Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, April 20, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

by Richard Dawkins

On 18th April, the day Ben Stein's infamous film was released, Michael Shermer received the following letter from a Jew (referencing a past article that Shermer had written debunking the Holocaust deniers) whose identity I shall conceal as "David J".

Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!


Shermer wrote to Mr J to ask if he had by any chance just seen Expelled, and he received this reply:

Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit.


It seemed to me that Ben Stein and his lying crew were more to blame than Mr J himself for his revolting letter. I therefore decided to write him a personal letter and try to explain a few things to him. It then occurred to me (indeed, Michael Shermer suggested as much) that there are probably many others like him, whose minds have been twisted in this evil way by the man Stein, and that it would be a good idea to publish the letter. I decided to wait 24 hours to see if he would reply, although I didn't expect him to. I am now publishing my letter to him, exactly as I sent it to him except that I have removed his name.

Richard



Dear Mr J

Michael Shermer forwarded me a letter from you which suggests that you have unfortunately been taken in by Ben Stein's mendacious and/or ignorant suggestion that Darwin is somehow to blame for Hitler. I hope you will not mind if I write to you and try to undo this grievous error.

1. I deeply sympathize with you for the loss of your relatives in the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I don't think that could really be said to justify the tone of your letter to Michael Shermer, who is a kind and decent man, as even you seemed to concede in your second letter to him, and the very antithesis of a Nazi sympathizer.
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!
Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.

2. Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way. What singled Hitler out was the fact that he somehow managed to come to power in one of Europe's leading nations, which was also one of the world's most technologically advanced nations. Hitler had a lot of support in Germany. His horrible bidding was done by millions of ordinary German footsoldiers, and the great majority of them were Christians. Many were Lutheran, and many (like Hitler himself) were Roman Catholic. Very few were atheists, and whatever else Hitler was he most certainly was not an atheist. It is sometimes said that Hitler only pretended to be Catholic, in order to win the Church's support for his regime. In this he was very largely successful. So, whether or not Hitler was himself a true Catholic (as he often claimed) the Church bears a heavy responsibility for what happened. And Hitler himself used religion to justify his anti-Semitism. For example, here is a typical quotation, from the end of Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.
Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.

3. Going further back in history, where do we think the toxic anti-Semitism of Hitler, and of the many Germans whose support gave him power, came from? You can't seriously think it came from Darwin. Anti-Semitism has been rife in Europe for many many centuries, positively encouraged by most Christian churches, including especially the two that dominate Germany. The Roman Catholic Church has notoriously persecuted Jews as "Christ-killers". While, as for the Lutherans, Martin Luther himself wrote a book called On the Jews and their Lies from which Hitler quoted. And Luther publicly said that "All Jews should be driven from Germany." By the way, do you hear an echo of those words in your own letter to Michael Shermer, "We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States." Don't you feel just a twinge of shame at those truly horrible words of yours? Don't you feel that, as a Jew, you should feel especially regretful that you used those words?

4. Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil's Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.

5. Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is "Or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life" but Darwin was using the word "race" in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a "favoured race" meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation" (although Darwin would not have used that language because he did not have our modern concept of a genetic mutation).

6. There is no mention of Darwin in Mein Kampf. Not one single, solitary mention, not one mention in any of the 27 chapters of this long and tedious book. Don't you think that, if Hitler was truly influenced by Darwin, he would have given him at least one teeny weeny mention in his book? Was he, perhaps, INDIRECTLY influenced by some of Darwin's ideas, without knowing it? Only if you completely misunderstand Darwin's ideas, as some have definitely done: the so-called Social Darwinists such as Herbert Spencer and John D Rockefeller. Hitler could fairly be described as a Social Darwinist, but all modern evolutionists, almost literally without exception, have been vocal in their condemnation of Social Darwinism. This of course includes Michael Shermer and me and PZ Myers and all the other evolutionary scientists whom Ben Stein and his team tricked into taking part in his film by lying to us about their true intentions.

7. Hitler did attempt eugenic breeding of humans, and this is sometimes misrepresented as an attempt to apply Darwinian principles to humans. But this interpretation gets it historically backwards, as PZ Myers has pointed out. Darwin's great achievement was to look at the familiar practice of domestic livestock breeding by artificial selection, and realise that the same principle might apply in NATURE, thereby explaining the evolution of the whole of life: "natural selection", the "survival of the fittest". Hitler didn't apply NATURAL selection to humans. He was probably even more ignorant of natural selection than Ben Stein evidiently is. Hitler tried to apply ARTIFICIAL selection to humans, and there is nothing specifically Darwinian about artificial selection. It has been familiar to farmers, gardeners, horse trainers, dog breeders, pigeon fanciers and many others for centuries, even millennia. Everybody knew about artificial selection, and Hitler was no exception. What was unique about Darwin was his idea of NATURAL selection; and Hitler's eugenic policies had nothing to do with natural selection.

8. Mr J, you have been cruelly duped by Ben Stein and his unscrupulous colleagues. It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you, and potentially to many others. I do not know whether they knowingly and wantonly perpetrated the falsehood that fooled you. Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believed it, although other actions by them, which you can read about all over the Internet, persuade me that they are fully capable of deliberate and calculated deception. You are perhaps not to be blamed for swallowing the film's falsehoods, because you probably assumed that nobody would have the gall to make a whole film like that without checking their facts first. Perhaps even you will need a little more convincing that they were wrong, in which case I urge you to read it up and study the matter in detail -- something that Ben Stein and his crew manifestly and lamentably failed to do.

With my good wishes, and sympathy for the losses your family suffered in the Holocaust.

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins

Comments 301 - 350 of 1954 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

301. Comment #165477 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 1:57 pm

 avatarComment #165464 by al-rawandi:
Quine,

You can't use the Sorites Paradox on a creationist. That isn't fair.

Al, it was just a set up for a ref to this very nice piece by PZ explaining the change in chromosome number by so called micro-evolution.

Other Comments by Quine

302. Comment #165478 by BillySands on April 21, 2008 at 1:58 pm

 avatarTheTruthID - always a great start - shows you have an open mind. I'm waiting for one called "IamRightAndYouBabyEatingDarwinistFagPigScumAreWrong (the pixies told me so)" - Probably too many letters for them.

I think you have shown that you are not interested in learning - you wont read books and that video I posted is over an hour long yet you have posted again within a few minutes.

You are proposing a designer, so we want evidence. Saying to cant work something out is only evidence that you cant work something out.

Other Comments by BillySands

303. Comment #165479 by righton on April 21, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Nice post reverend!

Other Comments by righton

304. Comment #165480 by The Reverend Dark on April 21, 2008 at 1:59 pm

 avatarEpeeist thrust thusly,

We are knocking 10 points off his estimated IQ every time he refuses to come up with any answers.

At the moment I think it is down to about the level of a very small beetle.


In service of his continued respiration, it behooves us to find an MP3 for him that repeats the instructions "Breath in... Breath out."

Just to be safe.
Shayne

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

305. Comment #165481 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 2:01 pm

 avatarComment #165474 by TheTruthID

I will look into the Spartina grass species you recommened. You seem like the only one who will have respectful dialouge. Is there any way I can e-mail you privately in order to continue this dialouge?
We didn't have a dialogue. You asked some questions, we gave you some answers.

We asked you some questions and got nothing, zilch, nada in return. Why do you think that was?

Here is some free information. ID is not science. It is not a theory, it doesn't even rank as a conjecture. It is creationism in another guise as the Wedge document indicates - http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Wedge_document

Just look in "Pandas and People" and compare it with "Creation Biology" - http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.html

Other Comments by epeeist

306. Comment #165482 by clodhopper on April 21, 2008 at 2:01 pm

 avatarID: continue this dialouge?

you can't be serious!!! Answer the questions.

ps...it's dialogue...

Other Comments by clodhopper

307. Comment #165485 by clodhopper on April 21, 2008 at 2:04 pm

 avatarID; If you want, you can skip this phase and move on directly to the scripture quotes and threats. It will save a lot of time.

Other Comments by clodhopper

308. Comment #165486 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 2:04 pm

 avatarComment #165480 by The Reverend Dark
Epeeist thrust thusly
Hey, want to see my body guards

http://www.nw-fencing.org.uk/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=73&page=view&catid=8&PageNo=1&key=0&hit=1

Other Comments by epeeist

309. Comment #165487 by BillySands on April 21, 2008 at 2:06 pm

 avatar
If I were walking in a desert and came upon a highly detailed intricate sand castle, would I assume it developed by chance because I did not see the creator?


Do sand castles acquire mutations and pass them on to their offspring? Are these sand castle offspring then subjected to natural selection?

Such ignorance it hurts!

