Oh no -- not another Dover reunion
Once again, the Dover plaintiffs team is gathering for a reunion to celebrate their Pyrrhic victory, the totally discredited Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, which has almost no value as precedent but which has aroused a tremendous amount of opposition to the dogmatic teaching of Darwinism. Fatheaded Ed Brayton announced,
. . . next weekend Wes Elsberry and I are making the trek to Pennsylvania for a reunion of the Dover trial participants -- attorneys, plaintiffs, experts and various people in the background.
I believe that Fatheaded Ed and "Ding" Elsberry did not even directly participate in the trial -- they just blogged about it.
"Friend of Darwin" certificates were handed out at a Dover reunion last year -- I wonder how that can be topped for sheer asininity.
Labels: Kitzmiller v. Dover (new #2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 10/05/2008 01:24:00 PM
22 Comments:
"I wonder how that can be topped for sheer asininity."
You'll figure out a way.
I'm not that dumb.
> I'm not that dumb. <
Facts not in evidence.
Ah, yes, the 'meritorious service to Darwinism' done by trying to ban and destroy, "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism". That 'meritorious service', you mean?
Does it make sense that Hitler would reject a scientific idea that was very consistent with Nazi social policies?
Larry, try again - "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism" is in the list of works to reject from the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, Die Bücherei. In addition, if you really think that Hitler carried out the Holocaust on the basis of 'Darwinism', then:
a) You have no idea what 'Darwinism' actually is (on at least two levels), and;
b) You have never read Mein Kampf.
>>>>>> "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism" is in the list of works to reject from the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, Die Bücherei <<<<<<
We're talking here about Social Darwinism, not "primitive" Darwinism.
We're talking here about Social Darwinism, not "primitive" Darwinism.
You've just argued that 'Social Darwinism' is sufficiently different from 'Darwinism' that someone can try to ban 'Darwinism', yet base his entire ideology on 'Social Darwinism'. This destroys your original point.
>>>>>> You've just argued that 'Social Darwinism' is sufficiently different from 'Darwinism' that someone can try to ban 'Darwinism', yet base his entire ideology on 'Social Darwinism'. This destroys your original point. <<<<<<
No -- Social Darwinism is descended from Darwinism. No Darwinism, no Social Darwinism. And I am not saying that they are necessarily different, even though the Nazis might have perceived them as different. Anyway, you Darwinists are always claiming that there is no conflict between science and religion, so why would Hitler have seen any conflict between Darwinism and Christianity? You say that Hitler supported one but not the other, and you have offered no rational explanation for that.
And I am not saying that Hitler's "entire ideology" was based on Social Darwinism -- but Social Darwinism certainly helped. The Anti-Defamation League said that Hitler did not "need" Darwinism, which I answered by quoting Shakespeare's King Lear: "O, reason not the need."
You hypocritical Darwinists are trying to relieve Darwin of any responsibility for Nazism while you promote Darwinism as a worldview, philosophy of life, and even a religion: you use "I love Darwin" paraphernalia (T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.), confer "Friend of Darwin" certificates, have parties celebrating Darwin's birthday, celebrate the Darwin-Lincoln birthdate coincidence nonsense, give Darwin Sunday sermons, censor criticism of Darwinism in the public schools, make the ridiculous claim that Darwinism is central to biology, etc..
I'm the Fittest, who's fitter than fit,
So I'm Leader who Leads, and no shit!
MY DARWIN says might
Determines what's right,
So I'll kill who I will, and that's it!
(Hitler's buddy and ally Benito, the first fascist dictator in Europe, wants to add the above comment. Mussolini was an ardent Darwinist. As historian RJB Bosworth writes in his biography Mussolini, (2002): "In his youth Mussolini had expressed his attraction to the thought of both Marx and Darwin. By 1922 it was the philosophy of the latter which had taken control of his mind." (p.171.) In 1922 Mussolini, who called himself "Il Duce" (The Leader), led a "March on Rome" and rose to power as dictator.-Jim Sherwood)
>>>>>>> Hitler's buddy and ally Benito, the first fascist dictator in Europe, wants to add the above comment. <<<<<<<
Some of Hitler's allies -- the Italians, the Japanese, and some Arabs -- were non-Aryans according to Nazi racial ideology (the Nazis idealized Nordic features, including blond hair, blue eyes, and a fair skin), and I have often wondered about that.
No -- Social Darwinism is descended from Darwinism. No Darwinism, no Social Darwinism. And I am not saying that they are necessarily different, even though the Nazis might have perceived them as different.
'Social Darwinism', at best, is 'descended' from an understanding of what you call 'Darwinism' that is flawed in multiple ways. In the case of Hitker, it is EXTREMELY difficult to believe that he would base his 'Social Darwinism', as you term it, on 'Darwinism', but still try to ban said 'Darwinism'.
Anyway, you Darwinists are always claiming that there is no conflict between science and religion, so why would Hitler have seen any conflict between Darwinism and Christianity?
Well, the historical documents we have suggests the possibility Hitler saw 'Darwinism' as being an attack on Christianity, so tried to ban it.
And I am not saying that Hitler's "entire ideology" was based on Social Darwinism -- but Social Darwinism certainly helped.
...and you have yet to provide any sort of solid evidence of your assertion of this.
The Anti-Defamation League said that Hitler did not "need" Darwinism, which I answered by quoting Shakespeare's King Lear: "O, reason not the need."
And, if you've ever actually read/seen King Lear, and therefore know what that quote means, makes utterly no sense whatsoever.
