and feel a kinship with the creator.
I refuse to clear my head of all the "what if" nonsense, because I truly believe that the greatest of scientific discovery depends on a healthy pinch of creativity in the mix. I look at your avatar and think, "My she's a pretty girl. it is a gift of her creator. He has shown great love toward her." I don't want to think, "her face has the proper dimensions and her skin the correct chemical composition, and reflects the ambient light of the web cam she used to produce this picture, such that I would like to trap her in a thicket and procreate with her. And modern surgical techniques could make her even more desirable."
When I love someone, I want to feel divine authority in doing so. This is a belief that is based purely in the unknown, I admit it entirely. If I accept the writings of Darwin, and Mendel and countless others, and if I welcome as an unworthy recipient all the wonderful scientific achievement that we as a species have brought about and yet I still believe after all of our searching we will, find a God who loves us and who did all of this to show his great love toward us, standing just behind the veil. If he's a great spaghetti monster, then somebody please bring Parmesan, because i want to enjoy the feast!
Other Comments by chewmanfoo
400. Comment #165845 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 22, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Let's blame Jesus, not Darwin. :P Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle
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 individual organism is a very important unit in the hierarchy of life…But however unitary and discrete an individual wolf or buffalo may be, the package is temporary and unique. (pp. 216-217)…"Abraham was left in no doubt that the future lay with his seed, not his individuality. God knew his Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
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
351. Comment #165566 by petergarayt on April 21, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Answer for Hmmmm's first question.Survival.
peterg
Other Comments by petergarayt