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, November 20, 2009

The Darwinian death cult



The original picture is on a webpage of Harun Yahya. I was unable to copy the original picture because it contains an embedded video of a Hitler harangue.

==============================================

David Klinghoffer makes some good points in his article "Do Ideas Have Consequences Only When They're Associated with Radical Islam?," posted on Beliefnet and on Evolution News & Views. He says,

Why do so many writers who insist on emphasizing the consequences of radical Muslim belief tend to ignore the social consequences of other belief systems -- for example, Darwinism?

My question is prompted by reflections that are being published about the Fort Hood massacre. Darwinist blogger PZ Myers is among many voices to be raised in protest that shooter Nidal Hasan's Islamic beliefs are getting too little attention: "Unfortunately, there's [a] factor that seems to be getting minimized in the press accounts: [Hasan] was also a member of an Abrahamic death cult" (i.e., Islam).

Well, PZ, there is also a Darwinian death cult. Make no mistake -- Darwinism is a cult. The Darwinists claim that Darwinism is only science and so should not be blamed for any possible negative social or political consequences that it might have. But the Darwinists don't treat Darwinism as just a science -- they treat it as a worldview and a cult. There are Darwin Day celebrations, "I love Darwin" stickers and knick-knacks, Darwin sermons, Darwin parties, "Friend of Darwin" certificates, Darwin-Lincoln essay contests, even Darwin parodies of Christmas carols. There is the ridiculous, often-repeated notion that "evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" (as expressed in the new Florida state standards for science education). Darwinists are intolerant of those who disagree with them and censor criticisms of evolution. I should know about the censorship -- I have been banned from several Darwinist blogs, even though my comments on those blogs have been polite and serious. And you yourself, PZ, along with Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, and other Darwinists fit the image of the "mad scientist." Judge "Jackass" Jones is a "mad judge."

Klinghoffer also says,

PZ Myers is among those who can be relied on to dismiss every attempt to point out the social consequences of Darwin's famous idea. So too biologist and blogger Jerry Coyne, who mocks what is actually a pretty interesting article in the London Sunday Times by Dennis Sewell on the theme . . . . The piece is worth reading, even though Sewell singles me out for criticism:

The connection between Darwin's ideas and the Holocaust remains hugely controversial, not least because many creationists try to reduce it to a crude blame game. The writer David Klinghoffer, an advocate of intelligent design, which many regard as creationism in disguise, claims: "The key elements in the ideology that produced Auschwitz are moral relativism aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of human life, a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser races, that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews. All but the last of these ideas may be found in Darwin's writing."

But the last of those ideas, "that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the Jews," is an extraordinary leap and requires some explanation. Under Social Darwinism, "lesser" normally means physically and/or mentally defective, but the Nazis never claimed that the Jews as a group were physically and/or mentally defective. In fact, the first Jews targeted by the Nazis were highly mentally fit Jews -- Jewish managers in civil service and Jewish professionals. So I concluded that Social Darwinism's contribution to Nazi anti-Semitism was promotion of the idea that it is morally OK to get rid of undesirables.

Also, David Klinghoffer is unfortunately a hypocrite -- he condemns others for being closed-minded but is closed-minded himself. When I met him at a screening of the film "Darwin's Dilemma," I invited him to visit my blog but warned him that my blog contains holocaust revisionism. I warned him not because I wanted to change his opinions about the holocaust but because I did not want him to hold my holocaust revisionism against me. He then became very hostile, saying that holocaust revisionism is evil and that I had discredited myself and he refused to have any further discussions with me. My basic views about the holocaust are the following: (1) a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews, and (2) as stated above, Nazi anti-Semitism was not -- strictly speaking -- a Social Darwinist idea, because the Nazis targeted fit Jews as well as unfit Jews. There is nothing anti-'Semitic about those ideas.
.

Labels: ,

12 Comments:

Anonymous Orona said...

Do you celebrate Thanksgiving on Mars?

Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:50:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

And your point is -- ?

Sunday, November 22, 2009 11:58:00 AM  
Blogger gary said...

So evolution and the Holocaust are controversial subjects? Yes and no. The theory of evolution is controversial in society but not among scientists. The Holocaust is scarcely controversial except among the miniscule number of deniers, and not at all controversial among historians.

I am new to your blog so I can only say that I suspect that your evolution denial is religiously based and your holocaust denial politically based, that usually being the case.

