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 451 - 500 of 1954 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers452. Comment #166008 by Colt McKenzie-Belle on April 22, 2008 at 4:55 pm
I haven't seen Ben Stein's film. To tell the truth I've only just learned about it earlier to-day. I'd like to see it to see what all the fuss is about. Other Comments by Colt McKenzie-Belle
453. Comment #166044 by Frankus1122 on April 22, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Sorry to comment so lately on this and I supposed chewbacca's gone butI dare say you will eventually resort to telling me plainly that my love for my daughter is based on those cascades of enzymes and electricity that I mentioned earlier. Don't you see? Your way's no fun!
I don't understand this.
My daughter just came home and as I write this I am feeling an immense amount of love for her. I will have to go and hug her now.
I got a kiss from boy too.
Have I ever got the cascading electro-chemical enzymes going now!
No fun?
Are you crazy?!
I love my children. They love me.
There is a physical process that goes on inside of us that explains the feelings we have.
It doesn't make it less fun or less loving.
Don't you see? Your way is denying the truth of our existence.
This is the way it is.
No made-up stuff.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
454. Comment #166067 by Podaar on April 22, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Comment #165947 by keith
Thank you, but it's not so bad. All the golf courses are pretty open on Sunday.
Other Comments by Podaar
455. Comment #166086 by Roland_F on April 22, 2008 at 6:14 pm
chewmanfooThere was a poster here this week who put very similar fantasies forward, reading like "just because I imagine something and feel good and comforted everybody should imagine the same". And as result the entire world has to obey to an imaginary 'higher being' to feel better, and this being of course is God Yahweh.
So interpreting God as holy trinity, or focusing to pray to Jesus or 'virgin' Mary, or Elephant God Ganesh brining luck, or believing in Santa Claus or Easter rabbit anything goes just to feel more 'comfort and meaning in life'.
Scientific research showed that religions or other supernatural believes are usually rooted in the childish behavior searching for protection from parents. As humans are like premature born apes and have a delayed maturing process, these supernatural believes are frequently continuing into adulthood for persons which increased Promine hormone levels into adulthood (see Clive Bromhall "the eternal child") .
It would be nice if people like you would just practice their imagination and delusion silently at home, and keep out of the daily life of other people as well out of education, ethical debates and politics where the clergy is invited only based on their specific chosen faith.
Other Comments by Roland_F
456. Comment #166094 by MAJORPAIN on April 22, 2008 at 6:23 pm
This makes me sad. I used to enjoy Ben's rants on CBS' morning show. I didn't always agree, but I never felt like he was doing anything other than giving his opinion. Now I have to put him in with that other lunatic-run-amok Mel Gibson.Now he isn't just giving his opinion, he's doing harm. He's giving more amunition to all the nutcases out there...as if they need any more.
Sad.
Other Comments by MAJORPAIN
457. Comment #166098 by rotaTOR on April 22, 2008 at 6:31 pm
creationists always seem to confuse the origin of life with evolution. when an explanation is given for the possible origin of self-replication,its ridiculed. They say "from goo to you" in reference to the idea it started in clay. and yet,according to their bible, man is made from dust,which is essentialy dry clay. do they ridicule their own beliefs and not know it? it appears so Other Comments by rotaTOR
458. Comment #166149 by Rational_G on April 22, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Ben Stein is an ignorant fool Other Comments by Rational_G
459. Comment #166153 by Geodesic17 on April 22, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I'm afraid that the "logic" is to start with your beliefs that your parents gave you and then seek out "evidence" and "proof" to defend them. An example of this in reading the Bible is prooftexting. I think that this happens all over the place though.As for some Christians, mainly the fundementalists that deny evolution, it is Biblical Literalism that prevents them from taking a metaphorical approach to Genesis which allows other believers to rationalize their belief in both science and religion.
If you are not from the USA, you should know that students are allowed to have their parent's sign permission slips so that they do not have to even entertain evolution in science class for the short period of time in which it is covered.
