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.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Red State Rabble babble about Discovery Institute

A post titled "Discovery's Disturbing Legacy" on the Red State Rabble blog is a long smear of the Discovery Institute and other critics of Darwinism. That post is so full of lies that I scarcely know where to begin in refuting them.

The post described the following public testimony at a Kansas hearing for the new state science standards:
.
"Auschwitz did not come from the Nazi high command,” John James confided to the crowd, "it came from the teachings of the scientific and philosophical worlds, which produced nihilism, and I submit to you that much of that, if not vast proportions of it, came due to the teaching of evolution which, in turn, produces nihilism. So what are we doing? Are we producing little Kansas Nazis?"

IMO it is better to have that point of view than to believe -- as Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman believes --- that any discussion of a possible link between Darwin and Nazism should be considered taboo. Anyway, my Darwin-to-Hitler posts here show that the connection between Darwin and Hitler is undeniable.

Red State Rabble said,
Jones' ruling was a humiliating defeat for Discovery because it knocked the legs out from under that carefully crafted strategy.

"Humiliating defeat"? LOL. Jones' ruling is one of the most thoroughly discredited court decisions in American history -- even many articles in mainstream law journals have been attacking it.

RSR said,
The depth of Discovery's crisis was revealed by a series of embarrassingly lame attempts to label Jones, an observant Lutheran and conservative Republican appointed to the bench by George Bush

If judges typically bend over backwards -- as Judge Jones did -- in an effort to show that their backgrounds are no indication of bias, then IMO it would have been better if the Kitzmiller v. Dover case had been decided by a radical godless blasphemous Clinton-appointed Democratic fundy-hating atheistic Darwinist. As for Jones being an "observant Lutheran," he said in his Dickinson College commencement speech that organized religions are not "true" religions.

RSR said,
When the activist judge label failed to stick, Discovery attempted to smear his ruling as plagiarized.

I am not against Jones' "plagiarism" per se -- what I am against is the one-sidedness of his plagiarism. The ID-as-science section of the opinion was virtually entirely copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs. If the defendants' arguments were really bad, there was all the more reason for Jones to address them in order to refute them.

The Kitzmiller decision is a dud. For example, "Monkey Girl," a generally highly touted book about the case, has attracted only 19 customer reviews on Amazon.com in the three months since the book's release. A highly touted new book about a popular subject would have attracted hundreds of customer reviews in that time.

RSR said,
Thwarted by the court in their central strategic objectives, increasingly shunted off to the side by the news media, at odds with their creationist allies, and unable to produce any credible science of their own, the Discovery Institute has now adopted a cynical Plan B: If you can't build your own house, you may as well tear your neighbor's down.

"Shunted off to the side by the news media"? Intelligent design is now a bigger topic than ever -- and the publicity over the Kitzmiller trial is a major reason for that.

RSR said,
Discovery’s Plan B has popped up with increasing frequency over a number of months, but got its official launch with speeches in Washington and Philadelphia earlier this week by Discovery fellow John West that quickly cut the Nazi’s six million victims to “hundred of thousands.”

That's ridiculous. I have never seen either of the Discovery Institute's websites -- here and here -- engage in holocaust denial or revisionism.

RSR said,
This week’s events were preceded by the broadcast of “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy,” a production of Coral Ridge Ministries, on Christian television last August. The program, which explicitly links the crimes of Hitler to Charles Darwin featured Discovery fellows Richard Weikart, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, and Michael Behe.

That is better than just burying our heads in the sand in regard to the Darwin-to-Hitler question, like the ADL's Abraham Foxman wants us to do.

RSR said,
If what Weikart, West, Coulter, and Discovery say is true, one might think that Jewish organizations would welcome their support. However, just the opposite is true.

Some Jews and Jewish organizations did actually support Coral Ridge Ministries, which produced the "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" TV show. One leader of a Jewish organization actually apologized for Foxman's vitriolic attack on Coral Ridge Ministries.

RSR said,
Next week, Discovery is participating in the World Congress of Families in Warsaw. In doing so, they are joining with a motley crew of far-right anti-immigrant zealots who claim Muslims and other immigrants are contributing to the "demographic destruction" of Europe, extreme homophobes, misogynists, and anti-abortion fanatics who, holding life sacred, call openly for the murder of abortion providers.

Unless the above charge can be proven, it borders on libel.

A Panda's Thumb post supporting the RSR post is here.
.

Labels: ,

15 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Anyway, my Darwin-to-Hitler posts here show that the connection between Darwin and Hitler is undeniable.<

You seem to believe that if you state something without any support, it is proven while if others, Kevin for example, make a flawless and supported logical proof, it has not even been mentioned.

> Jones' ruling is one of the most thoroughly discredited court decisions in American history <

There is an example.

> even many articles in mainstream law journals have been attacking it. <

Many of the articles that you claim "attack" the decision merely discuss it.