Monday, November 23, 2009 5:25:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> The theory of evolution is controversial in society but not among scientists. <<<<<<

Wrong -- there are some legitimate, degreed (sometimes with a science Ph.D) scientists who question the theory of evolution -- examples are Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells. I think scientists in Islamic countries are especially prone to question evolution.

>>>>>> The Holocaust is scarcely controversial except among the miniscule number of deniers, and not at all controversial among historians. <<<<<<

Wrong again -- it is controversial among historians. There is a book about the controversy: Debating the Holocaust: a Look at Both Sides. My own main holocaust-revisionist argument is that a "systematic" Jewish holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews.

>>>>>> I am new to your blog so I can only say that I suspect that your evolution denial is religiously based and your holocaust denial politically based, that usually being the case. <<<<<<<

You have not addressed the issues -- you have only wasted my time and cluttered up this blog by crude stereotyping and ad hominem attacks.

Monday, November 23, 2009 7:13:00 PM  
Blogger gary said...

"no objective and reliable ways of identifying Jews and non-Jews."

No perfect method perhaps but everyone knows the Nazis made Jews wear yellow stars and put many of them in camps or ghettos. No doubt they were unable to round up all of them.

I'm aware of course that there are a handful of religiously-motivated scientists that dispute evolution. No reputable historians dispute the Holocaust however.

As for debating "both sides" there are two sides in the sense that there are two sides on the Moon landings, those who accept that we went to the moon and the Moon Hoax people. But really there is only one side, the side supported by the facts. There is strong evidence for evolution and the Holocaust is a fact of history.

Monday, November 23, 2009 11:31:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> No perfect method perhaps but everyone knows the Nazis made Jews wear yellow stars <<<<<<<

The "yellow stars" argument begs the question. The argument goes like this: Q: How did the Nazis know who the Jews were? A: The Jews wore yellow stars. Q: Why did these people wear yellow stars? A: The Nazis knew they were Jews and forced them to wear them.

How can Jews be positively identified when the term "Jew" cannot even be objectively defined? And in the holocaust, there was not only the problem of identifying Jews but there was also the problem of mistaking non-Jews for Jews -- yet we have not heard many complaints from non-Jews who believe that the Nazis mistook them for Jews.

>>>>>>>I'm aware of course that there are a handful of religiously-motivated scientists that dispute evolution. No reputable historians dispute the Holocaust however. <<<<<<<

I already warned you about stereotyping and ad hominem attacks, bozo. I am not going to publish any more of that crap here. If you want to see your stuff published, then address the issues.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:25:00 AM  
Blogger gary said...

I concede that there was no perfect way to "positively identify" Jews. But that in itself does not prove that the Nazis did not kill millions of Jews as they in fact did. Did the Nazis just randomly put yellow stars on people? That is a very poor argument.

If you claim that there are reputable historians who dispute the Holocaust, please name ONE.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:23:00 AM  
Anonymous Surnibl said...

> If you want to see your stuff published, then address the issues. <

Gary did address the issues and you attempted to answer with ad homonem attacks. If you can't answer, don't call attention to your impotence.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>Did the Nazis just randomly put yellow stars on people? That is a very poor argument. <<<<<<<

As I pointed out, the argument that the Nazis used the yellow stars to find the Jews is begging the question or a circular argument.

>>>>> If you claim that there are reputable historians who dispute the Holocaust, please name ONE. <<<<<<

Can you name any non-revisionist holocaust historians?

Sure, I could name some well-known revisionist holocaust historians, but since you claim that none are reputable, naming them would be pointless here.

>>>>>> Gary did address the issues and you attempted to answer with ad homonem attacks. <<<<<<

You are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears. The only issue he addressed was the yellow stars, and I answered directly.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 8:57:00 PM  
Blogger gary said...

The yellow star argument is lame. The Nazis must have had some way of identifying Jews in order to put the stars on them. No one, not even Holocaust deniers, would deny that the Nazis put millions of Jews in camps. They only question what happened to them after that, how many were killed and how they were killed.

By reputable historian I mean a actual Ph.D. in history from an accredited university. Someone who published in journals of history, not on the web or in denier publications. Holocaust denial is pseudo-science.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009 9:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think scientists in Islamic countries ...

There are no scientists in Islamic countries. How many Nobel Prizes have they won?

Tuesday, December 01, 2009 8:47:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

You stupid fathead -- your asinine comment is not worthy of a serious reply.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:36:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home