Joined: Jan. 2006
Incase Kevin Miller has a "server glitch":
|OH NO. "Darwinism = Hitler", the old creationist canard.|
(1) It’s an argument to (perceived) consequences.
The fact of evolution is real regardless of if you like the (perceived) consequences or not. I don’t like that donuts make me fat, but they do. Reality is not contingent on me approving its output.
(2) Hitler was a theist, and talked about god wanting him to do things.
Hitler talks about god a lot, Darwin not at all. Check “Mein Kampf” if you don’t believe me. German Soldiers had “gott mit uns” as part of their regalia. Don’t get me wrong, he was an odious, evil man, but he’s not getting his worldview from “Darwinism”
(3) Genocide is artificial, not natural selection
And it predates both Darwin and Hitler. The Spartans used to practice it. Modern pets and livestock are a product of it.
Shame on those who continue to perpetuate this nonsense. I’m talking to you, Kevin Miller.
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 at 09:04 AM
Have you seen the film yet, Rich? If not, perhaps you should suspend judgment.
Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 20, 2008 at 09:24 AM
"I've always questioned Darwinism, because Darwinism leads to social Darwinism..." from the Godtube video you posted, about half way through.
"See the film" does not address my issues, Kevin.
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Rich: All you're doing here is attempting to erect a straw man. But just to satisfy you, here are some responses to your points.
1) At no point does "Expelled" argue that Darwinism is wrong because it leads to dire social consequences. As I said, see the film before you pass judgment.
2) I don't disagree that Hitler was a theist. But to try and argue that he developed his programs completely independent of Darwin is ludicrous. As I said, see the film before you pass judgment. We present ample evidence of Darwin's influence upon the Third Reich.
3) Obviously, genocide predates Hitler and Darwin. But the science of eugenics does not. It was developed by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton in an effort to apply Darwinian principals to social change. Once again, the connection between Darwinism and eugenics is crystal clear.
Do I have to say it again? See the film before passing judgment.
Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 20, 2008 at 02:45 PM
Thanks at least for answering.
1) But Ben Stein does, in a clip you link to, talking about “expelled” and he is the star of your film. Is that *really* a straw man?
2) If you agree that arguing to consequences is wrong, why do you then try and link Hitler and Darwin? Again, Darwin’s theory is natural selection and eugenics is artificial selection.
3) Eugenics predates both Hitler and Darwin. The fact that Galton coined the name is trivial. Gravity existed before someone formalized it as a theory. I mentioned ancient Sparta, but they clearly aren’t the only ancient society to practice eugenics.
The Arnold Prize Essay for 1913 by Allen G. Roper, B.A.
Late Scholar of Keble College
Originally Published By B.H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford (1913)
Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 7514891
I can find this. I'm surprised a big budget film crew can’t.
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 at 05:32 PM
|Hey Rich: Advertise Glen D. on your own blog. If you want to offer a summary of his response here, that's cool. But no promoting.|
Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 18, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I felt the comments were well crafted and wholly relevant, and better than I could have crafted. Have you "EXPELLED" his comments? Oh dear. What's the material difference between me posting them here and him posting them here? Are you a hypocrite?
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 at 09:08 AM
Rich: I expelled your misuse of the comments section of my blog, not Glen D. The function of the comments is to COMMENT on something posted on the blog, not re-direct readers to another blog. So like I said, if you have something relevant to say, go for it. If you're just stopping by to snipe, I think we can probably do without you.
Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 20, 2008 at 09:23 AM
It would seem we're both very interested in intelligent design, and that you purport that censorship is going on with regard to that. But then you censor. How is a reader to be informed and make up their own mind? Aren't your actions defeating your argument?
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 at 09:46 AM
Not at all, Rich. This is my blog. I'm free to run it according to my own editorial principles. I've told you the rules by which you may post things. If you don't want to abide by them, that's your problem. But it certainly isn't censorship.
Posted by: Kevin Miller | March 20, 2008 at 02:47 PM
Aren't there rules and demarcation for science and academia? Or do you advocate a double standard?
Posted by: Rich | March 20, 2008 at 05:12 PM
|"unscrupulous Orlando Sentinel film critic" - please substantiate and wallow in hypocrisy, or retract.|
Posted by: Rich | March 13, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Yeah, I'm curious as to why you guys want clergy to see the film but not actual film critics.
Posted by: mike | March 14, 2008 at 06:22 AM
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine