1. Comment #409019 by Richard Dawkins on August 24, 2009 at 10:51 pm

I hope I don't need to remind people that newspaper headlines are written by sub-editors, and the author never has any say over it. Indeed, the author has no idea what the headline will be until he opens the newspaper and it is too late to do anything about it.

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

2. Comment #409021 by adamd164 on August 24, 2009 at 10:54 pm

Great; I've been waiting for an extract to whet the appetite.

Amazon tells me it's about 2 weeks to delivery date! :)

PS: I actually enjoyed the headline :D

Other Comments by adamd164

3. Comment #409022 by kaiserkriss on August 24, 2009 at 11:04 pm

I really look forward to this book. As a person who likes to use analogies myself, I find the ones Richard has come up with here quite interesting to the right audience. Unfortunately, some of the analogies will be lost on the average schmuck incapable of recognizing these obvious analogies, since they lack the educational background to appreciate the details.

I suppose I'm criticizing Richard here,though not out of malice, but more so that the under educated masses to whom this book is probably directed lack the understanding to truly appreciate it.

In the real world, out side academia we are constantly faced by the Lowest Common Denominator principle, and for someone of Richard's intellect, it is probably unfathomable how low the common denominator actually is. My 2 cents . jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

4. Comment #409023 by Luis Dias on August 24, 2009 at 11:14 pm

This is getting ridiculous. Stop this idiotic fashion of compare attachments to ignorance or marginal ideas with "Holocaust Denying". It's sickening and it will byte back in the future. RD, if you read this, I am deeply disappointed at this Godwin manouver on your part. I understand the analogy and while technically you may be correct in analysing the process of holocaust denying and evolution denying, you are dealing here with emotional forces that should not be summoned for your favorite theory at will.

Unfortunately this fashion has taken over, and I think it is regrettable.

Other Comments by Luis Dias

5. Comment #409026 by infinitum17 on August 24, 2009 at 11:28 pm

As a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, I feel particularly strong resonance from this article.

I do not think Richard's comparison of the creationists to the Holocaust deniers is unwarranted. It's not a perfect parallel, but there are a great number of similarities. And yeah, strong emotions are evoked. To make the comparison that is made, though, is just to imply an opinion (which I agree with partly) that people should be as outraged by the words and actions of the creationists as they are about Holocaust-deniers'.

Other Comments by infinitum17

6. Comment #409027 by Bullet-Magnet on August 24, 2009 at 11:31 pm

It never fails to amaze me how many people are prepared to deliberately misunderstand Richard and decide he is the equal of a creationist moron. They have learned nothing and I suspect they never will.

Other Comments by Bullet-Magnet

7. Comment #409028 by Moq on August 24, 2009 at 11:31 pm

The analogy between Holocaust denial and various deniers of Evolution is quite useful; the deliberate indifference to - or refusal of - evidence, and the often elaborate attempts at fabricating alternative theories. It doesn't hold up against closer scrutiny, but often sufficient to at least confuse the unprepared layman. You could even say that we had our Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial in the shape of Lipstadt vs. Irving.

The excerpt sounds promising. Especially contrasted to some of the commentary.

Other Comments by Moq

8. Comment #409031 by reckoner on August 24, 2009 at 11:37 pm

Ohhh plllzzzz. You guys are acting like Dawkins compared Evolution deniers to the Nazis themselves. He compared Evolution deniers to Holocaust deniers. And this is not a maneuver or move that messes with too strong of an emotional issue like Holocaust denying! Dawkins draws an apt analogy to show just how ridiculous it is to deny evolution today. If he does in fact draw on an emotionally charged analogy, then so what? Isn't that the point anyhow?

Awesome article Richard

Other Comments by reckoner

9. Comment #409034 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2009 at 11:41 pm

Comment #409019 by Richard Dawkins

A useful reminder. The sub-heading of the article is awful:

"People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on a level with Holocaust deniers, argues an author in his controversial new book
But putting all that aside."

This implies that 40% of the USA is morally equivalent to nutty anti-semites.

Why couldn't they have added just one word:

"People who reject the theory of evolution should be placed on an intellectual level with Holocaust deniers"

Sorry, I had to complain. Funny how such editing always seems to err on the side of making Richard look angry and strident. Or perhaps not.

But, putting that aside.

What writing! Educational, passionate, exciting, sparkling.

"Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past."

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #409035 by decius on August 24, 2009 at 11:43 pm

by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami)

By the same token, a Latin scholar - who is also a purist - wouldn't use the word at all. But that would be a pity, it's such an effective epithet.

Other Comments by decius

11. Comment #409036 by BlueCollar8theist on August 24, 2009 at 11:44 pm

Made the mistake of reading the comments below the original article. Damn nearly vomited on my keyboard. The sheer stupidity of a good portion of humanity never ceases to amaze me. And enrage me.
I thought the article was extremely well written, and well thought out.

Other Comments by BlueCollar8theist

12. Comment #409038 by j.mills on August 24, 2009 at 11:46 pm

Yes, in a dreadful way the comments underneath the article are more 'educational' than RD's words!

Other Comments by j.mills

13. Comment #409039 by Quine on August 24, 2009 at 11:47 pm

The Holocast-denier comparison is a very hot emotional button to push, and as such carries some baggage. It would be nice to have a better way to say it, unfortunately, there really are large numbers of people who have maintained closed minds based on a feeling that evolution rejection must be okay because so many do it. Thus, I see why it is necessary to hold forth an example in which many people are seen forcefully asserting something they hold as deep truth, but are clearly, completely wrong. It is only through the understanding of the basic nature of people to believe wrong things that we come to appreciate the need to always check our ideas against objective evidence.

"A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses it is an idea that possesses the mind." -- Robert Oxton Bolt

Other Comments by Quine

14. Comment #409040 by Thurston on August 24, 2009 at 11:48 pm

I clicked "recommended" on the few sensible comments below the article, but I don't really know why. Oh, life can be depressing at times.

Other Comments by Thurston

15. Comment #409042 by Akaei on August 24, 2009 at 11:54 pm

It's not ridiculous. It's merely and extension of Godwin's Law.

It is sad that these dangerous memes are more resilient than anthrax. And it seems unlikely that our curious but intuitive minds will ever evolve to be completely free of superstitious shortcuts.

Other Comments by Akaei

16. Comment #409046 by Steve Zara on August 25, 2009 at 12:04 am

Comment #409039 by Quine

Yes, it is a hot button. But I agree fully. The subtitle was awful, but I have no complaints about the comparison the way Richard writes it.

It is time that Creationism was no longer pandered to. It is wrong. Shockingly and dangerously wrong. It's not immoral to be a Creationist, but it is immoral to encourage creationism through a culture of literalist religion combined with ignorance.

The world can't afford to have nearly half the population of the last superpower that deluded.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #409047 by Quine on August 25, 2009 at 12:06 am

Comment #409042 by Akaei:

It's merely and extension of Godwin's Law.

I, respectfully, don't think so. A comparison is not being made with anyone who did the Holocaust. The problem has nothing to do with how "bad" that event was; the problem is with organized groups who present a fiction of history that has no connection with (and is contradicted by) actual objective evidence.

P.S. If you dig into the subject you will find that the Gospels, themselves, are another case of pushing fiction as history.

Other Comments by Quine

18. Comment #409049 by MEM on August 25, 2009 at 12:11 am

I'm on board with the Holocaust denier analogy. Comparing evolution deniers to Holocaust deniers is an emotionally loaded attention getter that will start people thinking. We do not allow Holocaust deniers equal time in an educational forum because, at a fundamental level, their story is one of lies and deception. Likewise, the lead evolution deniers use lies and deception to push their own political agenda. Decent and thoughtful people should be outraged by any such forms of dishonesty and manipulation.

The arguments by evolution deniers for equal time should not provoke sympathetic feelings for fairness but rather disgust at their deceptions, in the same way that most people feel disgust about Holocaust deniers.

It is also noteworthy that there are likely disproportionately very few atheist Holocaust deniers, but rather fringe Christians or perhaps not-so-fringe Muslims.

Other Comments by MEM

19. Comment #409050 by Misc on August 25, 2009 at 12:14 am

That Latin analogy could be extended to mention the development of the Latin language from its known origins into the "specialized" medieval derivatives. Might stretch it a bit too far, though, and I do not think I am the first to bring this up.

Anyway, here in Germany, whoever employs the Holocaust gun publicly against anything other then the far right is almost certain to have it backfire, regardless of its original target. The indignation complex is a very well trained one, though I honestly do not want to guess how it would / will turn out in this instance. But I will guess that Richard has very carefully considered the matter.

