What if Ben Stein is Right?
Frank J
Darwin's time have decided, after learning about biological evolution,
that it's good to help along "survival of the fittest" because "it'll
happen anyway, why wait?" Of course the great majority has not changed
its opinion upon learning evolution, and many have surely reacted the
opposite way, concluding that they need to counter some of Nature's
cruelty. I'm not sure where the balance lies, and what I read so far
suggests that no one really knows. But even if they do know, the point
may be moot for reasons other than the "is/ought" fallacy.
One point that is too-seldom made may be the one most devastating to
Stein's claim: Note that it is never the common ancestry part of
evolution that is used to rationalize Nazism and genocide - heck, some
of the most outspoken anti-evolutionists even concede common ancestry.
What is invariably invoked is natural selection, and occasionally also
the "random" mutations that provide the raw material for natural
selection to operate. But nearly all anti-evolutionists concede that
"RM + NS" occurs at least within a "kind." Since genocide, eugenics,
etc. are only conducted within what most anti-evolutionists call a
single "kind," the "microevolution" that they concede would be no less
responsible for those acts than any part of evolution that they deny.
Most rank and file anti-evolutionists have just not thought that
through. But the professionals, and surely Stein by now, must know
that they are pulling a bait-and-switch.
It gets worse.
For the sake of argument, assume to be correct what I really think is
unsupported if not flatly falsified. Namely that evolution increases
support of Nazism relative to that resulting from the proposed
alternate "explanations" of biology. Again, I'm only referring to
people *choosing* to advocate (or worse, carry out) those acts based
on what they learned, not that the biological processes "naturally"
cause or inhibit them. If that assumption is true, one could then
reduce the probability of Nazism by banning the teaching of evolution
and teaching one or more of the mutually contradictory proposed
"scientific" alternatives. In such a case, teaching a falsified
explanation in lieu of the one that works would be a small price to
pay to avoid another Hitler. Besides, the small percent of students
who go on to be biologists would have their misconceptions cleared up
in college. But wait! The DI, which backs "Expelled," specifically
advises schools *not* to teach the alternatives, but rather to teach
and "critically analyze" evolution. Worse yet, the "critical analysis"
materials that meet the DI's approval all portray evolution as the
very "Darwinism" caricature that is the basis for the justification of
the evil acts. Even with the "weaknesses" cherry-picked, there's no
guarantee that any student will reject "Darwinism," and in fact many
might "get ideas" that they would not get if evolution were taught
correctly. So if the DI truly believes that "Darwinism" leads to
Nazism, they are willfully risking an *increase* in it.
As you might suspect, however, I strongly doubt that the DI takes the
"'Darwinism' leads to Nazism" argument seriously. Privately they must
know the assumption in the previous paragraph is at best unreliable.
So why have they chosen such a low road after promising, but failing
to deliver, exciting new science? I may be giving them far too much
credit, even as snake oil salesmen, but I think that that "'Darwinism'
leads to Nazism" argument, like most other DI tactics, serve two
purposes. First, it feeds the public's misconceptions of evolution,
addiction to sensationalist sound bites, and uncritical willingness to
believe that mainstream science is full of devious conspirators.
Second, it distracts critics from exposing the thorough scientific
failure of anti-evolution pseudoscience (including its steady retreat
into "don't ask, don't tell") and keeps them obsessing over religion
(antagonizing many religious nonscientists who might otherwise
appreciate evolution), thus assuring that the volume, if not the
substance of rebuttals is "on the defensive" over a robust science
that needs no defending. Non-committed creationists, the "jury's still
out" crowd, and those who accept evolution but still think that it's
fair to teach the DI's misrepresentations in public school science
class are likely to miss the arguments that could change their minds,
and hear only the sound bites that keep them misled.
"Expelled" may eventually backfire on the DI. But so far most of the
buzz on the blogs is depressingly predictable. Just like the DI wants
it.
Will in New Haven
<snipped, read the original>
It's really simple. Even if, and I don't think it's true, the
knowledge of the facts of nature make some people behave badly, the
facts are still the facts. And the evidence points one way and it's
toward the ToE. So the way to address the problem that probably
doesn't exist in the first place is not to lie to people. It is to
convince them to behave themselves even though they know the truth.