> As for Jones being an "observant Lutheran," he said in his Dickinson College commencement speech that organized religions are not "true" religions. <

What did he say? All we have seen is your misinterpretation.

> The ID-as-science section of the opinion was virtually entirely copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief <

Why not cite a good argument?

> while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief <

> A highly touted new book about a popular subject would have attracted hundreds of customer reviews in that time. <

Sorry to break it to you, Larry. This is not a popular subject.

> Intelligent design is now a bigger topic than ever <

Not on this planet. Yours may differ.

> That is better than just burying our heads in the sand in regard to the Darwin-to-Hitler question <

There is no Darwin-to-Hitler question. Do you have a question?

> Unless the above charge can be proven, it borders on libel. <

A moot point since most of it can. To which do you object?

Friday, May 04, 2007 9:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Blair said...

Well said Larry.

You provide an interesting counter weight from the drivel pooring from RSR; Darwins connection to Hitler, and mass atrocities linked to eugencis is undeniable.

Heck, Galton...the old father of eugenics himself, was Darwins cousin and referenced quite favorably in the Descent of Man.

Unfortunately, they seem to delete anything I post and ban any computer I use.

I am new to this, and don't know how to get around that.

Anyway, keep it up!

Friday, May 04, 2007 11:26:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

larry,

are you the same guy that was banned from Ed Brayton's blog??

Saturday, May 05, 2007 10:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> are you the same guy that was banned from Ed Brayton's blog?? <

Yes is is. Isn't that obvious from some of the titles?

Saturday, May 05, 2007 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> larry,

are you the same guy that was banned from Ed Brayton's blog?? <<<<<

What? You think I am the only guy who has been banned by Fatheaded Ed?

Saturday, May 05, 2007 6:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> What? You think I am the only guy who has been banned by Fatheaded Ed? <

His post didn't imply that. He was asking if you were the fathead named Larry Fafarman banned from Ed's blog. The only other possible Larry Fafarman it could have been is Real Dave's brother.

There is increasing evidence that you are reacting to posts without reading them. Perhaps you are entering an advanced stage.

Sunday, May 06, 2007 12:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Bill Clinton said...

<< Yes is is. >>

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

Sunday, May 06, 2007 5:05:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Blair said...

>>>>> Unfortunately, they seem to delete anything I post and ban any computer I use.

I am new to this, and don't know how to get around that. <<<<<<<

It doesn't do any good to try to get around that, because they don't just ban you, but they also ban your ideas.

There are ways to get around IP address blocking, but they don't always work.

Sunday, May 06, 2007 1:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

> Unfortunately, they seem to delete anything I post and ban any computer I use. <

Are you repeating yourself in the belief that repetition is proof as Larry does? Are you making statements without any basis such as "Darwins connection to Hitler, and mass atrocities linked to eugencis is undeniable."?

Sunday, May 06, 2007 8:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Dave Fafarman said...

< Anyway, my Darwin-to-Hitler posts here show that the connection between Darwin and Hitler is undeniable. >

It seems to me that the connection between Islamists and Hitler is a lot clearer. But didn't you show a while back that Islamists don't believe in evolution? Doesn't that cast doubt on your claimed "Darwin-Hitler" link?

Monday, May 07, 2007 11:13:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Fake Dave said,
>>>>> It seems to me that the connection between Islamists and Hitler is a lot clearer. But didn't you show a while back that Islamists don't believe in evolution? Doesn't that cast doubt on your claimed "Darwin-Hitler" link? <<<<<<

No. What does the Islamist-Hitler link have to do with the Darwin-Hitler link?

As I said, Nazi anti-Semitism's targets included people of high physical and mental fitness and therefore I don't see it as a eugenic idea. IMO eugenics' contribution to Nazi anti-Semitism was to help create the idea that it was morally OK to get rid of undesirables. Also, it is strange that nations that did not fit the Nazi Aryan ideal -- Italy and Japan -- nonetheless allied themselves with Nazi Germany. As for the Arabs, the Nazis must have seen them as being racially inferior to the Jews. There are blond and blue-eyed Jews, but have you ever seen a blond and blue-eyed Arab?

Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:24:00 AM  
Anonymous W. Kevin Vicklund said...

>>>IMO eugenics' contribution to Nazi anti-Semitism was to help create the idea that it was morally OK to get rid of undesirables.<<<

In The Descent of Man, Darwin quite deliberately said that it would be immoral to get rid of undesirables. If that was eugenics' contribution, then it was over Darwin's objections.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007 12:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anthony Taylor said...

Actually, breeding (and hence eugenics) predates Darwin's evolution through natural selection by many years. To claim that Hitler based any eugenics program on evolution is like saying we base our assumption that the world is round on the Gemini program.

You'd do better to blame eugenics on Gregor Mendel (who performed his studies about the same time Darwin was formulating the Origin), or even the ancient Egyptians.