Other Comments by Misc

20. Comment #409054 by Cartomancer on August 25, 2009 at 12:19 am

Frighteningly enough I spoke to my ex-boss this weekend, who is now head of Classics at the sixth-form college at which I used to teach. She told me that, unprecedentedly, she now has to deal with a few blatant, openly creationist students for the first time. And she teaches Classics and English Literature, not biology. Apparently these miniature teenage creationists insist on trying to get their petty history-denying agenda into everything they do, from essays on Oedipus Tyrannos and Aristophanes to work on Milton, Shelley and W.H. Auden. They are all disgracefully homophobic, closed-minded and conservative also, given that they are the unfortunate victims of religious brainwashing. It pains me deeply to see the potential of young minds stymied and shackled in such a way. It has been only two years since I last taught there, and we had nothing of the kind at that time. It worries me terribly. Even more worrying, this is an affluent area of leafy Surrey and a college renowned for its tolerance, diversity and liberality.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

21. Comment #409055 by DoctorMelkor on August 25, 2009 at 12:20 am

I didn't even read the comments under the article, just came back here to read some and write one. I was too excited by the excerpt to stick around off-site. In fact, halfway through, without consciously meaning to, I started reading out loud, doing my best impression of Professor Dawkins' voice and style. ^_^

My great hope about this coming book (apart from my own joy in getting to read it when it comes out)is that, because "The God Delusion" was SO widely read and even more widely discussed, "The Greatest Show On Earth" might become the bestselling book on evolution ever and successfully reach a good number of new people with the real science of evolution.

Other Comments by DoctorMelkor

22. Comment #409058 by decius on August 25, 2009 at 12:25 am

Comment #409054 by Cartomancer

Apparently these miniature teenage creationists insist on trying to get their petty history-denying agenda into everything they do, from essays on Oedipus Tyrannos and Aristophanes to work on Milton, Shelley and W.H. Auden....

It has been only two years since I last taught there, and we had nothing of the kind at that time. It worries me terribly.

It should worry them terribly, if you guys just failed them without a second thought, as they seem to fully deserve.

Other Comments by decius

23. Comment #409062 by DoctorMelkor on August 25, 2009 at 12:35 am

re: 20. Comment #409054 by Cartomancer on August 25, 2009 at 12:19 am

That's truly disquieting news you bring, Cartomancer. I would be troubled enough to hear creationists polluting Milton, Shelley, and W.H. Auden here in Florida ("America's Wang")...but to hear of it happening in England is actually frightening. Are these people all from a specific, connected group or is the phenomenon just a statistical sampling representing real local societal tendencies? (I realize you probably don't know the answer, but if you do...)

Other Comments by DoctorMelkor

24. Comment #409063 by Cartomancer on August 25, 2009 at 12:36 am

It should worry them terribly, if you guys just failed them without a second thought, as they seem to fully deserve.

Had I been presented with such things then I'm pretty sure that's what I would have done. My ex boss would never let it stop there however, she's far too indomitable for that! When I asked her what she did she told me that she has taken to reading out the said creationists' rants in front of the whole class and letting their peers have a good laugh at their stupidity.

re these people all from a specific, connected group or is the phenomenon just a statistical sampling representing real local societal tendencies?

I did not inquire as to where these creationists came from, or indeed how many of them there were. I got the impression from what my boss said that there were a handful, maybe three or four, in her classes and that they came from heavily christian families and attended creationist summer camps. They were definitely a small minority and, as a cause for hope, the rest of the students seem to think they're utterly crazy, affording them a salutary level of disdain and scorn as only sixth-formers can.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

25. Comment #409066 by mordacious1 on August 25, 2009 at 12:49 am

A creationist ate muh baby! (for Seinfeld fans)

Other Comments by mordacious1

26. Comment #409069 by Duff on August 25, 2009 at 12:53 am

No quarter to the religionist, creationist wankers! They have to be met head on with ridicule and unambiguated contempt! I'll let Richard be thoughtful and diplomatic. I'm going for the jugular!

Other Comments by Duff

27. Comment #409074 by NewEnglandBob on August 25, 2009 at 1:20 am

Richard opens with guns blazing at the appropriate target - historydeniers.

Man the gunwales, we are going after them! arrrgh!