One could point out that God started with dirt, dust, or clay in order to make Adam. Reasoning any further is forbidden. There was dirt...magic happened... POOF! Adam! How does Intelligent Design relate to this? I have no clue. It doesn't fit with a literal or metaphorical interpretation of Genesis.
SOME Christians aren't being made aware of the alternatives that have been concocted such as Theistic Evolution because of lazy researches and propogandists. That and the trend for Fundamentalists to think that Catholics are evil.
The reactions that I see are mostly emotional. At this point the inner-parent in their mind usually signs a permission slip so they can ignore what you are saying.
Please use this phrase: Deiabiogenesis. Life from non-life and a deity.
Atheists just believe in taking away the God part of the equation.
Other Comments by Geodesic17
460. Comment #166176 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 1:01 am
Chewmanfoo-
My she's a pretty girl. it is a gift of her creator. He has shown great love toward her.
What does the fact that Anna is attractive have to do with anything?
I also believe that God has set about creation through the laws of physics, through natural selection, through DNA replication and mutation
I believe the principle of parsimony applies here. The additional complexity of a god being behind all you mentioned adds no explanatory value, and therefore can be discarded without substantial evidence to support it.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
461. Comment #166177 by ArmageddonKitten on April 23, 2008 at 1:05 am
However, "survival of the fittest" doesn't solely mean "survival of the strongest" or "survival of the most ruthless". It can - and does in many observable instances - mean that organisms which display what we might anthropomorphically describe as "altruistic" behaviour benefit from that behaviour over and above those who don't.
Thank you.
Honestly!
Doesn't anyone watch Meerkat Manor?!? My goodness. Sit down to a few seasons of Meerkat Manor and you'll know that the universe makes perfect sense all by itself if only you have the eyes to see and the heart to listen.
All that god hooey just makes me want to take another proton pump inhibitor.
Other Comments by ArmageddonKitten
462. Comment #166179 by Mr.Peabody1 on April 23, 2008 at 1:13 am
I haven't read all the comments here - so maybe this is a repeat - but doesn't this letter to Michael Shermer strike anyone as bogus? Frankly, I'm not even sure why we should believe that Mr. J is even Jewish, let alone someone who has had his mind changed by this movie, or the children of Holocaust survivors. The movie is clearly pernicious, but being a Jew myself, the phrase "brother Jew" sounds utterly contrived. I've never heard it - and never known any Jew to use it. There are various phrases he might have used - "fellow Jew" would seem natural, or "landsmann" if he ventured into yiddishkeit - but "brother Jew?" Not in my experience. If the letter is real, it's obscene - but if we're going to be scientific in our approach - shouldn't we at least try to gauge if the self-proclaimed origin of these sentiments are legitimate - or just the slanderous pose of some true believer?Other Comments by Mr.Peabody1
463. Comment #166181 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 1:24 am
Comment #165844 by chewmanfooI look at your avatar and think, "My she's a pretty girl.I don't buy this notion of Anna being pretty. Pretty is a little girl going to a party in a pink frock. Anna is beautiful.
Now I don't have too much problem with some of the invariant triggers, such as glossy hair, clear skin and good teeth being indicators of health, size and shape being indicators of child bearing ability.
However, I do wonder about cultural differences. We had a Japanese girl stay with us from a time who was very good looking. However, I am not sure whether I saw her beauty in the same way as a Japanese person would see her.
Other Comments by epeeist
464. Comment #166188 by Quetzalcoatl on April 23, 2008 at 1:36 am
However, I am not sure whether I saw her beauty in the same way as a Japanese person would see her
You could say the same thing about two different people within the same culture. There are plenty of people who tend to be more attracted to those of a different ethnicity than their own. I think in this matter biology usually wins over culture.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
465. Comment #166197 by pelothrix on April 23, 2008 at 1:45 am
For a truly elegant explanation by Dr Dawkins on the difference between natural selection, and the twisted political and moral notions of "Social Darwinists", listen to his New Yorker interview by Henry Finder, available on Audible.com:http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/ProductDetail.jsp?productID=SP_NYEV_000038&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes
Ironically, as Dr Dawkins points out, the belief that the powerful deserve their wealth and privilege, and ought to be free to a increase their wealth without limit, gives us something rather like George Bush's America.