Still not watching the Ken Miller video I see.

Are you David Robertson in disguise? Seriously!

Other Comments by BillySands

310. Comment #165488 by clodhopper on April 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm

 avatarepee: you're a bit chuffed about that, aren't you?

Other Comments by clodhopper

311. Comment #165490 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 2:12 pm

 avatar
TheTruthID: Please don't tell me to read a book or go to some gibberish website. You explain to me the process.
Some of us work for a living. If we are required to write an essay each time a creationist asks a question that has been well addressed elsewhere, we will lose our jobs and our children will starve.

So, please, read the link. Do it for the children.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

312. Comment #165491 by The Reverend Dark on April 21, 2008 at 2:12 pm

 avatarNice bodyguards Epeeist.

I wouldn't want to step on the piste with either of them... Okay, that's not true. I'd love to, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for a positive outcome. An interesting one to be sure, but not positive. (Nice way of saying my arse would be kicked so hard that it would end up as a set of hairy Canadian earmuffs.)

I am off to teach tonight. As is becoming tradition I will be doing one bout per year of age (twas my birthday last week).

38 bouts. Tomorrow is going to hurt. A lot.

Cheers,
Shayne

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

313. Comment #165493 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 2:15 pm

 avatarComment #165488 by clodhopper
epee: you're a bit chuffed about that, aren't you?
Just a bit :-D

My hated rival from another club looked grimmer and grimmer as it became obvious my two pupils would be the two finalists.

The guy on the left fences for Ireland (as you can tell from his breeches) and is due to spend some time training with the Spanish squad. The guy on the right is on the British Olympic Pathway looking to qualify for 2012. Shall we say there is a certain amount of resentment at my (indirect) success.

Other Comments by epeeist

314. Comment #165494 by Geodesic17 on April 21, 2008 at 2:15 pm

So, please, read the link. Do it for the children.


Do it for your country and its economy too.

Other Comments by Geodesic17

315. Comment #165495 by epeeist on April 21, 2008 at 2:18 pm

 avatarComment #165491 by The Reverend Dark
(Nice way of saying my arse would be kicked so hard that it would end up as a set of hairy Canadian earmuffs.)
Total aside. I had some lessons off the former Canadian national coach (he was the British national coach at the time). A guy named Bob Anderson, he did one or two other things as well ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Anderson_(fencer)

Other Comments by epeeist

316. Comment #165496 by clodhopper on April 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm

 avatarDo it because everyone on this planet is stuffed if you don't.


.....oh, that's right, you don't care, you're saved already.

Other Comments by clodhopper

317. Comment #165497 by The Reverend Dark on April 21, 2008 at 2:21 pm

 avatarEpeeist.... If I was any greener with envy I would be Kermit the Frog. Next you'll tell me you studied archery with Howard Hill.

Obligatory Kermit Joke.

How do we know Kermit isn't Muslim?
He eats pork.

Shayne

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

318. Comment #165498 by Teratornis on April 21, 2008 at 2:21 pm

 avatarComment #165419 by TheTruthID:

Why so defensive. Usually one turns to aggresiion and name calling when they feel inadequate or not confident in their point of view.


Another possibility is that a person feels frustrated when someone else persists in speaking nonsense. The impolite person has no doubts about his own view; instead, he doubts his ability to get through to the opponent who clearly rejects reason.

For example, you could try this experiment:

1. Study the arguments of the Flat Earth Society:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

2. Try to convince everyone you meet that the Earth is flat. Be sincere, and be persistent.

3. See if anyone turns to aggression and name calling.

If you are too lazy to perform the experiment, I'll tell you the likely result: once you convince people you really do believe in a Flat Earth, don't expect all of them to be polite with you. Rather, be surprised if anyone is polite to you. Their impoliteness will not be due to any doubts about the correctness of their position. Intead their impoliteness will be due to your apparent thickheadedness.

Thickheaded people don't get a lot of sympathy, except from professional bleeding-heart types who are trained to avoid saying what they really think about people with, shall we say, unconventional views.


Instead of defending your view you turn to name calling.


No, that would be "in addition to defending your views."

When someone calls you names, just ignore it, and focus on whatever substantive arguments they make. If you get sidetracked by the name-calling, you risk falling into the style over substance fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_over_substance_fallacy

The truth value of a claim has nothing whatever to do with how nicely or rudely someone presents it. Just mentally delete all the pejoratives and focus on whatever is relevant in a person's arguments. The more you get sidetracked by pejoratives, the less effective you make yourself at logical discourse.