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

28. Comment #409075 by Joshua Slocum on August 25, 2009 at 1:20 am

Whoever keeps marking Richard's comments as "troll" and sending him to the alternate thread needs to stop. Or, perhaps site admin can find a way to stop it from happening. Here's Richard's comment:

I hope I don't need to remind people that newspaper headlines are written by sub-editors, and the author never has any say over it. Indeed, the author has no idea what the headline will be until he opens the newspaper and it is too late to do anything about it.

Richard

Other Comments by Joshua Slocum

29. Comment #409081 by HappyPrimate on August 25, 2009 at 1:30 am

Great little taste of the book to come. Read the comments on the article's site and there were some whoppers but some intelligent ones too. It appears the crazies were not being recommended so many readers must not agree with them - I can only hope. So happy that the book is coming out soon as it will be given to a number of friends and family as a present at the end of the solar year. Hoping each copy will be read thoroughly. My mom still insists Hitler was a darwinist no matter what I say. Since she is in her eighties, I may just have to let her go with it.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

30. Comment #409083 by Kiwi on August 25, 2009 at 1:33 am

There is another extract on dog evolution:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6808173.ece

Other Comments by Kiwi

31. Comment #409086 by Luis Dias on August 25, 2009 at 1:43 am

Apparently people do not agree with me. That's fine by me, but I do not think it is worth to call others "stupid" just because they do not agree with you, mr blue collar. I saw Richard's point entirely and technically, I agreed with him. But it is too much an emotionally loaded term, and frankly, is being abused all around the theme park. And as you are seeing here in this very thread, it is the number one thing being discussed, deviating the discussion from probably more interesting points. If this is so in the RDF forum, do you even have to wonder how it will be received in a less friendly zone?

Other Comments by Luis Dias

32. Comment #409088 by Spinoza on August 25, 2009 at 1:54 am

I'm pretty sure that the word 'stupid' is sometimes used accurately. Is it, here?

Other Comments by Spinoza

33. Comment #409089 by kraut on August 25, 2009 at 1:54 am

"agreed with him. But it is too much an emotionally loaded term,"

I cannot understand why "holocaust" denial is more loaded then "evolution" denier - or creationist for short.
Both incense me to the same extend, as both deny the evidence available.
As you might have noticed, especially in the middle east, there is actually some confluence of denial of holocaust and denial of evolution. The religious background for both is demonstrable.
The same might be said for certain right wing religious practitioners in the US and elsewhere - the christian arian nation springs to mind.

Other Comments by kraut

34. Comment #409094 by Layla Nasreddin on August 25, 2009 at 2:27 am

Wonderful, powerful stuff, explaining the concept of "evolution is a fact" clearly and bracingly.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

35. Comment #409095 by ksskidude on August 25, 2009 at 2:34 am

Great first chapter Richard. I am even more excited to read the book. Living in Missouri it still amazes me how many people around me would fit into the 40 percenters category! They are every where, and I am afraid there might be one or two on my wife's side of her family. Her parents (shhh)!
While I think I have a fairly good grasp on evolution, I am always looking for a better way to try to be able to explain it. Hopefully this book will give me the backup that I need.
Thank you Richard for taking the time to write this book. It is sorely needed here in the land of the 40 percenter!!

Other Comments by ksskidude

36. Comment #409096 by Big City on August 25, 2009 at 2:42 am

That excerpt was great. I can't wait to read the rest of the book.

But this part near the end jumps out:

"The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact."

I think when someone like Ray Comfort or Ken Ham hears "...if it survives the assault..." they take it to mean "If you promote and believe an idea long enough, and blatantly ignore the evidence to the contrary, it becomes accepted as truth."

Other Comments by Big City

37. Comment #409098 by Hawaiian_Shirt on August 25, 2009 at 2:52 am

i think it's telling that an anagram of "creationist" is "i.e. con artist"

Other Comments by Hawaiian_Shirt

38. Comment #409099 by Akaei on August 25, 2009 at 2:55 am

I take Luis's point. It is loaded. Holocaust deniers tend to be neo-nazis (or some form of anti-Semite) or otherwise sheltered/brainwashed. I would have a visceral aversion to having that charge aimed at me (for either reason.)

But if we consider only the 'sheltered' aspect of the comparison, Richard's analogy has very strong parallels. The 'neo-nazi' aspect of the comparison does reduce credibility but brings an emotional inertia to the analogy.