You hypocritical Darwinists are trying to relieve Darwin of any responsibility for Nazism while you promote Darwinism as a worldview, philosophy of life, and even a religion
No, us 'Darwinists' promote it on a scientific basis, and try to 'relieve' Darwin's 'responsibility' for Nazism because the supposed link between Darwin and Hitler is nothing more than the latest trend in creationist propoganda and outright lies. When you actually examine what Darwin wrote, plus the evidence left by the Nazi regime, you see the twin facts that the Nazis actually tried to eradicate 'Darwinism' and that Darwin quite specifically made the point, several times, that Man was all one species, with the differences between the various races being superficial, at best. Indeed, he even points out that the fact that each racial grouping gradiates into each other so easily and so it is actually very difficult to give an accurate definition of what, exactly, a race of man is, to such a degree that, 'there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke'. This allows him to conclude, 'This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.'
>>>>>it is EXTREMELY difficult to believe that he would base his 'Social Darwinism', as you term it, on 'Darwinism' <<<<<
I never said that he based his Social Darwinism on biological Darwinism.
>>>>>>And I am not saying that Hitler's "entire ideology" was based on Social Darwinism -- but Social Darwinism certainly helped.
...and you have yet to provide any sort of solid evidence of your assertion of this. <<<<<<<
See the post-label group "Darwin-to-Hitler" in the sidebar of the home page.
>>>>>>The Anti-Defamation League said that Hitler did not "need" Darwinism, which I answered by quoting Shakespeare's King Lear: "O, reason not the need."
And, if you've ever actually read/seen King Lear, and therefore know what that quote means, makes utterly no sense whatsoever. <<<<<<<<
I studied King Lear in college, doofus. How could I come up with the quote if I were not familiar with the play. Anyway, the quote was intended to be somewhat ironic -- you were just too dense to see that. You trolls also analyze cartoons to death.
>>>>>>> Darwin quite specifically made the point, several times, that Man was all one species, with the differences between the various races being superficial, at best. <<<<<<<
Didn't Darwin say that the superior races would someday eliminate the inferior races?
> So you are saying that I have not proven that I am dumb enough to come with an idea that is dumber than the "Friend of Darwin" certificates. <
No. I am saying what I said. Your reading comprehension problems could possibly be helped with adult learning classes if you were to come out of your cave.
Voice in the Urbanness barfed:
>>>>>>> So you are saying that I have not proven that I am dumb enough to come with an idea that is dumber than the "Friend of Darwin" certificates. <
No. I am saying what I said.<<<<<<
Let's go over this again, doofus:
I said: I'm not that dumb.
You said: Facts not in evidence.
I agree -- there are no facts that are evidence that I am dumb enough to come up with an idea dumber than the "Friend of Darwin" certificates.
Let's go over this again, dunghill:
You said: I am not that dumb.
I said: Facts not in evidence.
Those of us who can read know that I am observing that it has not been proven that you are not that dumb. Then you jumped in to prove that you are.
I am always kicking Larry's butt. That's why he doesn't like me.
I never said that he based his Social Darwinism on biological Darwinism.
So you're simultaneously trying to argue there is a Darwin-to-Hitler link, but you also say that Hitler did not base anything on Darwin's work. You do realise that is a direct contradiction?
See the post-label group "Darwin-to-Hitler" in the sidebar of the home page.
'Bibliography bluffing', Larry? However, as I said, you have yet to provide any solid evidence of your assertion - even in those blog posts.
I studied King Lear in college, doofus. How could I come up with the quote if I were not familiar with the play.
The same way quite a few people can come up with various Shakespeare quotes, even when they have never read a word of Shakespeare - they heard other people using them.
Anyway, the quote was intended to be somewhat ironic
Unless you are using your own unique meaning of the word 'ironic', even that makes no sense. However, as I recall, at the point in the play where this quote comes from, King Lear was quite deep in his madness, so maybe it's more appropriate than I first thought.
Didn't Darwin say that the superior races would someday eliminate the inferior races?
Well:
a) Not by a concerted effort, such as Hitler's Holocaust, and;
b) As my conveniently omitted quotes indicate, along with many others I could provide, Darwin considered Man to be all one race, when using the word in that context.
I'M the Leader! I say, you're a hick
If you think that MY DARWIN's not slick!
For he held that life rose
By death. That shows
That butchery should be my kick!
(Damn! As if Mussolini, an ardent fan of Darwin, wasn't bad enough, here comes another Darwin-influenced "Leader": Mussolini's fascist ally, der Fuehrer himself. Noted by Jim Sherwood.)
It's so much fun to watch the Darwinists squirm whenever I bring up the Darwin-to-Hitler stuff -- because they know it's all true.
It's so much fun to watch the Darwinists squirm whenever I bring up the Darwin-to-Hitler stuff -- because they know it's all true.
No, Larry, it's been shown, again and again and again, that it's the biggest bunch of bullshit ever to come from the creationist camp - and that is quite a feat. If you fail to see that fact, it only serves as further evidence of your severe lack of intellectual prowess.
To post or not to post: that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The brazen hooting of outrageous trolls,
Or to take arms against a sea of fools
And by opposing, crush them? Our Larry kicks
The asses of the "Darwins," we hear them scream,
As falling from their perches, in ignorance,
They cry for "Chuck," and Chuck is nowhere seen,
And ID comes to drive them from the scene.
To post or not to post: that is the question.
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The brazen hooting of outrageous trolls,
Or to take arms against a sea of fools
And by opposing, crush them? Our Larry kicks
The asses of the "Darwins," we hear them scream,
As falling from their perches, in ignorance,
They cry for "Chuck," and Chuck is nowhere seen,
And ID comes to drive them from the scene.
And your problem, Jim, is that saying something meaningless in iambic pentameter doesn't actually prove anything, or serve as any kind of riposte.
Post a Comment
<< Home