As Finder joked: "There you have it: an anti-Darwinian Darwinian." Indeed. As Dr Dawkins points out, we do not want our societies to resemble nature, where competition is ruthless, and the strong dominate the weak. We want to deliberately design our societies to be just the opposite. That is, decent society should protect the weak and vulnerable.
Other Comments by pelothrix
466. Comment #166214 by Naumadd on April 23, 2008 at 2:26 am
As I understand it from a recent documentary regarding the newly discovered "Gospel of Judas", it is the authors of those gospels of "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and especially of "John" who are greatly responsible for Christian hostility toward the Jews as the "traitors of the savior." Each book - in that order - grows progressively more hostile toward the Jews and toward Judas until the gospel of John presents both as fully evil in nature. At any rate, it is clear that it is early Christianity that is greatly at fault for hostilities toward the Jews since those times. Whether or not the Nazis used Darwin for justifications - and I agree with Dr. Dawkins they didn't - they would only have used Darwin to support preexisting prejudices justified already in the Christian bible and throughout Christian history documented in its own hand.Other Comments by Naumadd
467. Comment #166246 by ArmageddonKitten on April 23, 2008 at 3:38 am
Whether or not the Nazis used Darwin for justifications - and I agree with Dr. Dawkins they didn't - they would only have used Darwin to support preexisting prejudices justified already in the Christian bible and throughout Christian history documented in its own hand.
The irrational mind (and I count True Believers as having irrational minds regardless of other qualifications) can use anything to justify anything. We already know that ID arguments don't make any sense in the first place. The point of fact is that if it wasn't Atheists/Darwinists = Nazis then it would be some other form of witch hunting. Gays = Nazis (I'd like to see them pull that one off--but I bet it's sadly been done already) or maybe Music Teachers = Nazis. Doesn't matter what example you give; in my experience, Christians are weapons of opportunity.
Other Comments by ArmageddonKitten
468. Comment #166340 by cerbera on April 23, 2008 at 7:07 am
That was, as all of you have said so far, an excellent response.It's not all bad news though - it seems that most of the critical world is not taken in by this appalling film, if www.rottentomatoes.com is to be believed, and I do think that is a reasonable general indicator.
Here, the movie has received a suitably awful 9 points out of 100, and of the reviews I read, only 2 critics appeared to have taken it seriously at all, the rest seeing through its lies and half-truths almost universally.
I really hope the man Stein is reading these reviews, and perhaps will feel a need to apologise to those he has lied to. Perhaps he himself was mislead to some degree by the evidently duplicitous Mathis.
However, I feel that expecting a candid admission from either of them would be optimism to the point of foolishness - but I'm sure they must both know, deep inside, what an absolute travesty of a film they have made.
And Mark Mathis - hang your head in shame.
Other Comments by cerbera
469. Comment #166359 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 7:37 am
I understand your point about naturalism not being a philosophy, if someone really believes we evolved from inert chemicals, what is the basis for goodness to our fellow man.
Conscience and conversation. We have the ability to empathise with others. We have always done things this way, and clearly without any supernatural guidance, as no-one has been able to agree on what that guidance says.
Are not conscience and communication the outcome of chemical and/or electrical movements within nature yet nature itself lacks a mind of its own to communicate as we ourselves do on this issue? If so, what sets these two multi-faceted, elemental dynamics apart from conversation and consciences which act contrary to the accepted definition of 'goodness to our fellow man'?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
470. Comment #166364 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 7:41 am
Are not conscience and communication the outcome of chemical and/or electrical movements within nature and nature itself lacking a mind of its own to communicate as we ourselves do? If so, what sets these two multi-faceted, elemental dynamics apart from conversation and consciences which act contrary to the accepted definition of 'goodness to our fellow man'?
I don't understand your point. Why should "conversation and consciences" act contrary to the accepted (?) definition of "goodness"?