-
Will in New Haven
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the
constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a
shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."
geo...@hotmail.com
I actually had a go at the Edinburgh Creation Group on this, who are
pushing the 'roots and fruits of Evolution' - the roots being,
apparently Paganism, Freemasonry, and ancient Vedics (on the grounds
that all these have expressed evolutionary ideas, so therefore
evolution must be based on them), and the fruits being... eugenics,
sexual disease, racism, etc. etc. They have a nice little propaganda
poster of a tree showing all these.
I quite justifiably resented being implicitly described as a sexually
diseased racist, and gave them the normal example of gravity being
responsible for bombs and warfare, but they keep pushing the lie that
evolution is a philosophy and not a scientific theory (which as you
point out, is rather odd - they accept NATURAL SELECTION and MUTATION
because these can be proven, and these are the very principles upon
which eugenics is based!).
It pisses me off that they fall to these underhanded propaganda
tactics - and if it's not propaganda, it's a totally idiotic reaction
to modern science, on a par with The Simpsons' "let's burn down the
observatory so this will never happen again!". Even if the theory of
evolution is responsible for social ills, it's the ills that need to
be tackled, not the theory. I want a world without racism. The fundies
just want a world without the theory of evolution.
Frank J
The "fundies" may want that, but the DI, and probably even some
classic creationist leaders, know that a "world without the theory of
evolution" is only in their dreams. The facts won't go away, and
valiant attempts to find a design-based scientific alternative (a la
Morris and Ross, whose positions forever contradicted each other)
failed, so the only alternative is "don't ask, don't tell." But as I
said, the DI *wants* evolution taught, and caricaturized. They know
that almost no science majors will fall for their nonsense. And if
those students are like me and many others, the misrepresentations
will help them find evolution even *more* convincing.
John Stockwell
Basically three of the big economic/political movements of
the 19th and 20th century had social-evolutionary overtones, but each
was based on an incorrect interpretation of the notion of evolution.
The lassaiz-faire capitalists viewed the perfect business community as
being one in which there were a large number of players and pure
unbridled competition being the deciding factor on who would success
and who would fail. Somehow the notion of "strength" through
struggling and hardship being operative.
The communists, being interpreters of Lamarck, thought that human
beings would adapt to their notion of a perfect worker society.
(Again, humans are supposed to adapt to austere environments.)
The Nazis had a notion of "racial purity", which of course, we today
know is extremely flawed, because biologically "races" are pretty
fuzzy designations. Had the Nazis been true Darwinists they would
have encouraged their followers to interbreed with members of so-
called non-Aryan ethnic groups to create more genetic diversity in the
population. The Aryans, of course, didn't get a free ticket, they
had to pursue the proper way of living involving exercise and athletic
accomplisments. So, again, we are talking about Lamark, not Darwin.
So, it looks to me like Lamark was at fault.
-John
Frank J
I guess you know that the is/ought fallacy applies whether Darwin or
Lamarck. Nevertheless, chalk this up as yet another place where anti-
evolution actvists (deliberately in most cases) think Lamarck and say
Darwin.
>
> -John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ymir
<0bea3cc0-0e7c-462e...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
John Stockwell <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, it looks to me like Lamark was at fault.
Actually, I'd be more inclined to blame Hitler (at least for the Naziism
part).
André
Ron O
Frank J
Ron, I'm going to excuse your Pagano imitation on the chance that you
think that your new subject line attracts more replies. If it doesn't
work, however, I will write Ben Stein fan mail and sign your name. ;-)
Ron O
Hey, I'll write some Ben Stein fan mail. There can't be that many
people that can make the ID scam look more asinine than Stein.
Science will likely owe the Expelled crowd a debt of gratitude when
all the smoke clears. More asinine than Stein, intelligent design is
science and Tricky Dick, I am not a crook. It would probably make a
good tee shirt with Stein's mug on it.
I've never changed the topic heading before, and since it was the only
comment that I wanted to add to your post I thought that it was a good
a time as any to try it out.
What I have to try next is starting a new thread with a response to a
post from an existing thread that I have already responded to, as
Pitman likes to do so that everyone can see the same junk twice.
Ron Okimoto
Vernon Balbert
produced this interesting bit of text:
Ben Stein's e-mail wasn't hard to dig up. It's publicly available on
www.benstein.com. It's BenSt...@aol.com Figgers. He uses AOL.
--
I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that
question. - Yogi Berra
Bodega
[snip]
I appreciate your concern, but Ben Stein ain't gonna change anything.
Bill Hudson
>
> --
> I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that
> question. - Yogi Berra
of course... he is, after all 'one of the intelligentsia'. Don't they
all use AOL?
Anthropus
news:49a0c8af-25be-478c-
>
> of course... he is, after all 'one of the intelligentsia'. Don't they
> all use AOL?
>
I'm told that the really, really clever ones have 'webTV'.
M.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>...that "Darwinism" leads to Nazism?
Nazism was beaten back in the 1940s, it is history. We can look at it
with the benefit of hindsight and confirm that "Darwinism" had nothing
to do with it.
[snip more crap]
--
Bob.
Frank J
I don't expect *him* to. Even if he realizes that he made a big
misteke siding with con artists, the "golden handcuffs" are unlikely
to make him admit it. I think that a similar situation applies to
Michael Behe, who joined the DI, not fully knowing what to say and not
say in public.
Frank J
> On 3/28/2008 8:09 PM, Ron O went clickity clack on the keyboard and
> produced this interesting bit of text:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 9:20 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 28, 10:04 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 28, 5:26 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>> SNIP:
> >>> All that needs to be said.
> >> Ron, I'm going to excuse your Pagano imitation on the chance that you
> >> think that your new subject line attracts more replies. If it doesn't
> >> work, however, I will write Ben Stein fan mail and sign your name. ;-)
>
> > Hey, I'll write some Ben Stein fan mail. There can't be that many
> > people that can make the ID scam look more asinine than Stein.
> > Science will likely owe the Expelled crowd a debt of gratitude when
> > all the smoke clears. More asinine than Stein, intelligent design is
> > science and Tricky Dick, I am not a crook. It would probably make a
> > good tee shirt with Stein's mug on it.
>
> > I've never changed the topic heading before, and since it was the only
> > comment that I wanted to add to your post I thought that it was a good
> > a time as any to try it out.
>
> > What I have to try next is starting a new thread with a response to a
> > post from an existing thread that I have already responded to, as
> > Pitman likes to do so that everyone can see the same junk twice.
>
Just for kicks I emeiled him the original post. I don't expect a
reply, but if I do recieve one, I expect the usual reaction from one
who knows that one is wrong but won't dare admit it. Namely, ignoring
the major points and quibbling over minor ones, switching definitions
(*especially* easy to do with this subject matter), quote mining, etc.
>
> --
> I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that
> question. - Yogi Berra- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:26:18 -0700 (PDT), Frank J <f...@comcast.net>
> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >...that "Darwinism" leads to Nazism?
>
> Nazism was beaten back in the 1940s, it is history. We can look at it
> with the benefit of hindsight and confirm that "Darwinism" had nothing
> to do with it.
>
> [snip more crap]
Please read the post again. I *agree* that Nazism (& eugenics, racism,
etc.) has nothing to do with "Darwinism" or evolutionary biology. And
not *only* because of hindsight or the is/ought fallacy.
>
> --
> Bob.
Paul Hands
similar stances existed in humanity well before Darwin described
evolution. The beauty of Darwin's idea is that it works in a variety
of circumstances and describes natural processes very well.
However saying that the idea of evolution spurred nazism is just plain
dishonest. But then, we don't expect honesty from religious people.
They will say or do *anything* to bolster their particular twisted
world view.
Frank J
I'm beginning to wonder if Google Groups snipped the last 90% of my
post.
Of course there's no danger of Stein being right. Although I would say
that the dishonesty comes from the scam artists and paranoid
Straussians (the DI qualifies as both), while the rank and file
religious people who buy into that argument are just ignorant and/or
scammed.
Vernon Balbert
>> Ben Stein's e-mail wasn't hard to dig up. It's publicly available onwww.benstein.com. It's BenStei...@aol.com Figgers. He uses AOL.
>
> Just for kicks I emeiled him the original post. I don't expect a
> reply, but if I do recieve one, I expect the usual reaction from one
> who knows that one is wrong but won't dare admit it. Namely, ignoring
> the major points and quibbling over minor ones, switching definitions
> (*especially* easy to do with this subject matter), quote mining, etc.
You know, as I look back on my post, I may have inadvertently given
spammers his address. Truly, I did not intend to do this as I really
don't want to give spammers any any ammunition with which to do their
work (witness my own munged e-mail address) but it is an interesting
observation.
--
Rule of Acquisition number 142: Only fools sell wholesale.
Frank J
I may be missing something, but is spammers wanted to spam him, I
think they would have looked up his email anyway. Plus if I became so
quickly visible to millions as Stein I would just change my email
address.
Mike L
> On Mar 29, 10:23�am, Vernon Balbert <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote:
> > You know, as I look back on my post, I may have inadvertently given
> I may be missing something, but is spammers wanted to spam him, I
> think they would have looked up his email anyway. Plus if I became so
> quickly visible to millions as Stein I would just change my email
> address
It's pretty well inconceivable that the AOL address provided is his
regular professional, let alone private, one. He may be dumb, but not
that dumb.
--
Mike.
Robert Carnegie
Well - I'm not an expert on Nazi policy or doctrine, or eugenics, but
it seems to be to distrust and disbelieve in the theory of evolution.
Surely an evolutionist racist would expect his own race's superiority
to lead naturally to extinction of other inferior races. There
wouldn't be a need to cull inferior genes from the population.
Therefore, "Final Solutionists" are not evolutionists.
James Goetz
Well, we still need balance. Hitler twisted both belief in divine
rights and Darwinism. Disbelief in the Christian Bible thrived before
Darwinism. Racism thrived before Darwinism regardless of belief or
disbelief in the Bible. Artificial selection thrived before Darwinism.
I don't know about poles in other countries, but most Darwinists in
the US believe in God. And God decided to create all biological
species since the origin of life by descent and modification with
natural selection.
Frank J
Not sure what you mean by "balance," but the fact that "most
'Darwinists' (I assume you mean those who acceot evolution) in the US
believe in God is getting drowned out to the point that it seems to be
assumed to be false. At least by those doing the shouting on both
sides.
Whether it's true or not, the claim I have heard far too many times -
that "Christianity," not "Darwinism" inspired Nazism - is both
irrelevant and politically counterproductive. There are many other
fatal flaws in "Expelled" and anti-evolution propaganda.
Once again, the scam artists are setting the terms of the debate, and
like I said, the volume, if not the substance, of the criticism is
playing into their hands.
James Goetz
What I mean by "balance" is looking at all sides of the issue. And I
define "Darwinist" as somebody who accepts that all biological
populations descended from one or a few microscopic progenitors while
natural selection played a major role in evolution.
> Whether it's true or not, the claim I have heard far too many times -
> that "Christianity," not "Darwinism" inspired Nazism - is both
> irrelevant and politically counterproductive. There are many other
> fatal flaws in "Expelled" and anti-evolution propaganda.
>
> Once again, the scam artists are setting the terms of the debate, and
> like I said, the volume, if not the substance, of the criticism is
> playing into their hands.
I am a devout Christian and I do not blame Christianity or Darwinism
for Hitler. But I see that twisted view of both religion and natural
selection inspired Hitler.
conrad
> ...that "Darwinism" leads to Nazism? Like it or not, some people since
> Darwin's time have decided, after learning about biological evolution,
> that it's good to help along "survival of the fittest" because "it'll
> happen anyway, why wait?" Of course the great majority has not changed
> its opinion upon learning evolution, and many have surely reacted the
> opposite way, concluding that they need to counter some of Nature's
> cruelty. I'm not sure where the balance lies, and what I read so far
> suggests that no one really knows. But even if they do know, the point
> may be moot for reasons other than the "is/ought" fallacy.
Ben Stein cannot be right! Such a suggestion that darwinism leads
to Nazism is based on a misunderstanding of darwinism. Why?
Because darwinism does not suggest that evolution can forecast
some desired being. It operates in the present only.
"Survival of the fittest" wasn't even used by darwin, if I recall
correctly. I believe it was originally used as means to express
a complicated subject to a layman. And anyhow, "survival of
the fittest" is only applicable to present selection pressures.
If a giant asteroid collided into Earth you would have a rapid
change in selection pressures and thus what was deemed fit
for a past environment may no longer be fit for the new environment
(as an example.).
Beyond that, I think what you are really talking about is Lamarckism.
Nazism has stronger ties to Lamarckism. It is worth noting though that
Darwinism and Lamarckism is as different as cheese and tar.
--
conrad
Frank J
Who doesn't? No one is truly censoring anything (or "expelling"
anyone) in the strictest sense of the words. But the anti-evolution
activists, and many critics who "take their bait" have been "drowning
out" the more reasonable voices. I don't mean just theistic
evolutionists, but anyone who demands that the right to conduct or
teach ideas new ideas be *earned*.
> And I
> define "Darwinist" as somebody who accepts that all biological
> populations descended from one or a few microscopic progenitors while
> natural selection played a major role in evolution.
>
> > Whether it's true or not, the claim I have heard far too many times -
> > that "Christianity," not "Darwinism" inspired Nazism - is both
> > irrelevant and politically counterproductive. There are many other
> > fatal flaws in "Expelled" and anti-evolution propaganda.
>
> > Once again, the scam artists are setting the terms of the debate, and
> > like I said, the volume, if not the substance, of the criticism is
> > playing into their hands.
>
> I am a devout Christian and I do not blame Christianity or Darwinism
> for Hitler. But I see that twisted view of both religion and natural
> selection inspired Hitler.- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> On Mar 28, 5:26 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > ...that "Darwinism" leads to Nazism? Like it or not, some people since
> > Darwin's time have decided, after learning about biological evolution,
> > that it's good to help along "survival of the fittest" because "it'll
> > happen anyway, why wait?" Of course the great majority has not changed
> > its opinion upon learning evolution, and many have surely reacted the
> > opposite way, concluding that they need to counter some of Nature's
> > cruelty. I'm not sure where the balance lies, and what I read so far
> > suggests that no one really knows. But even if they do know, the point
> > may be moot for reasons other than the "is/ought" fallacy.
>
> Ben Stein cannot be right!
If you read the whole post carefully you will see that I agree.
> Such a suggestion that darwinism leads
> to Nazism is based on a misunderstanding of darwinism. Why?
> Because darwinism does not suggest that evolution can forecast
> some desired being. It operates in the present only.
>
> "Survival of the fittest" wasn't even used by darwin, if I recall
> correctly.
You do recall correctly. Scam artists have a habit of putting words in
dead people's mouths.
Note how I talk about the "Darwinism" *caricature* that is most
advertised by those who object to *evolutionary biology*.
> I believe it was originally used as means to express
> a complicated subject to a layman. And anyhow, "survival of
> the fittest" is only applicable to present selection pressures.
> If a giant asteroid collided into Earth you would have a rapid
> change in selection pressures and thus what was deemed fit
> for a past environment may no longer be fit for the new environment
> (as an example.).
>
> Beyond that, I think what you are really talking about is Lamarckism.
> Nazism has stronger ties to Lamarckism. It is worth noting though that
> Darwinism and Lamarckism is as different as cheese and tar.
Elsewhere I do note how the scam artists routinely bait-and-switch
between Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution.
>
> --
> conrad
Rupert Morrish
Why don't you worry about things that are likely to happen, like getting
struck by two meteorites after you find a winning lottery ticket in a
printed copy of Ray's paper?
[snip]
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Robert Carnegie
> On Mar 28, 5:26 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > ...that "Darwinism" leads to Nazism? Like it or not, some people since
> > Darwin's time have decided, after learning about biological evolution,
> > that it's good to help along "survival of the fittest" because "it'll
> > happen anyway, why wait?" Of course the great majority has not changed
> > its opinion upon learning evolution, and many have surely reacted the
> > opposite way, concluding that they need to counter some of Nature's
> > cruelty. I'm not sure where the balance lies, and what I read so far
> > suggests that no one really knows. But even if they do know, the point
> > may be moot for reasons other than the "is/ought" fallacy.
>
> Ben Stein cannot be right! Such a suggestion that darwinism leads
> to Nazism is based on a misunderstanding of darwinism. Why?
> Because darwinism does not suggest that evolution can forecast
> some desired being. It operates in the present only.
I wouldn't go that far. Prediction is very tricky, but a respectable
scientific theory must have /some/ predictive use.
> "Survival of the fittest" wasn't even used by darwin, if I recall
> correctly. I believe it was originally used as means to express
> a complicated subject to a layman. And anyhow, "survival of
> the fittest" is only applicable to present selection pressures.
> If a giant asteroid collided into Earth you would have a rapid
> change in selection pressures and thus what was deemed fit
> for a past environment may no longer be fit for the new environment
> (as an example.).
No doubt, but didn't Darwin in fact use "survival of the fittest" in
later writing, although he didn't invent the phrase?
> Beyond that, I think what you are really talking about is Lamarckism.
> Nazism has stronger ties to Lamarckism. It is worth noting though that
> Darwinism and Lamarckism is as different as cheese and tar.
I suspect both contain hydrocarbons. And I don't think they're so
different - only that Darwin observed that the nature and success of a
particular beastie come out of its hereditary legacy, whereas to
Lamarck it's the other way around. It seems there are in fact some
Lamarckian fringe effects - today I heard again about the effect of a
mother's stress hormones on a foetus - but presumably that is one set
of Darwinian machinery, the foetus, reading a message from another.
Like my personal computer uses a wireless network connection, but it
does so by running its own installed software.
Richard Smol
> ...that "Darwinism" leads to Nazism?
Then it still wouldn't diminish the scientific validity of the theory
of evolution. But Ben Stein isn't right, since it's actually
Christianity that formed the backbone of national-socialism, so don't
worry.
RS
John Wilkins
While I agree that Ben Stein couldn't enunciate a truth if his lips were
controlled by puppeteers, it doesn't follow that Christianity is "the"
cause of Nazism. Instead a series of complex traditions and
circumstances caused Nazism, not least being the Versaille Treaty that
condemned Germany to punitive war reparations that left it in a parlous
state; a tradition of nationalism that came out of the formation of
Germany less that half a century earlier, folk religion that preserved
some of the myths of the pre-Christian era (northern Europe was
Christian much later than southern Europe); the national churches that
were basically whores to power; etc., etc.
To give a single cause explanation of Nazism is to make a serious
mistake, essentially the one made by the IDiots, only favouring or
demonising *your* targets not theirs. The correct answer is to list as
many of the *actual* causes. And yes, some forms of evolutionism played
a role. In the first word war industrialists and militarists held that
nations were fitter or less fit and that war was a form of natural
selection. Of course this is not what Darwin said, but it is not so far
from his argument about moral evolution in the Descent. Evolutionism is
hardly the *cause* of nationalism in Germany, but it is a post hoc
justification for it, in the way such ideas were used. Similar ideas
were in play in Japan, for example.
We don't need to play the IDiot game of assigning blame to a single
cause to defend evolutionary theory.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Frank J
> Frank J wrote:
>
> Why don't you worry about things that are likely to happen, like getting
> struck by two meteorites after you find a winning lottery ticket in a
> printed copy of Ray's paper?
Because it happened! And for a small fee I'll sell you my autographed
copy of Ray's paper. ;-)
Just kidding. Of course Stein is not right. Even religious
conservative Dinesh D'Souza will tell you that.
>
> [snip]
> -----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Frank J
> On Mar 29, 12:26 am, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > ...that "Darwinism" leads to Nazism?
>
> Then it still wouldn't diminish the scientific validity of the theory
> of evolution.
That's the is/ought fallacy I was referring to when I said that's not
even needed to show that Stein is wrong.
>But Ben Stein isn't right, since it's actually
> Christianity that formed the backbone of national-socialism, so don't
> worry.
And somewhere else I wrote that, even if that is correct, it too is
unnecessary to refute Stein's point. Plus blaming Christianity might
be taken the wrong way by people who would otherwise side with us.
>
> RS
er...@swva.net
> ...that "Darwinism" leads to Nazism? Like it or not, some people since
> Darwin's time have decided, after learning about biological evolution,
> that it's good to help along "survival of the fittest" because "it'll
> happen anyway, why wait?" Of course the great majority has not changed
> its opinion upon learning evolution, and many have surely reacted the
> opposite way, concluding that they need to counter some of Nature's
> cruelty. I'm not sure where the balance lies, and what I read so far
> suggests that no one really knows. But even if they do know, the point
> may be moot for reasons other than the "is/ought" fallacy.
>
Very good analysis; I will read it more than once. (I don't remember
if that's the right way to do a POM nomination.)
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
Plus, blaming Christianity for Naziism is one of those "you too"
fallacies, not any less cheesy when we do it.
Eric Root
Dan Drake
Still a bit cheesy. Hitler in his private conversations seems to have had
the same high opinion of Christianity as Nietzsche had. (DAMN, I hate
trying to type that name.) Anyway, not exactly a coincidence or
surprising. There's a bit of this in Keegan's _The Mask of Command_.
--
Dan Drake
d...@dandrake.com
http://www.dandrake.com/
porlockjr.blogspot.com