Is it excessive? Is it TOO loaded? Given the cost/benefit is it an analogy worth advancing? IMO: slightly, not quite, probably yes.

Other Comments by Akaei

39. Comment #409106 by SmartLX on August 25, 2009 at 3:45 am

As the thing at the bottom says, the Times article itself accepts comments. Rebuttals by some of you to some of those already posted would be very welcome. It's classic creationist stuff, everything from transitional fossils to teach-the-controversy.

Other Comments by SmartLX

40. Comment #409112 by Kiwi on August 25, 2009 at 5:04 am

Remember one doesn't BELIEVE in evolution, one ACCEPTS it as the best available explanation for what is observed, and Natural Selection is the best theory to provide a mechanism.

On another theme in this thread, there is a strong and very important link between mass murder for racial and religious reasons and a lack of understanding about evolution.

Imagine if the notion of racial superiority had been properly explored in a scientific way in post WWI Europe, with the media, information and analysis we have today, showing the degree of similarity between people at the genetic level. If the notion of racial "purity" had been investigated with DNA ?

Further what if the notion of atheism as a force for good, uniting people, rather than the destructive influence of religions had been allowed to flourish ?

Of course I am aware there were many other factors leading to the continuation of WWI, and this is fantasy, and a simplistic analysis, but I wonder if the rational Germans educated in evolution between the wars may have rejected National Socialism. Evolutionary biology and prominent atheism may have prevented the holocaust altogether.

Other Comments by Kiwi

41. Comment #409118 by sillygirl on August 25, 2009 at 5:29 am

I was really enjoying this excerpt until I made the mistake of reading the comments. As upset as I get about the "see no evidence, hear no evidence, speak no evidence" folks, the others frightened me even more. I run into them all the time. "The more the evidence supports your claim, the more convinced I become that you're wrong."

Other Comments by sillygirl

42. Comment #409121 by Steven Mading on August 25, 2009 at 5:50 am

1. Comment #409019 by Richard Dawkins on August 24, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I hope I don't need to remind people that newspaper headlines are written by sub-editors, and the author never has any say over it. Indeed, the author has no idea what the headline will be until he opens the newspaper and it is too late to do anything about it.

Given that the majority of the public does not know about this feature of newspapers (especially since it's not true of those writers who have their own regular column, and thus is not universally going to be the case for all opinion pieces you read in a newspaper), I think it's high time people stopped being duped into thinking people said things they didn't via this method. Imagine if the editor had inserted a sentence into the text itself that Richard did not write, and that the editor made no effort to mention that this was inserted by an editor. (i.e. there were no square-brackets around the insertion or anything like that). That would be the intellectual crime of reverse plagiarizing - the ultimate strawman fallacy. And yet they do it all the time with titles. They do it with TV shows as well, as the now infamous example of the title "Root of all Evil?" shows, with all the flak Richard has to put up with now, being taken to task to try to defend that claim that he never made that all the evil in the world is religion's fault. (And of course, if he points out he never made that claim, then it looks to a lot of people like he's backing down and lost some sort of argument about the claim and is conceeding. They won't accept that he really didn't make that claim in the first place because they think he picked the title.)

This really isn't fair and it's quite dishonest. I have no idea what can be done to fix it other than to make the writing of the headline be part of the task of the guest author and not putting it in the hands of the editors.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

43. Comment #409125 by DrawingYou on August 25, 2009 at 6:35 am

I would like to lend my voice to the choir supporting the use of Holocaust Denier as a means to rattle the cages of Creationists. Yes it is emotionally loaded and yes it will offend many. But creationists, by the nature of faith, which is an imposter of knowledge, can not be dealt with subtly. I personally think they are mad, they think they are immortal and can’t wait for the end of the world. We can't afford to be subtle, time is running out.

Other Comments by DrawingYou

44. Comment #409127 by SaintStephen on August 25, 2009 at 6:59 am

45. Comment #409121 by Steven Mading on August 25, 2009 at 5:50 am

This really isn't fair and it's quite dishonest. I have no idea what can be done to fix it other than to make the writing of the headline be part of the task of the guest author and not putting it in the hands of the editors.

I say muskets at 30 paces. Editors blindfolded. Simple wooden caskets. All of 'em.

EDIT: Gonna read the excerpts tomorrow for breakfast. Can't wait.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

45. Comment #409130 by hadespussercats on August 25, 2009 at 7:30 am

What analogy other than Holocaust denial could Professor Dawkins have used?

I'm not asking rhetorically.

At this point, it seems as though RD has made every reasonable appeal to common sense regarding the truth of evolution-- which could be an argument for turning to the emotion-laden tactics that have served his opponents so well over the years.

I'm not debating whether or not the analogy is sound (though I'm inclined to think it might be.)

I'm just wondering if there is any other example that could so effectively shock people to attention-- and whether that sort of shock is likely to open the ears of the forty percenters in the first place.

Other Comments by hadespussercats

46. Comment #409134 by Jiten on August 25, 2009 at 7:49 am

I'm not going to read the excerpts as I don't want to spoil my enjoyment of the book, which I await with delicious anticipation. You can only read a book for the first time ONCE!

Other Comments by Jiten

47. Comment #409135 by yyy on August 25, 2009 at 7:55 am

'To repeat, (evolution/history deniers) constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population.'

Makes the goal of creating machines with greater-than-human-intelligence seem less daunting.

Other Comments by yyy

48. Comment #409136 by basty_goofy on August 25, 2009 at 8:20 am

Hmm... Mr. Dawkins, I'm a bit dissapointed :D

Why would you mention a non-regulated and "niche" language like Romansh instead of a proper language, spoken by 30 million people like Romanian? Sorry, must be the patriot inside :)

Other Comments by basty_goofy

49. Comment #409141 by Paula Kirby on August 25, 2009 at 8:43 am

Those who are objecting to the Holocaust-denial analogy might like to consider whether they can think of a better one to have used. Personally I think it makes the point perfectly.

Those who deny evolution are doing so a) in the face of overwhelming and consistent evidence FOR evolution and b) for entirely ideological reasons.

I can't think of a better analogy for that than Holocaust-denial, where precisely the same process is taking place and for precisely the same reason (though no one is suggesting that the ideology in question is the same in each case).

Stop and think for a moment why we should be shocked by the Holocaust-deniers. The RIGHT reason to be shocked is not ideological, however obscene the deniers' ideology may be. If there were good reason to think that the Holocaust had not happened, then we would be wrong to be shocked by those who deny it. But there isn't the slightest reason to think that. All the evidence points the other way.

Holocaust-denial is shocking because there is SO much evidence for the reality of the Holocaust that to deny it is to blatantly suppress truth in the interests of ideology.

Evolution-denial likewise. And in a sense even this to-do about the shockingness of the analogy is a good thing. People are shocked by the analogy because they instinctively - and rightly - recoil from those who deny the Holocaust, in a way that they don't recoil from those who deny evolution. At the purely emotional level this is fine. But it isn't our emotions that make the Holocaust-denier shockingly wrong: it is the fact that he is denying something which all the evidence indicates is true, and the knowledge that it is purely his ideology that leads him to do so.

It is precisely the same with the evolution-deniers. They are shockingly wrong, NOT because their ideology is wrong, but because they are denying that for which there is overwhelming evidence, and they are doing so purely on the BASIS of that ideology. We should be shocked by that. The furore over the analogy simply highlights the fact that, so far, we haven't been sufficiently shocked by it.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

50. Comment #409142 by Steve Zara on August 25, 2009 at 8:58 am

The RIGHT reason to be shocked is not ideological, however obscene the deniers' ideology may be.

People aren't always shocked for the right reason :)

In this case, being shocked initially for any reason is a good thing. The association of the shock of the phrase "holocaust denial" with "creationism" will be very effective, I think. It will be a useful meme.

But it isn't our emotions that make the Holocaust-denier shockingly wrong: it is the fact that he is denying something which all the evidence indicates is true, and the knowledge that it is purely his ideology that leads him to do so.

I think our emotions can be involved, because there is more than one way that Holocaust denial is wrong. It is almost always ethically wrong, being associated with deep prejudice.

We should also be shocked at the deep prejudice that is very often involved in Creationism - a prejudice against reason, against science, against education.

I think the association with Holocaust denial is correct not just in the "right" way, because of rejection of evidence, but also because of the connection between Creationism and ignorance and prejudice.

So, I'm basically agreeing with you, only more so!

Other Comments by Steve Zara