If you believe there is something more than chemistry and electricity going on in our heads, you are going to have to demonstrate it in order to contribute to the discussion. If there is some external contribution to our morality, you are going to have to point to where it is, and how it interacts with the chemistry and electricity, otherwise it serves no useful purpose in the discussion.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
471. Comment #166380 by Dr Benway on April 23, 2008 at 7:55 am
Brian: I've got an assignment on Autism to complete soon. I have to critique the etiology, diagnosis and treatment controversies for the disorder from a neuro science/biological psychology perspective. I've found some stuff, but nothing that has set the dormant light-bulb alight. Any useful links to research articles or good summaries of the conflicts?Whoa. That's enough for several books. You'll need a focus. Perhaps the apparent increase in the prevalence of the diagnosis? You then can posit a few possible causes:
- broadening of the definition in the DSM-IV
- the addition of autism spectrum diagnoses, Asperger's in particular
- heightened awareness among parents of developmental disorders
- legal developments, such as the disability rights movement, which motivates parents to seek a formal diagnosis now so that their child qualifies for special ed services
To add some spice, you can review the vaccine controversy.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
472. Comment #166396 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 8:06 am
I don't understand your point. Why should "conversation and consciences" act contrary to the accepted (?) definition of "goodness"?
If Mr. X was to say that eliminating all professionally diagnosed borderlines off the face of the earth was a 'good' thing for [remaining] mankind and the basis for Mr. X's opinion of 'goodness to our fellow man' were these non-communicative, natural/elemental reactions making conscience and conversation possible - how is Mr. X 'wrong' in his thinking?
If you believe there is something more than chemistry and electricity going on in our heads...
No such claim here, just lots of curiosity.
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
473. Comment #166403 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 8:14 am
If Mr. X was to say that eliminating all professionally diagnosed borderlines off the face of the earth was a 'good' thing for [remaining] mankind and the basis for Mr. X's opinion of 'goodness to our fellow man' were these non-communicative, natural/elemental reactions making conscience and conversation possible - how is Mr. X 'wrong' in his thinking?
How does Mr. X's suggestion make you feel?
Other Comments by Steve Zara
474. Comment #166420 by prospero811 on April 23, 2008 at 8:33 am
I have what I think is a new question that should be posed to ID-ers or creationists, and clear response demanded. I've posted this on some other boards, and get nothing but evasions. What do you all think?Question: How does the Creationist or ID-er explain extinct species? [note - I did not ask "how does evolution explain it wrongly? - the question is How do Creationists or ID-ers explain extinct species?] Focus. Did they all live on earth at one time?
For example (note - this is an example - the question relates to the fact that there are literally gobs and gobs of extinct animals: modern horses are known scientifically as "equus." However, skeletons of animals that no longer exist on Earth have been found that are similar to equus - including, plesippus dinohippus, plichihippus, hipparion, merychippus, parahippus and kalobatippus, and many others. Modern equus exists today while those other horse-like animals do not. Did all these horse-like animals get created by God at once? Did they all live on Earth at the same time? If not - then what is the Creationsist/ID theory?
To answer this question does not require them to accept dating technologies or old-Earth vs. young-Earth arguments, natural selection, evolution, or any other theory at all. All they have to accept is that myriad animals have been found and no longer exist today (I don't think there is a creationist/ID-er who will say there aren't a lot of extinct animals).
It seems to me that there can only be two possibilities here: Either all the animals on Earth (extinct and existing) were created at the same time, or they were not. If they were created at the same time, then we have a major Earth overcrowding issue, and there are certainly some real issues to address about how come there were millions of more types of animals around in the past than there are now.... if, however, they say that only some (one or more, but less than all) of the animals were initially created by the designer, then there must have been some process or mechanism that resulted in more animals coming to be. So, the question then becomes, "what was that process or mechanism?"
The inevitable response will be directed at evolution, I predict. That's what I've gotten so far - more talk about the holes in evolution. However, I think this question, or perhaps one that Prof. Dawkins can more artfully compose, focuses the issue on what THEY'RE theory is. But instead of getting into what THEY theorize, they simply post tripe about their "questions" or "holes" in the theory of evolution.
Other Comments by prospero811
475. Comment #166428 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 8:40 am
How does Mr. X's suggestion make you feel?
Are not one individual's feelings rather arbitrary for deciding this question? However, for argument's sake, suppose I felt good about Mr. X's proposition. What then?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
476. Comment #166445 by Epinephrine on April 23, 2008 at 8:52 am
Prospero811-
Question: How does the Creationist or ID-er explain extinct species?
You are underestimating the IDer's ability to make stuff up.
I predict answers would be selected from:
-There might not have been many (after all, how many parahippus have been found?)
-God punished them?
-Fossilisation enlarged/shrank the bones, and they're all just horses (some might be young)
-They are all of a baramin (some word for "type"), hence only one of those was needed on the ark, the others drowned
-They are all of a baramin, and varied widely after the flood, but only the ones god really liked are still around.
-Further inanity...
Other Comments by Epinephrine
477. Comment #166448 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 8:52 am
Comment #166420 by prospero811So, the question then becomes, "what was that process or mechanism?"Oh, that's easy. "The Flood"
I didn't say it was sensible. We seem to have a new chew-toy over on the "Lying for Jesus" thread who you might want to put the question to. He goes by the name of "remnant". He is a little busy at the moment trying to justify creationism as a theory.
Other Comments by epeeist
478. Comment #166461 by prospero811 on April 23, 2008 at 8:59 am
I want to add that I went to see Expelled last night. I have always thought Ben Stein to be intelligent and witty. I thought his show "Win Ben Stein's Money" was funny, and his appearances on television cable-news shows never made me question his integrity.This movie has.
I won't say I was offended, because it's virtually impossible to offend me (barring personal attacks upon me). However, I would say my general feeling after seeing this movie was, "sickened." It was a disgusting display of false and deceptive film making.
I thought the made-up controversy about Sternberg - trotted out as the prime example of the orthodoxy killing its opposition - was laughable. I mean, the facts are just not what they were portrayed to be. Or, in other words, they just lied.
They lied about the Discovery Institute, and portrayed it as some dinky David in the face of the Evolution Goliath. And there was the meek and mild Ben Stein wandering listlessly around Seattle looking for the Discovery Institute. Such a monster of an organization must be known to everyone around, right? So, he asks people at coffee shops if they know where it is. Did he not have the address? Or, was he lying, pretending that he didn't know where he was going and asking for directions. I'm sure most of those people don't know where many offices of various corporations and organizations are located - however, the implication is that the D.I. couldn't have been much to speak of, since nobody nows where it is. He then happens upon the building and says, "...it must be this whole building..." only to find that it is just one office (as if he was just finding that out by happenstance). I mean - it's disingenuous at best - no mention of the Wedge document or the fundamentalist creationist base of the D.I.
And then there was the female professor, Winnick, I believe her name was, who claimed that she through them for a loop because she wasn't a "fundamentalist Christian" but rather was Jewish. That, of course, means nothing since there are plenty of fundamentalist Jewish people who believe in Genesis literally and in creationism as well. And, the implication is, of course, that "the scientists" are prejudiced against Christians. The whole purpose there is to simple cast aspersion.
I won't even go into the inane scenes of Stein experiencing the collective pain of the holocaust, implying that it was all caused by "Darwinism."
One main issue I have with respect to this movie however is the fact that Stein never goes into the science. He starts out by saying it's not about whose right and whose wrong - just free expression - but proceeds to claim that evolution is clearly wrong, and evil. However, they never address any of the science.
Other Comments by prospero811
479. Comment #166472 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 9:05 am
seeker_of_truth,yours is a question of ethics and metaethics...
I know I do this all the time, but if I may, I'd like to suggest to you the wonderful book
"Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong" by John Leslie Mackie.
He argues (correctly IMO) that there are no intrinsic, metaphysically objective moral values... that values are constructed (social constructs), not discovered.
Ethics can have a rational basis however - as for example T.M. Scanlon's work on contractualism based on John Rawls' "A theory of justice" shows.
Moral values are constructs, but not necessarily completely arbitrary. Every moral code proses that certain natural things (actions, intentions, desires, beliefs etc) have certain moral value.
You cannot infer a statement about moral value or moral imperatives from a statement describing a natural state-of-affairs. But society can and does place values on states-of-affairs, on intentions, actions etc. From these, imperatives are derived.
There is a movement in ethics called "consequentialism", which states that the ethical value of some act is determined by its consequences. Utilitarianism ("the greatest good for the greatest number" is of this kind for example, but so is contractualism).
All that is needed for ethics are shared goals. Let's say society agrees that the survival of the humans species is a good thing. Or that avoiding unpleasant feelings is a good thing and seeking out good feelings is a good thing. Or that a stable society is a good thing.(there is something to be said for the existence of uniform proto-ethical intuitions in humans and other higher animals, probably based on evolutionary stable strategies and the hard-wiring of the brain)
Now if such a thing is agreed upon, we can rationally deduce what actions and policies advance, hinder and which are neutral towards that shared goal - and since the value-function is transitive, we then can derive other moral values and imperatives.
Furthermore - there is even a rational means to find out which goals and basic rules we shall agree upon: The original position.
I suggest you read this entry in the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, since an explanation by me would take up to much space:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/
Basically, if all constituents (persons) of a society came together beyond a veil of ignorance, meaning knowing nothing about their social place, race, religion, education, sexual and political preferences etc - what rules would they decide upon?
That would be the most just (under "justice as fairness", and fairness here is an objective concept) society.
This is applicable in ethics.
And there you go - an example of ethics without metaphysics.
Other Comments by MPhil
480. Comment #166477 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:07 am
Comment #166428 by seeker_of_truthHowever, for argument's sake, suppose I felt good about Mr. X's proposition. What then?
Then you discuss this with other people, and see how they feel, and see if this changes your mind.
What else would you do?
Other Comments by Steve Zara
481. Comment #166493 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 9:18 am
All of this back and forth gibberish. Any sane, intelligent person with common sense will easily understand and see the truth of ID. Evolutionists are narrow minded and will only consider natural laws for the explanation of anything and everything. They start with this bias. They left themselves no other choice but to accept the IMMPOSSIBLE THEORY of evolution. Science has proven that the intricate and complexity of life, down to the cell, would be impossible without a creator/designer. Evolutionists have left themselves no choice but to accept the immpossible versus the unthinkable. They will not accept any supernatural laws for the explanation no matter how idiotic their alternative is.Other Comments by TheTruthID
482. Comment #166497 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:20 am
Comment #166493 by TheTruthID Science has proven that the intricate and complexity of life, down to the cell, would be impossible without a creator/designer.
No. Science has shown precisely how it happens. Natural Selection. A testable theory which has made successful predictions.
Any sane, intelligent person with common sense will easily understand and see the truth of ID.
What is the truth of ID? Please specify the evidence of design, how it can be tested or falsified, and who the designer is, and how he did the designing.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
483. Comment #166501 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 9:24 am
MPhil, thank you for your response. I will take a good look toward purchasing the book you recommend.All that is needed for ethics are shared goals... Now if such a thing is agreed upon, we can rationally deduce what actions and policies advance, hinder and which are neutral towards that shared goal - and since the value-function is transitive, we then can derive other moral values and imperatives.
As over-simplified as this might sound, is 'shared goals' a majority-rule type of principle?
Basically, if all cinstituents (persons) of a society came together beyond a veil of ignorance, meaning knowing nothing about their social place, race, religion, education, sexual and political preferences etc - what rules would they decide upon?
But this can't be accomplished, can it? Wouldn't it be much like saying to the creationist, "If you can produce your deity and this deity confirms your basis for your morals, then, and only then, will I accept those morals?" Both appear to be impossibility, no?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
484. Comment #166506 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 9:26 am
Comment #166501 by seeker_of_truthBut this can't be accomplished, can it?
It is basically what most decent people actually do. They rely on their consciences and on discussion. When they see bits of holy books that disagree with these methods, they tend to reject them.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
485. Comment #166508 by epeeist on April 23, 2008 at 9:28 am
Comment #166472 by MPhilOK, I'm calling you on this.
I know I do this all the time, but if I may, I'd like to suggest to you the wonderful book
"Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong" by John Leslie Mackie.
What percentage are you getting?
Other Comments by epeeist
486. Comment #166511 by annabanana on April 23, 2008 at 9:30 am
Evolutionists are narrow minded and will only consider natural laws for the explanation of anything and everything. They start with this bias.
Are you kidding? Creationists>/ID proponents are the ones who have started with the Bible as their bias. Scientists start with a compilation of evidence and then come to a conclusion; you've gotten it backwards.
Other Comments by annabanana
487. Comment #166515 by irate_atheist on April 23, 2008 at 9:32 am
488. Comment #166508 by epeeist -
He gets no percentage. However, every time someone reads the word 'fucktard' I get 1p. A nice little earner, though I say so myself.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
488. Comment #166521 by al-rawandi on April 23, 2008 at 9:35 am
Hey are we done talking about Anna now?
Why is it that every loser theist feels it necessary to comment on her avatar. Who gives a shit what she looks like. If you glance to the right of the avatar, lo and behold there are words there... What do the fucking words say?... ass clowns.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
489. Comment #166527 by chazmena on April 23, 2008 at 9:37 am
I am very tired--exhausted, aren't you?--of always referring to the NAZIS as the paragon of evil, for rhetorical purposes. Rightists are very keen on that discourse. Arguments against euthanasia, woman's right to an abortion, genetic engineering, etc., usually end with "That's what the NAZIS did for Jesus' sake!" Comn, let's not excuse ourselves of our own crimes, and engage in moral platitudes or perceived ethical positions which we, ourselves, rarely observe.Understand me: without question was National Socialism a euphemism for genocide and military aggression, "evil" but so were other state-sponsored policies in different places, at different times in Western History. Need I cite examples?
Now we have Ben Stein on the war-path, using this tired argument to ludicrously attach Darwin's work with Hitlerism. Really, this is crazy and rather stupid: the two, necessary values to infect our poorly-educated American public.
Peace 'yall
Other Comments by chazmena
490. Comment #166531 by seeker_of_truth on April 23, 2008 at 9:38 am
Comment #166477 by Steve ZaraThen you discuss this with other people, and see how they feel, and see if this changes your mind.
What else would you do?
That is the dilemma I am trying to solve. Are there any ethical definitions in naturalism which can govern the decisions of mankind that can be called 'good' on any reliable and consistent basis other than what appears to be the shifting sands of consensus, sub-group benefits, emotional responses, etc? Can a 'good' idea or action of today be 'bad' tomorrow?
Other Comments by seeker_of_truth
491. Comment #166532 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 9:38 am
Annabanana,The Bible as their basis? Where did I mention the Bible? The scienctific discovery of the complexity of life is the compilation of evidence needed to come to the conclusion of ID. You have it backwards.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
492. Comment #166535 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 9:39 am
But this can't be accomplished, can it?
This is not a matter of actuality... it is a hypothetical situation which we can analyze perfectly well. We can construct a model of what that will be and derive the conclusions of persons in such a situation - given a view of persons as capable of rationality and able to develop a conception of the good.
Of course the situation was never actual and will never be - but we can analyze what would be decided upon in such a situation - and thus derive the basic values and in general the foundations of a just and stable society.
This is what John Ralws has done is his magnum opus "A Theory of Justice" (one of the greatest works of political philosophy ever) - and refined in "Justice as Fairness - a Restatement" and "Political Liberalism"
As over-simplified as this might sound, is 'shared goals' a majority-rule type of principle?
Well, depends. I would say no, because it is not the case that a majority rules in their own interest only with regards to themselves.
In a just society as described above, it is the interest of all people qua members of society. And as such the interests of the whole society as such are so that the all are treated fairly - including every community constituted by sharing comprehensive doctrine that is compatible with the basic liberties, rights and duties.
Other Comments by MPhil
493. Comment #166539 by MPhil on April 23, 2008 at 9:45 am
Epeeist, I get no percentage... it's all in the interest of enlightenment :)
seeker_of_truth,
Are there any ethical definitions in naturalism[...]
Naturalism is not about ethics, and as such what you ask is impossible... however, there are ethical theories consistent with naturalism, such as utilitarianism, or contractualism etc.
Of course the idea of an ethical theory being actually universally applied by all people is illusory. But that is so for every theory.
Other Comments by MPhil
494. Comment #166540 by al-rawandi on April 23, 2008 at 9:45 am
TheTruthID,
So how do you know this is a god, and more specifically an Abrahamic or more specifically a Christian god (I am going way out on a limb in assuming you are some sort of Christian).
I like to think, if anything, it is a race of interstellar masturbator donkeys, who live outside of our universe in a place like Fraggle Rock.
Let's start producing evidence for each of our theories and determine which is more plausible.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
495. Comment #166541 by annabanana on April 23, 2008 at 9:46 am
The scienctific discovery of the complexity of life is the compilation of evidence needed to come to the conclusion of ID. You have it backwards.
*facepalm*
I give up, you are hopeless, methinks.
Other Comments by annabanana
496. Comment #166543 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 9:48 am
al-rawandi,Where did I mention a Christian god? Why always bring up religion. I am stating the fact of a supernatural designer of life derived from the scientific evidence. Dont't muddy the waters and turn everything into religion.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
497. Comment #166544 by Geodesic17 on April 23, 2008 at 9:49 am
Are you kidding? Creationists>/ID proponents are the ones who have started with the Bible as their bias. Scientists start with a compilation of evidence and then come to a conclusion; you've gotten it backwards.
The way many creationists reason is to start with their beliefs (the premise) and then selectively pick evidence to support their claims (beliefs).
Science starts with the evidence and then draw conclusions.
Other Comments by Geodesic17
498. Comment #166548 by al-rawandi on April 23, 2008 at 9:51 am
TruthID,
OK I will go first.
These masturbator donkeys have existed forever. They are the source of all life and matter. The gasses we find in the universe are actually the process of the donkeys breaking wind at the outset of the universe, what the Darwinist Nazis call the "Big Bang".
Well, we have donkeys on earth today, so a common criticism is that humans simply worship the masturator donkeys because we have donkeys here on earth. Incorrect. The donkeys here on earth are not the same. The masturbator donkeys are actually of infinite intellect and live in a fraggle rock like sky palace.
The Masturbator Donkeys, have sent donkeys to earth (created about 10,000 years ago, specifically for donkeys and people) to show us the value of determination and stubborness in belief.
And then the greatest of all blasphemous productions was Shrek (all of them) where the donkey was portrayed as foolish. This is unfair, and one more instance of atheists in the movie industry out to get me for my beliefs, which you cannot disprove.
Your turn.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
499. Comment #166549 by clodhopper on April 23, 2008 at 9:51 am
Comment #166493 by TheTruthID
All of this back and forth gibberish.
You aint seen nuthin yet.
They will not accept any supernatural laws for the explanation...
Nope. Not without evidence. Since you can't provide any, perhaps you might at this point like to consider taking your IDiocy elsewhere?
Other Comments by clodhopper
500. Comment #166551 by TheTruthID on April 23, 2008 at 9:51 am
annabanana,I'm hopeless? I got you. Your arguement is hopeless and you know it. The thought of a designer for life for some reason frightens you so much that you are making a conscience decision to accept the idiotic THEORY of evolution.
Other Comments by TheTruthID
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:
"You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend"
Richard Jeni
Other Recommended Reading
Freedom Evolves
Daniel C. Dennett
The Future of Life
Edward O. Wilson
The Portable Atheist
Christopher Hitchens (editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
451. Comment #165979 by clodhopper on April 22, 2008 at 4:32 pm
*face* *palm* *smack* *tea* *bed*
nite all
Other Comments by clodhopper