I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, August 28, 2006

Brayton admits Darwin-Hitler link

While condemning a TV program that links Darwin to Hitler, Ed "It's My Way or the Highway" Brayton himself admitted that there is such a link! Ed admits on his blog that Hitler used "scientific language" to support Nazi policies:

Even if one does not take the position that Christianity is to blame for Hitler (and that is my position), the fact that Hitler repeatedly and explicitly justified his plans by reference to Christian history and theology proves, at the very least, that Hitler used whatever ideological means he had at his disposal to defend and justify his actions. And that clearly undermines the argument that Darwinism led to Hitler and supports instead the idea that Hitler simply used scientific language when speaking to one audience and religious language when speaking to another.(emphasis added)

In another post, Brayton argues that Hitler was really a creationist. But even assuming that Hitler was a creationist, that does not mean that Darwinism or Social Darwinism did not influence the social policies of the Nazis. And if Hitler publicly used Darwinism or Social Darwinism to help gain support for his social policies, does it really matter whether or not he personally believed in Darwinism?

Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, argued that linking Darwin to Hitler "trivializes" the holocaust because "Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people." Whether or not Hitler "needed" Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether Hitler used Darwin. Perhaps if Hitler had been told that he didn't really "need" Darwin in order to plan the holocaust, Hitler might have impatiently answered like an exasperated King Lear, "O', reason not the need!"

I think that the reason for strong kneejerk Jewish support of Darwinism is that many Jews think that teaching or even mentioning criticism of Darwinism in public schools violates or threatens the separation of church and state. For example, the ADL applauded the Darwinist Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, and Judge John E. Jones III, the judge who decided the case, gave a speech to the ADL. In the Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguillard(1987), the ADL and the American Jewish Congress et al. filed separate amicus briefs opposing equal time for creation science and evolution in the public schools. In another equal-time case, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education(1982), a district-court case which was not appealed, three Jewish organizations were listed among the organizational plaintiffs (Christian denominations were also represented but only by individual plaintiffs, including local bishops of some denominations). The ADL and the American Jewish Congress filed separate amicus briefs in the appeal of the Selman v. Cobb County (2005) evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker case. I think that the Darwinists are afraid that exposing the Darwinism-Nazism link would erode Jewish opposition to the teaching or mention of criticisms of Darwinism in the public schools.

In a bizarre twist, Jeffrey Selman, the lead plaintiff in the Selman v Cobb County textbook sticker case, associated criticism and skepticism of Darwinism -- as opposed to Darwinism itself -- with the holocaust. An article in the Cleveland Jewish News said,

When a federal judge in Georgia ruled last week that a local school board's decision to put a small sticker on its science textbooks labeling evolution "a theory, not a fact" was unconstitutional, Jeffrey Selman said it was primarily an American issue.

Still, he said, he could not help but view it through the lens of his Jewishness.

"Look what happened in Germany," said Selman, one of a group of parents that sued the Cobb County school board to have the stickers removed.

"The German Jews said, 'We're Germans. We'll be fine.' The next thing you know, they were opening the oven doors for us."

In response to Jeffrey Selman's preceding remarks, John West of the Discovery Institute said,

. . . .it is simply Orwellian for defenders of Darwin to try to suggest that criticism of Darwin's theory can in any way be tied to the Holocaust -- especially when critics of Darwin were some of the most vocal opponents of the sort of eugenics policies championed by the Nazis and leading American defenders of Darwin's theory!

Among the "most vocal opponents" of Social Darwinism was William Jennings Bryan, the famous prosecutor in the Scopes monkey trial of 1925.

A comment on Uncommon Descent quoted the following astute observation:

"Some assert that Hitler got his antisemitism from the church -- as if the church ever taught that the blond-haired blue-eyed Aryans were the master race and needed to get rid of the Jews to preserve their racial purity."

I am not arguing that Darwinism should be scrapped just because of its influence on Nazism. I am just arguing that history should be studied objectively, letting the chips fall where they may.

Labels: ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

Wow! Hold the presses! Larry's just proved that EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST AND THEOLOGIAN THAT EXISTED BEFORE OR DURING THE HOLOCAUST IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HITLER!

In other words, more quote-mining.

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> that does not mean that Darwinism or Social Darwinism did not influence the social policies of the Nazis. <

You have provided no evidence that it did.

Bottom line - Even if Hitler based his ideas on a warped misinterpretation of Darwin's ideas, that does not make Darwin responsible for Hitler's actions, nor does it give any support to those who are trying (and mostly failing) to find problems with evolution.

Monday, August 28, 2006 7:48:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Voice In Wilderness said --

,,,,> that does not mean that Darwinism or Social Darwinism did not influence the social policies of the Nazis.

You have provided no evidence that it did. <<<<<<

There is lots of evidence -- but showing that evidence was not one of my main purposes in posting this article.

>>>>> Even if Hitler based his ideas on a warped misinterpretation of Darwin's ideas, that does not make Darwin responsible for Hitler's actions, <<<<<

So far as I am concerned, the idea is to study history objectively, and not to blame Darwin for Hitler.

The lead plaintiff in the Selman v. Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker case oddly associated criticism and skepticism of Darwinism -- and not Darwinism itself -- with Nazism. Maybe if he knew more about history, he would not have sued So the study of history definitely has practical effects today -- it is not all academic.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice In The Wilderness said...

> There is lots of evidence -- but showing that evidence was not one of my main purposes in posting this article. <

Why not just say that you have no evidence? It would be far more honest.

Friday, September 01, 2006 2:49:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home