If necessary, copy someone's invective-laden message to an external editor, and edit out the invective parts, so you can see the actual content of their message.

I should add that feeling bothered by insults is just as irrational as making them. In fact it is more irrational. If you are 100% confident in your position, that you have all the facts and you haven't missed anything, then why do you feel defensive when someone calls you a name?

Why do you seek the approval of strangers, anyway?

Other Comments by Teratornis

319. Comment #165503 by clodhopper on April 21, 2008 at 2:28 pm

 avatarepee: Srsly, Congratulations! I bet it took several units of alcohol to counteract all that adrenalin!

Off Topic: Dan Dennet was one of Andrew Marr's guests on start the week this morning. Good stuff. R4 listen again etc.

Other Comments by clodhopper

320. Comment #165505 by hoops mccann on April 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm

 avatarMy feeling is that, based on David J's phraseology and tone (and the fact that it was his *great* grandparents who suffered during the holocaust), he is quite young. I don't think that Dawkins' careful reasoning and subtle arguments will have much effect on him, at least in the near future, since he seems so impressionable.

Other Comments by hoops mccann

321. Comment #165507 by moderationsmuse on April 21, 2008 at 2:33 pm

epeeist
Hello again. Yesterday after our chat, I looked at other comments you and Steve made (very interesting stuff, by the way). Anyway, one of you had a particularly nice version of the joke about the cost of maintaining physicists, mathematicians and philosophers (the latter not needing even the trash cans) ... was it yours? Or Steve's? Would love it, if you could redirect me to that joke? Thanks.

Other Comments by moderationsmuse

322. Comment #165513 by Quetzalcoatl on April 21, 2008 at 2:39 pm

 avatarDavid Robertson-

since everyone else has dissected the bulk of your post with remarkable efficiency and the hour is late, I'll confine myself to a few points.

You are of course still struggling to explain where our morality should come from - if it is not a product of evolution.


I think Professor Dawkins has already said a great deal on this. I would not describe it as him "struggling".

However I do know that Dr Dawkins and his followers are most certainly attempting to dupe you


This is a fascinating statement that demands clarification. In what sense are Dawkins' "followers" attempting to dupe Mr J? I think now is a good time for you to state, clearly and concisely, just who these followers are. Name names. I'm sure you have people in mind, and I know that we'll all be fascinated to learn just who they are.

Perhaps they genuinely and sincerely believe 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


More detail required! I think we need examples of these dubious actions carried out by Dawkins' as-yet-unnamed followers. Otherwise people might think you are just throwing about ad-homs without backing them up.

You have made what might be regarded as some very unpleasant assertions here. I think it only fair that you back them up. I await your clarification with great anticipation.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

323. Comment #165514 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 2:41 pm

 avatarSome people on these here webs say that we atheists give lousy customer service. We are not warm. Our tone is not inviting. We don't properly tart up our product. There are no free test drives. No home demonstrations. No complimentary cookies.
You explain to me the process.
Strange that someone I've never met might imagine I'm at his or her service.

Some advice for the new faces: think of this particular meeting place as more like a graduate seminar or continuing ed program than a church. You will suffer less disappointment when you do not feel the love.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

324. Comment #165515 by Frankus1122 on April 21, 2008 at 2:46 pm

 avatar

So, please, read the link. Do it for the children.

Do it for your country and its economy too.

Do it because everyone on this planet is stuffed if you don't.



Just one more: Do it because God wants you to not be an ignorant representative of Him.
(He told me, that's how I know).

Seriously, learn all you can. Look at the question from both sides. You have the 'Answersin Genisis' answers and the 'information' from the Discovery Institue, now how about looking at some of the sources you have been directed to from this site?
Bite us in the ass with evidence from the sources provided.
Or answer epeeist's question.
Or go away.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

325. Comment #165516 by TheTruthID on April 21, 2008 at 2:47 pm

So why do you believe in evolution?

Other Comments by TheTruthID

326. Comment #165520 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 2:52 pm

 avatarAnother particularly ignorant piece of crap mentions Prof. Dawkins by name.

Edit: same old crap from D'Souza.:lay:

Other Comments by Quine

327. Comment #165523 by dyak on April 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm

To BillySands (#312) Thank you - even funnier than your one word assessment of that Robertson twit!

Here's a scientific question: can evolutionary biology explain how creationists developed the ability to write without ever having developed the ability to read?

Other Comments by dyak

328. Comment #165524 by iamb_spartacus on April 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm

It is always a pleasure to see Professor Dawkins employ terms such as "lying," "propaganda" and "fact-checking" because it gives his readers a chance to recall that he has still not apologized for his slander of Mary Midgley, in his repeated insistence (as recently as last Fall on this site) that she had not read The Selfish Gene before discussing it in the journal Philosophy, in 1979 and that he had been told by the journalist Ullica Segestrale that Midgley had confessed as much to her. Both assertions are plainly false.

Anyone inclined to check facts before printing something damaging and hurtful about a fellow academic could have spared himself the painful task of taking accountability for such a serious misrepresentation, whether intentional or otherwise, but it is hard to see why anyone should take Dawkins' righteous indignation about Ben Stein seriously when he won't--or can't--face the fact that he engaged in the same species of deception (readers can decide for themselves whether or not it was more or less "deliberate and calculated" than Ben Stein's film.)

Other Comments by iamb_spartacus

329. Comment #165525 by Quine on April 21, 2008 at 2:55 pm

 avatar
So why do you believe in evolution?

I don't have to believe in evolution, I can check it.

Other Comments by Quine

330. Comment #165526 by Peacebeuponme on April 21, 2008 at 2:57 pm

TheTruthID
So why do you believe in evolution?
Of course your application of the word "believe" in this sense is entirely different to a religious person believing in God or the resurrection. Bearing that in mind, rational folk believe in evolution because it is the best explanation for the propagation of life that we observe. It has amazing explanatory power, can make predictions and has an enormous amount of evidentiary support.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

331. Comment #165527 by Frankus1122 on April 21, 2008 at 3:00 pm

 avatar

So why do you believe in evolution?


No fair! You have to answer first.


(But I don't believe in evolution, I understand it).

Go run off and get some learning in ya.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

332. Comment #165529 by AllanW on April 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm

 avatarAha! Robertson spewing his poison again I see.

No response deserved for such an odious reptile.

What's this I hear about a cheque, Robertson? Clear that one up before you deserve any response.

Other Comments by AllanW

333. Comment #165531 by mjosef on April 21, 2008 at 3:14 pm

This is in response to a comemnt a long while back by Roland F. First, 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." His attempts a providing some sort of balance to himself are not exactly ruggedly self-questioning. This is absolute claptrap, to think that this dismal world of mega-rich satraps cavorting with unearned tax breaks stepping over starving children in their communities is somehow "natural," "evolutionary" - this is completely dangerous, inhuman thinking, from someone trying to steep his extreme "libertarian" twaddle in "skepticism" or "rationality" labels. To have Mr. Dawkins now bathing this man Mr. Shermer, confidante to one of the henchmen to the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II-III, in awe and reverence is fraudulent, and if Mr. Dawkins wishes to recover his integrity in my eyes, he can try to explain how you pervert "science" into justifications for neo-fascism. That's all I'm asking, that's all - but if you like the current state of affairs, and like atheism to stand for absolutely nothing that smacks of actual political worth, then go with Shermer, Alan Greenspan, PJ. O'Rourke, Rush Limbaugh - maybe Mr. Dawkins wants to call them "kind and decent" also.

Other Comments by mjosef

334. Comment #165535 by Brian English on April 21, 2008 at 3:36 pm

MPhil, that was a brilliant take down of Robertson's lies. Kudos.

Steve, remember, you're the mild mannered one here. Let Diacanu or Al rip shit through the trolls. ;)

Other Comments by Brian English

335. Comment #165537 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 3:43 pm

 avatariamb_spartacus, is the main thing about the Midgley matter the reading bit or the understanding bit? Seems to me the understanding bit is primary.

Now, if anyone wonders why Midgley didn't grasp the premise of The Selfish Gene, the most charitable explanation would be, in fact, her failure to read it.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

336. Comment #165538 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 3:48 pm

 avatar
Dr Benway: Some of us work for a living. If we are required to write an essay each time a creationist asks a question that has been well addressed elsewhere, we will lose our jobs and our children will starve.

That is the plan!

The Darwin awards are for cases where dumb people remove themselves from the gene-pool.