As far as ID goes: it is my experience that evolution is disputed only by those who confuse belief with knowledge. Until there becomes a method of testing for the existence of God, any hypothesis that pivots on God's existence cannot be science, no matter how many people claim otherwise.

ID may be true. So might ghosts, and vampires, and intellectually honest republicans. However, ID cannot be science, until such time as the existence of God can be proven or disproven.

As such, the Discovery Institute trades in dishonesty, misdirection, and deception. As ID cannot be science, they have attempted to redefine the meaning of science. When that failed, they invoked the name of Hitler. (Isn't there a principle somewhere about invoking Hitler in an argument?)

The ID-as-science section of the opinion was virtually entirely copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs. If the defendants' arguments were really bad, there was all the more reason for Jones to address them in order to refute them.

It seems the plaintiff's opening brief refuted the defendant's position quite nicely. In effect, the defendants had no case. Their attempt to redefine science to include the supernatural was transparent an hypocritical. Their attempts to paint the theory of evolution as contentious and divided failed on the simple point that that is part of science, the research into opposing viewpoints until only one hypothesis remains. (Or, sometimes, no hypothesis remains.)

What the ID crowd refuses to admit is that there is no arguing over evolution as a process, nor over the salient parts of the theory of evolution through natural selection. The discussion is over whether all animals with feathers were birds, or whether evolution is a slow, continual process, or a process that occurs in fits and starts ("punctuated equilibrium").

Not that I expect to convince you. Your statements such as, "IMO it would have been better if the Kitzmiller v. Dover case had been decided by a radical godless blasphemous Clinton-appointed Democratic fundy-hating atheistic Darwinist," indicate your position quite clearly.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible, as a radical, godless, blasphemous, fundy-hating, atheistic Democrat.

(Actually, I'm a Constitutional Anarchist, but the US two-party system doesn't seem to have room for right-thinking individuals such as myself.)

Sunday, May 13, 2007 9:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Intellectually Honest Republican said...

(Actually, I'm a Constitutional Anarchist ...

Perhaps there's hope for you yet.

Sunday, May 13, 2007 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anthony Taylor said...
>>>>> To claim that Hitler based any eugenics program on evolution is like saying we base our assumption that the world is round on the Gemini program. <<<<<

I didn't say that Hitler based his eugenics program on evolution -- I am just saying that there is some historical connection between Darwin and Hitler, however tenuous.

>>>>> any hypothesis that pivots on God's existence cannot be science, no matter how many people claim otherwise. <<<<<<<

ID does not pivot on god's existence. IMO all ID says is that some things in nature -- particularly biology -- cannot be explained by what we consider to be natural causes. Some ID proponents describe ID as the idea that some things are better explained by intelligent causes than by natural causes.

>>>>>> It seems the plaintiff's opening brief refuted the defendant's position quite nicely. In effect, the defendants had no case. <<<<<<

As I said, if Jones thought that the arguments in the defendants' opening and answering post-trial briefs were so terrible, he had all the more reason to address those arguments in order to refute them. The opinion's ID-as-science section does not have a shred of evidence that Jones ever read the defendants' post-trial briefs or that he did any independent thinking on the ID-as-science question. And BTW, many people -- including myself -- think that Jones should not have ruled on the ID-as-science question at all.

>>>>> What the ID crowd refuses to admit is that there is no arguing over evolution as a process <<<<<<

Why admit something that isn't true? And BTW, ID is not the only non-religious criticism of evolution -- in fact, this blog has focused on non-ID criticisms of evolution -- my favorite such criticism is about co-evolution.

>>>>>> Your statements such as, "IMO it would have been better if the Kitzmiller v. Dover case had been decided by a radical godless blasphemous Clinton-appointed Democratic fundy-hating atheistic Darwinist," indicate your position quite clearly. <<<<<<<

That statement does not indicate my position. That statement was only my opinion that such a judge would likely have made a better decision than Jones made.

Cyberbully Kevin Vicklund, who takes advantage of my no-censorship policy while urging other bloggers to arbitrarily censor comments, said,
>>>>>IMO eugenics' contribution to Nazi anti-Semitism was to help create the idea that it was morally OK to get rid of undesirables. <<<

In The Descent of Man, Darwin quite deliberately said that it would be immoral to get rid of undesirables. If that was eugenics' contribution, then it was over Darwin's objections. <<<<<<

Either eugenicists were unaware of Darwin's objections or didn't care about them.

To me, nothing is more illustrative of the connection between Darwin and eugenics than the 1920 (?) merger of the Eugenics Record Office and the Station for Experimental Evolution to form the Carnegie Institution's Dept. of Genetics.

Darwin was no more personally responsible for Hitler than were Hitler's favorite composers, Wagner (an anti-Semite, BTW) and Beethoven.

Sunday, May 13, 2007 11:31:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home