The anti-Darwin awards are for when intelligent people remove themselves from the gene-pool.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

337. Comment #165540 by Dr Benway on April 21, 2008 at 4:02 pm

 avatar
So why do you believe in evolution?
You're starting off on the wrong foot. My "beliefs" are irrelevant. Settle the matter for yourself by reading about the evidence for evolution via the link eepeist provided.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

338. Comment #165541 by Barry Pearson on April 21, 2008 at 4:02 pm

 avatar
Quine: Another particularly ignorant piece of crap mentions Prof. Dawkins by name.

The article you cite says:
The Evolutionists have lost a great deal of ground in the past few decades and feel the sand slipping away from beneath their feet. No wonder they are frightened, angry and vengeful.

I wonder if everyone is aware of the following article:
"The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism":
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/moreandmore.htm

It lists about 180 years of claims that evolution is on its last legs, about to die, no one believes it anymore, it will soon be a footnote in history, etc.

Hm! It's taking its time to die!

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

339. Comment #165545 by BillySands on April 21, 2008 at 4:18 pm

 avatar
So why do you believe in evolution?


Evidence. You can find it in things called books and peer reviewed scientific journals(yeah, I know that was hitting an unarmed man with a sledgehammer)
Here's a scientific question: can evolutionary biology explain how creationists developed the ability to write without ever having developed the ability to read?


I think the evidence supports the idea that retards evolved from creationists. Perhaps, these guys are back mutations?

This also solves the problem of how come there are still creationists about if they all evolved into retards.

Iamb_Farticus
Good that you at least recognise Stein is a twat. Take the next step and say so without letting your dislike of Dawkins make you look like a crotch maggot!

Other Comments by BillySands

340. Comment #165546 by Brian English on April 21, 2008 at 4:19 pm

/Off topic

Dr. B or anybody else with pertinent info. 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?

PM if you have some links. Thanks.

Other Comments by Brian English

341. Comment #165553 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 4:37 pm

 avatarTTID

How can you begin to explain evolution when you can't even begin to explain where life came from in the first place?


thats a bit like asking 'how can you explain to a person how to do origami when you dont know its exact origins in ancient Japan or you dont know how paper is made'.

Evolution is happening now on this planet as we speak, it simply has got to be easier to understand it than events from over 3 billion years ago for which there might be no usable evidence.

edit. and as Billsands says in a later post evo says nothing about lifes origins only its subsequent changes, i forgot to mention that.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

342. Comment #165555 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 4:41 pm

 avatarTTID

I would love to see how evolution is recorded in the fossil record?


museums are a good start (not that one in kentucky though), also i'd recommend Donald Protheros 'evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters' lots of photos/drawings of transitions, all fully checkable at many museums.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

343. Comment #165557 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 4:47 pm

 avatar
You ask, what does ID predict? How has MACRO-evolution predictions been tested and whether it can be falsified and misrepresented? I want to know what tests were cunducted and what the results were. I challenge you to show me one shred of scientific evidence that proves MACRO-evolution?


you have to define the difference between macro and micro evolution, in nature there is no distinction only a continuous range of possible changes. Micro evo could (if you want to use those words, steveZ, thats for pointing it out that these words arent even in real usage) describe a point mutation whereas macro might describe the increase in bill length of some bird by 50% brought about by many, many more mutations, unfortunately creationists always show a reluctence to understand how biology is studied. as soon as you accept micromutation you only have to add them up cumulatively to get what you could call macro, its really quite simple.

you could test macro sized changes by looking at an elephant and saying 'i predict that in rock layers x in area y there could be fossils very similar to elephants of today but with shorter trunks' they have been found.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

344. Comment #165558 by ficklefiend on April 21, 2008 at 4:49 pm

 avatarQuine posted a couple of links on the comments, and I scrolled through them quickly to get an idea of the reaction this film is getting. I find this in the middle of the first one, "American Thinker"-
"
It might have been nice if Stein had pointed out that the example typically given of evolution by natural selection -- white moths in industrial Great Britain dying when the smokestacks appeared and black moths surviving -- was a proof that no change in species and no mutations were required at all: The black and white moths were both of the same species."

What does that even mean, "no change in species"??...Seriously! 12 paragraphs of bile poured over Darwin and Atheism and this is the knowledge you use to back it up?

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..

Other Comments by ficklefiend

345. Comment #165559 by BillySands on April 21, 2008 at 4:51 pm

 avatar
How can you begin to explain evolution when you can't even begin to explain where life came from in the first place?


Missed that one. You said that you had looked into this stuff (even though you didnt want to read books). This is so basic it is depressing. Evolution is not the theory of abiogenesis - dont even ask about that! You came here talking about macroevolution and people here want answers from you first. Can you begin to understand why well informed people get frustrated when we get the same misinformed stuff from ignorant people who claim to know what evolution is about and why it is wrong?

Maybe new folk shoud be directed to FAQs before they are allowed to set up an account and play with the big boys and girls

Other Comments by BillySands

346. Comment #165560 by phasmagigas on April 21, 2008 at 4:53 pm

 avatar
Your question of the Bird Flu. I agree, I want the scientists to use their ideas of MICRO-evolution to try and trace the origin of the infection, not Macro-evolution. I assume you know the difference?


as micro evo is easily seen in living species the creationist simply moves and narrrows the goal posts and says 'ah but what about macro' as i said. if you accept micro, by default you should be able to imagine macroscopic changes more easily. it always happens, once macroscopic changes become reasonable to a creationst (if ever) then they will say, 'ah but you know nought about the origin of life so goddidt' same old........ oh.

so by asking steve if he knows the difference between macro and micro you are saying that macro is somethng thats actually there??? remember lots of IDists can still accept macroevo, they just say godididt, behe is that type of IDist if im not mistaken.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

347. Comment #165561 by Kenneth on April 21, 2008 at 4:54 pm

I am currently in the middle of reading The God Delusion. So far, it makes some interesting points. Most seem refutable, but some are quite fascinating.



Diacanu quote: "Then, you've defied gravity."
Your thought process is enticing, but you've failed to consider the basics of science. Science cannot find absolute truth. 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. Don't make the mistake of believing that our description of gravity now is the best that it will ever be. That is foolish. Personally, I like what Steve Zara said (Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm).

phil rimmer quote: "This is exactly the point. To merely argue against a scientific theory ain't no big thing. But this is the rotten heart of the matter, the core of their intentions, to impute evil.

It is entirely proper that the mirror is held up to them."

Both sides of the argument are guilty of using destructive rhetoric. I agree with you that one must hold up a mirror. Stein's movie (which I have seen), seems to be guilty of similar actions of rhetorical destruction not based on evidence. The key should be to focus on the DEBATE. And, to focus on providing factual/logical informational evidence to support sides of the debate without resorting to calling one side "evil". That's not to say that some of the actions of creationists and darwinists have not been evil... but making the sweeping generalization that creationists are constantly trying to mislead people with evil intentions is quite wrong.

Other Comments by Kenneth

348. Comment #165562 by sidelined on April 21, 2008 at 4:57 pm

TheTruthID says

"Why do you believe in evolution?"

It should first be emphasized that it is not necessary to "believe in evolution" since, unlike the creationist or IDer, evidence and experiment are the order of the day and are demonstratable to anyone with a modicum of common sense and an ability to do the hard work of actual thinking and testing the phenomena.

SO... how about we start with the basic fact that all life is based on chemistry which in turn is the result of physics.These sciences bring clarity to the mechanisms that underlie all phenomena ever investigated.

Since all the life processes are dependent upon chemical interactions and we can show these interactions in great detail we can state with a high confidence that evolution of life follows according to the rules of chemistry.

We also have further evidence in diverse fields of geology, plate tectonics, etc that lend weight as well.But all this knowledge is useless unless and until you learn how this knowledge was properly obtained and tested.

That we do not have the specifics of it all as to how the entire fabric of life unfolds is not a failure on our part but simply a matter that we have only been unravelling the mysteries for a few centuries while nature has spent billions of years producing.

Now that I have given you a brief overview of things will you finally answer the question concerning ID or would you prefer to run away before you fully embarrass yourself?

Other Comments by sidelined

349. Comment #165563 by BillySands on April 21, 2008 at 4:59 pm

 avatarTRUTHID guy

How many new base pairs do you think it takes to make a dog develop an extra claw?

Other Comments by BillySands

350. Comment #165565 by marv78rpm on April 21, 2008 at 5:03 pm

As a broken-off American Jew (actually I was never particularly attached in the first place), I am all too well acquainted with this "they're out to get us" mentality that uptight Jews have. Religion (Jehovah)is not the main force behind Mr. J.'S yelling:it is the Jewish meme that he is carrying and making him see an anti-semitic plot wherever he looks. Boy, have I met a lot of people like this. Some are my close relatives.

Other Comments by marv78rpm
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: