Americans Agree With Darwin… Evolution Should Be Scrutinized

Filed under News, Philosophy & Science on February 14th, 2009 by M. French

A recent Zogby Poll asked people their thoughts on teaching evolution in schools, below are the results of some key questions:

4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?

Strongly agree 54% Agree 80%
Somewhat agree 26
Somewhat disagree 6 Disagree 17
Strongly disagree 11
Not sure 4

5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution, “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?

Strongly agree 45% Agree 76%
Somewhat agree 31
Somewhat disagree 6 Disagree 18
Strongly disagree 12
Not sure 5

6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the
scientific evidence that supports it.

Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

Statement A 14%
Statement B 78
Neither 5
Other/Not sure 2

Whether or not you believe macro-evolution occurred and was the driving force in bringing about man, there is no intellectually responsible reason for withholding scientifically valid data regarding such an important question. The American public understands this, why doesn’t the teaching establishment? Darwin was right… “…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”



Spread the Word:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter

Tags: , , , , ,


Possibly Related Posts:

132 comments
Leave a comment »

  1. I’m almost certain this will spark off some discussion. Interesting stuff though. 

    I’ve always thought it weird that so many people will champion the cause of free speech and then slate someone who exercises that freedom in a way contrary to them. Bizarre point of view that.

    He knocks,
    Marc

  2. Hey Marc,

    What’s the attitude towards teaching Evolution in Europe? Any different from the U.S.?

  3. Couldn’t give you any definitive figures, but I would imagine that due to the general opinion of most western european countries towards religion (Again, I couldn’t give any figures), I should think the figures would be more accurate reversed and then some i.e No teaching of anything except Darwin would be ‘rational.’

    In France you wouldn’t be allowed to offer a creation point of view because of the secularisation of society by law. In Germany it changes in every Bundesstaat (State) because of the demographic (High number of practicing catholics in the south east). It would be an interesting study I’m sure. In Britain it’s a lot more relaxed – there’s no law against teaching creationism and people are a lot more open to a balanced argument.

    But, as I said before, I really can’t offer any definitive answers. These are assumptions… I don’t ever remember being taught creationism at school (Britain).

    Marc

  4. What’s interesting about this survey though, is that it’s not even about teaching creationism, it’s only about presenting scientific data that is not in evolution’s favor.

    Interesting insight into mainland Europe. As I’ve heard so many times from people of all ideologies, if you want to see what America will look like in 10-20 years, just look at mainland Western Europe, I have heard good things about the spiritual state of Britain though.

  5. You’re probably right, although I’m sure a lot of European people would say the opposite. 

    I’m not particularly fond of the term, ‘Spirit of Jezebel’ but if anyone asked me what that is like I would tell them they should visit Berlin. This is a country that really needs a spiritual revolution. Thankfully there are many people who are faithful even in the same way that God had told Elijah(or Elisha) that he still had faithful in Israel. 

    That God would move in my continent. 

  6. Let’s debate the Bible.  Is it literal or metaphorical?  That’s an interesting question that should be debated in public schools.  Students have the capacity to participate in that debate.  Most people don’t take the Bible literally.  Theories of inerrancy should be subject to debate.

    On the other hand, if scientific theory should be debated, we might as well debate mathematics, grammar or the facts of history.  Scientists have used the theory of natural selection for 150 years and every single experimental result has validated the theory.  None have invalidated it.  The experiments have become relatively sophisticated, delving into genetic markers, populations and adaptations.  Typical junior high and high school students don’t have the scientific skills to participate in those debates.  Are we to question every standard of truth that the majority doesn’t understand, or doesn’t like?

  7. Jonathan,

    Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.  You said:

    Let’s debate the Bible. Is it literal or metaphorical? That’s an interesting question that should be debated in public schools. Students have the capacity to participate in that debate. Most people don’t take the Bible literally. Theories of inerrancy should be subject to debate.

    This is certainly an intriguing idea. Are you actually advocating this? Or trying to prove a point?

    On the other hand, if scientific theory should be debated, we might as well debate mathematics, grammar or the facts of history. Scientists have used the theory of natural selection for 150 years and every single experimental result has validated the theory. None have invalidated it. The experiments have become relatively sophisticated, delving into genetic markers, populations and adaptations. Typical junior high and high school students don’t have the scientific skills to participate in those debates. Are we to question every standard of truth that the majority doesn’t understand, or doesn’t like?

    With regard to grammar and mathematics, we are not talking about some debatable fact or theory, we are talking about commonly held rules, languages, and laws. Is 2 +2 really 4 in any ultimate, objective, universal sense? Perhaps that question is of interest to some people (philosophers with too much time on their hands mostly), but we should teach it as fact because we as a human race have agreed that it is so, and find understanding mathematics to be incredibly helpful to people in all walks of life. Grammar and language is taught for similar reasons.

    Whether or not we should debate the facts of history is a question more along the lines of debating macro-evolution, in fact, to debate evolution on the level we’re talking about (rather than debating micro-evolution and the concept of genetic variation developing desirable traits over time) IS to debate the facts of history, though of course our method of understanding that history isn’t through digging through documents or digging up pottery, but through digging up fossils.

    One big difference however as to why we SHOULD debate macro-evolution as opposed to, say, whether or not Washington really crossed the Delaware, is simply that the question of how man and all life on earth came into being is of infinite importance, whereas this historical fact is of (quite) limited importance. 

    With regard to your comment about no experiments invalidating the theory, let’s say that this statement is true, are we to take from this that because we haven’t invalidated it through current experiment that therefore, it should be taken as unquestioned fact, even though there are very good reasons to take it into question?

    With regard to your question “Are we to question every standard of truth that the majority doesn’t understand, or doesn’t like?” Are you actually calling the theory that man and all life on earth came into being from a single celled organism through macro-evolution a “standard of truth”?  On what basis?   This document contains a list of people that have signed a statement saying simply: ” We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Do you really think that all these professors of Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, etc…  “don’t understand” the theory or simply “don’t like” this theory to such an extent that they would risk their professional careers to sign this statement?

  8. Marcus,

    Did you know that there more evolutionary biologists named Steve than there are signers of the Discovery Institute document?  There is a Nova documentary called “Judgement Day” which condenses the Dover Pennsylvania creationism trial down to one entertaining hour.  Please look it up and watch it.  It does a better job than I at answering your questions about macro evolution, intermediate forms and irreducible design.  You’ll find that the outocme of the case for creationism was rather humiliating.  Judge Jones, a conservative judge appointed by former President George W. Bush found that ID is not science and that the proponents of ID were motivated by a desire teach religion in science class.

    I was serious about debating the Bible in public schools.  I think that scriptural literacy should be a standard of learning. Students should learn the history of the Bible: how it has been used by people for good and evil purposes; to oppress people and to fight for justice; to censor science and to marvel at the majesty of creation.

  9. Jonathan,

    Are you entirely confident that the Judgment Day documentary of which you speak is not in itself biased? And do you really know where Judge Jones got his information from? You might find the answers englightening.

  10. Just want to give my five cents. 

    There are actually lots of scientists who are not sure about evolution or are against it. Personally, I accept what the Bible says without much question because I have no reason to doubt it in this way. I have never looked into what the arguments for or against are and don’t claim to understand them. It’s just not my realm. 

    I do think that it is good not to make such bold statements as: 

    On the other hand, if scientific theory should be debated, we might as well debate mathematics, grammar or the facts of history.  Scientists have used the theory of natural selection for 150 years and every single experimental result has validated the theory.  None have invalidated it.

    Firstly, I would like to know whether or not you have studied ‘every single experimental result.’ Were they ALL conclusive? What about anomalies? As I understand it, scientific data regularly has anomalies removed and filtered. 

    Secondly, I regularly debate Grammar and the facts of History. That is my area. It really is not conclusive. 

    Additionally, and I am not neglecting the right of an individual to make a decision (informed or uninformed), could it be, that you do not know enough to make an absolute statement? To use an old example (and one that I realise you may not be debating,) 

    In order to say that ‘There is no God’ you have to have searched everywhere in the galaxy, including the possibility that a god or God is outside of time and space, and still not find any gods or God. 

    However, to say that there may be a God requires you to have only found one shred of evidence (or even less). 

    Maybe think about what you’re saying a little bit more? And realise that emotional responses (the ones where your heart is pumping blood round your body faster than normal as you type) do not usually sit well with others or make much sense. 

  11. The american public understands what exactly? Science isn’t a popularity poll, it’s based on evidence, testing theories against predictions. The poll simply shows how ignorant people are.

    The reason why evolution isn’t and will not be debated is because there is absolutely nothing to debate. Evolution is fact, the theory has been tested, through the DNA record, the fossil record, anthropology, geological record - it still meets the predictions, and no attempt by any religious organisation has come anywhere near close to falsifying it. (‘microevolution’?? -  a meaningless term)

    As for the list of dissenters from the Discovery Institute, it does not surprise me that they can rustle up 700 or so scientists from around the world, who clearly compartmentalize their beliefs. How many million scientists are there on out planet, I wonder…. (It must also be remembered, in the UK, an attempt was made in 2007 to blow up Glasgow Airport, by a cell of highly intelligent doctors: they knew in intricate detail the molecular structure of the limbs they wanted to sever, in the name of their religious belief. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean they are giong to apply rational thought in all areas of their lives. Thus the list is not impressive.) It is worth asking these people, what their religious beliefs are, as well.

    Moreover, there is not one scrap of evidence for Creation. It seems the creationist’s whole premise is ‘We don’t know the answer, therefore ‘God’ did it.’ Science never makes such arrogant claims.

    The ID movement has had zero success in getting its ‘findings’ past any review panel of any reputable scientific journal, which is why it relies on forcing it into schools with the help of ill-educated legislators with a religious agenda.

  12. Dr. Brown,

    The “Judgement Day” documentary was written and produced by humans.  Of course it was touched by human bias.  We do the best we can, but we are not God.  IMHO, the most important question answered by the documentary was:

    <blockquote>Was this case a legitimate difference of opinion between two reputable groups, or was it a stunt pulled by corrupt local school board members with the help of corrupt national organizations?</blockquote>

    The evidence is pretty powerful that it was the latter: the check, the on-air statements; the textbook manuscripts; the willful ignorance of Discovery Institute scientists…

    The creationists reminded me of the Romans from Paul’s letter.  They were prideful, arrogant, self-indulgant and dishonest.  There really is no defense for their behavior.  Please watch the documentary and report back.

  13. Marc Thomas,

    Science works.  If an experiment disproves a theory, the science no longer works and the theory is either disproved, or its scope is limited.  That’s what enables me to make such a “bold statement” which was actually an act of faith.  If there is a peer reviewed experiment  that invalidates evolution, it would be pretty difficult to cover it up as it would require a cover up by the peers and all the scientist who read their reviews.  The covered-up experiment will eventually make its way out into the light and there will be a scandal.  Considering that there are 700 or so odd scientists affiliated with the Discovery Institute trying their best to invalidate natural selection (and they and their creationist predecessors have been for the last 150 years), the odds of a definitive refutation coming to light are pretty high.  We saw the best that the Discovery Institute had to offer in the Dover case, and it wasn’t very good.

    I’m glad that you debate grammar and the facts of history.  If you taught eighth grade grammar would you ask your students to debate correct punctuation, and usage?  Would you debate what is a noun and what is a verb?  If you taught American history would you ask your students to bring their own facts to class to debate the facts you present?

  14. Jonathan,

    In all candor, it’s at this point that you expose a very serious flaw in your presentation, namely, accusing those who differ with your position of engaging in knowingly suppressing the truth. It appears that there are other sides of the story of which you know not, and your confident assertion that there is nothing to intelligent design theory (which, of course, is embraced by non-religious scientists too) forces you to judge both the scholarship and motives of its proponents. This is a decidedly UNscientific approach, sad to say.

    I suggest that you (and others interested in this particular thread) check out: http://www.discovery.org/a/4300 and http://www.discovery.org/a/2879 as a good starting point.

  15. AdrianT,

    Wow, that’s quite a bit of propaganda you throw out there.  Due to time constraints, I’ll just clarify why I differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution for now, since you declare that microevolution is “a meaningless term”.

    I use these terms for simplicity’s sake, rather than in a scientifically technical way, to demonstrate the point that one may wholeheartedly agree with the point that a species may change and obtain desirable traits through genetic mutation and natural selection (such as, for instance, the peppered moth),  without agreeing that all life on earth came into being through genetic mutation and natural selection ALONE. 

    Make sense?

  16. Dr. Brown,

    Judge Jones heard the case and ruled on the evidence.  You can read the ruling here. Here are excerpts:

    The concept of intelligent design (hereinafter “ID”), in its current form, came into existence after the Edwards case was decided in 1987. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.

    Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.”

    Dramatic evidence of ID’s religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the “Wedge Document.” The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute’s Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter “CRSC”), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM’s goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM’s “Governing Goals” are to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”

    As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. … The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.

    neither Buckingham nor Bonsell provided any information about Buckingham’s involvement in the donation or about a collection he took at his church. (30:50-56 (Buckingham); 33:31-35 (Bonsell) (emphasis added)). Buckingham actually made a plea for donations to purchase Pandas at his church, the Harmony Grove Community Church, on a Sunday before services and a total of $850 was collected as a result. (30:38-40 (Buckingham)). As proof of such donation amount, Plaintiffs introduced into evidence a check in the amount of $850 indorsed to Donald Bonsell, Alan Bonsell’s father, drawn on Buckingham’s account jointly held with his wife, with the notation “Of Pandas and People” appearing on the check. (P-80; 30:46-47 (Buckingham)). Alan Bonsell gave the money to his father who purchased the books.

    The ruling continues for 139 pages. The documentary is an accurate portrayal of the evidence, arguments and motivations of the defendants revealed during the trial.

  17. AdrianT is spot on to say that “Just because someone is a scientist does not mean they are going to apply rational thought in all areas of their lives.” This explains how it is that many scientists are so dogmatic about promoting evolution. Evolutionists have a religious worldview too and it’s called philosophical naturalism. This means they have a bias against the possibility that anything could have a supernatural origin. It means that they will always interpret the evidence of the natural world within their naturalistic paradigm even when so much of the evidence clearly defies a naturalistic explanation. Such people need to follow the lead of Anthony Flew who was once one of the world’s leading atheists but has now converted to deism due to the evidence from microbiology that clearly demonstrates the need for an intelligence behind the creation of life.

  18. Well said, Ewan!

  19. A primary source for Intelligent Design is found at http://www.reasons.org
    Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Fazale Rana are supremely intelligent, educated,
    inspired leaders. Their books, their Message of the Month, their videos
    and their lectures are superior. Also Dr. Rana has a site at http://www.cellsdesign.com

  20. Jonathan,

    You seem to have missed the entire point of the posts that I cited, which exposed the fact that Judge Jones hardly wrote the verdict himself. Have you taken the time to carefully research the sources and links I sent?

  21. Alex,

    I agree, reasons.org is a great resource.

  22. Micro-, macro- evolution: these terms are being abused, as if to imply that there are two types of evolution at work.* The means by which evolutionary changes occur are still exactly the same, whether it happens in a laboratory, within a human lifetime or over a period of eons. As for the comment that proponents of evolution are ‘dogmatic’ – well, evolution is based on real hard evidence: DNA sequences, millions of fossils and transitional forms found exactly where one would expect them to be found. The theory is indeed scrutinized, with every new find. You’re welcome to bring the theory crashing down tomorrow if your own theory can be tested. And if you do, then we simply open up a new avenue of science.
     
    It is amusing that those who are determined to distort the fact of evolution, cannot provide one shred of evidence for any intelligent designer – not to mention one capable of hearing prayers, forgiving sins, disapproving of sex lives, and advising George Bush when to invade Iraq etc.  Yet even so, they claim to know what happened and who was responsible!!  Now that impossible claim sounds dogmatic.
     
    I am not impressed with reasons.org (leaving aside the nonsense about the time between ‘Adam’ and ‘Noah’;) – it falls back on the old canard of statistical improbability of living things and the perfect design of the universe.
     
    The improbability argument is flawed for two reasons. First, out of all the collapsed stars, failed galaxies, the trillions of uninhabitable planets, here we are in one tiny corner of an otherwise lifeless solar system. And for the vast majority of that time, only the most basic life was possible. But furthermore, about 99% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. Some designer, indeed.
     
    The other reason why such an argument is not satisfactory, is that a designer capable of creating such complexity and harmony has to be at least as complex. In invoking the deity, you just push same problem of ‘creation’ one stage further back: who designed the creator?
     
    * as explained by K Padian during the  Dover trial, http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html

  23. Dr. Brown,

    Yes, I studied your links, but saw no refutation of the three most powerful points of the decision:

    1. Dr. Behe’s testimony that there is no evidence for the evolution of the modern immune system.  The mountain of counter evidence showed that either Behe was woefully uninformed or he has been purposefully misinforming the majority of Americans who believe the DI’s carefully crafted legalistic argument.

    2. The re-writing of the manuscript of “Pandas”

    3. The public statements by School Board members and the origin of the payment for “Pandas” book.

    The above points provide very compelling evidence outside of the scope of the DI’s claim that the ACLU wrote 90% of the portion of the ruling that dealt with ID.  As far as the question of whether or not ID is science, it only takes a rudimentary understanding of science to realize that ID is not science.  See this article written by a local church.  If you don’t read the article, I’ll summarize:

    The strength of a theory is:

    That which it explains divided by That which it needs to assume in order to do the explaining. 

    By that measure, evolution explains the diverse complexity of all life and only assumes that non-random survival is the mechanism.  On the other hand, ID places “An unexplained intelligence big enough to design everything” in the denominator.  That makes ID an infinitely weak theory.

  24. Regarding the “ID is not science” statements, I thought this article from Hugh Ross may be of interest:

    The public debate about teaching intelligent design has exposed widespread confusion both inside and outside the church about how the scientific enterprise operates. One of the most frequent complaints scientists make about the Intelligent Design movement is that their brand of intelligent design is not testable, falsifiable, or predictive. This brand lacks these features, scientists explain, because there is no model explaining the nature of the intelligent design. The problem with these complaints is that the general public has little comprehension of what really makes up a scientific model or why it is so important for a model to be testable, falsifiable, and predictive.

    One illustration of the public’s confusion is a question I got after one of our outreach events. A man heard me use the term model in my response to another question. He wanted to know who was the model and whether or not I had a picture of her!

    In the interest of clarifying the intelligent design debate, let me offer a bare bones description of what makes up a scientific model:

    In science, the term “model” refers to the schematic description of a system (or set of phenomena) that accounts for its observed and inferred features as well as its origin and complete history. A model is much more than a mere idea, inference, method, hypothesis, or rudimentary theory. It’s a scenario that offers reasonable explanations for the entire scope or history (origin to ending) of a particular system in nature, as well as for its relationship to other phenomena.

    Using a model approach supplies researchers with enough detail to assist in further study. It offers explanations for how, when, where, why, and in what order a phenomenon takes place. It anticipates or predicts discoveries that could either verify or falsify the model’s explanations. The best models also yield specific suggestions for how near-future research may help improve understanding of the systems or phenomena they attempt to explain.

    Since no scientist knows everything about any particular system, no scientific model can offer a perfect explanation. Scientific understanding advances, however, as different scientific models compete with one another. The model that offers the best explanation for a particular set of phenomena and that is most successful in predicting future scientific discoveries is judged to be closest to offering a truthful description. The scientific community retains such a model for further development and refinement. Models that fail to provide a satisfactory explanation and especially fail to predict future scientific discoveries are rejected.

    Scientists will retain a failed model, however, if there is no superior model to take its place. This is why it’s typically fruitless for Christians to point out all the flaws and failures in the evolutionists’ explanation for the origin and history of life. Most evolutionists are already aware of the shortcomings in their model. Nevertheless, they will not abandon the model until they first see a superior model to take its place. It’s for this reason that the Reasons To Believe scholar team refrains from “evolution bashing” and instead focuses its efforts on developing a positive case for biblical creation through a detailed, comprehensive, and predictive scientific model. My new book, Creation as Science, summarizes our testable creation model and includes an appendix (F) where I make 90 predictions of what scientists will discover in their future research and contrast our predictions with those arising from three other creation/evolution models.

    The key thing to take away from this is that in order for ID to be called “science”, it needs to have a TESTABLE MODEL. 

    Jonathan, if proponents of ID put forth a testable scientific model for peer review, rather than just “bashing evolution,” would you give it more of a hearing?

  25. Marcus,

    The model for evolution is that “non-random survival” is the mechanism that yields the diversity and complexity of life.  Darwin published that model 150 years ago and it still stands.  What’s ID’s model?

  26. I don’t know what the IDer’s model/explanation/description of the diversity of life is, but this is the biblical creationist model. The darwinist model of natural selection working upon mutations doesn’t cut it for this reason.

  27. Jonathan,

    Excellent question! I’ll be diving more into that question in future articles here.

    On a completely unrelated topic.  I see that your blog deals with GLBT issues.  I saw a lecture last night put on by Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out.  What are your thoughts on him?

  28. Jonathan,

    Thanks for your detailed response. I appreciate it!

    Can we agree on one thing for the moment, namely, that your initial point — the one that drew me into this discussion, because I am not a scientist — that there was weight to Judge Jones’ lengthy discussion is at the least debatable (and, in my mind, dismissable)?

  29. My previous comment contained hyperlinks but since they don’t appear underscored until the cursor is placed over them (at least not on my system), they are not immediately apparent.

  30. Dr. Brown,

    Dismissible?  That’s a pretty strong statement.  To dismiss the ruling is to dismiss all the evidence presented at trial and to excuse the sinful behavior of the the school board members who lied to the community and perjured themselves.  A Christian who takes sin seriously wouldn’t dismiss bad behavior so flippantly.

    Marcus,
    If your question wasn’t off topic, I’d answer it.  Thanks for visiting Equality Loudoun.  Your welcome to comment on the topic of equality there.  I wrote a post about ‘ex-gay’ Randy Thomas.  That post may be a better forum for questions about Wayne Besen.

  31. Jonathan,

    Please re-read my remarks. I am simply asking you if you will at least agree that putting weight on the Judge’s lengthy decision (which, again, was the initial point I challenged) is at the least debatable and, in my mind, dismissible, seeing that he seems to have lifted his words from the writings on a clearly activist, non-scientific organization.

  32. Dr. Brown,

    I appreciate your concerns and would ask you and your readers to decide for themselves, not based on their own preconceptions, but on the evidence.  Judge Jones has written and spoken about the ruling.  After the trial, he spent six weeks studying the science and the philosophy of science.  If he included language written by others in his ruling, it is because he agreed with that language after a long and thoughtful review, not because of a particular ideological bias.  Judge Jones must have been convinced that the included language represented the truth.  Please remember that Judge Jones is a conservative judge who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

    The Kitzmiller v Dover ruling considered three points:

    1. What is science?
    2. What motivated the school board members to introduce ID/Creationism?  Was it a scholastic motivation?  Did it represent the best academic interests of the student body?
    3. Is ID actually creationism/religion in disguise?

    From what I read, the only portion of the ruling that would have been reused would be the portion dealing with the philosophy of science, and frankly, we would expect judges to reuse texts.  Their job is not to be philosophers but to discern right from wrong and fact from fiction (or in the case of the Dover school board and the Discovery Institute, intentional deception).

    You may also wish to consider that the founder if ID is Phillip Johnson, an activist law professor, not a scientist.

  33. Jonathan,

    I’ll make sure to post on your site soon.

  34. Jonathan,

    Thanks for your response. I’ll look into the points you make ASAP, but it might not be right away because of some pressing projects. I do appreciate the clarity with which you’ve presented your arguments, and since my primary training is not scientific, I need to carefully research both sides of each point raised in order to draw conclusions for myself.

    Perhaps someone I know from the Discovery Institute might care to send some thoughts our way here too.

  35. Marcus French: “Do you really think that all these professors of Biology, Chemistry, Biochemistry, etc…  “don’t understand” the theory or simply “don’t like” this theory to such an extent that they would risk their professional careers to sign this statement?”

    Yes. And they are risking nothing as long as they keep supporting each other and finding teaching positions at religion-based “schools”.

  36. Jonathan,

    I wish I had more time to engage in discussion here — again, I appreciate you taking the time to interact thus far — but for the moment, I would encourage you to read Traipsing into Evolution, which addresses the salient problems with Judge Jones ruling. As for the larger claim that ID is not science — certainly not something to be decided by a court of law! —  I believe it is adequately addressed in Michael Behe’s article (which appears in the book as well) found here: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=697.

    I do hope that, at some point in the future, I’ll be able to engage this subject in more depth, but that time is not now.

  37. Jonathan,

    One more note: I’m still not clear how the references previously provided, such as http://www.discovery.org/a/3135#title3 do not explicitly answer your question about Pandas — to cite one case in point — making me wonder if you’re truly attempting to follow the evidence in an impartial way, or if you are predisposed against ID. See further http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=648 (with specific reference to the Pandas issue).

  38. It’s not so much a question of whether ID is science or not, it’s a question of whether evolution is science or not. Both theories involve scientific investigation, but both also necessarily involve making philosophical assumptions in regard to how the evidence is interpreted.

    For an explanation of methodological naturalism and how it is misused by evolutionists to claim that ID or Creationism is not scientific, see this.

  39. Imperical science, (repeatable, measurable, observable) is aiming at truth and answers are not illegal.  The rules change when in comes to origins.  They even say that if you enter supernatural explainations that it is no longer science.  However this is atheism (they tone it down and call it naturalism).  Excuse me, if I don’t think atheism and truth are the same! Sounds a lot like the big, bad wolf of atheistic humanism in grandma’s bed posing as grandma (science).  Is 2 plus 2 equals 3 1/2 because 4 is illegal good math?

  40. “Empirical” science (repeatable, measurable, observable) automatically excludes your “supernatural explanations” because those are NOT science of any sort. Magical, supernatural, whatever, but NOT science precisely because such things are NOT “repeatable, measurable, observable.” Atheism is not the same as naturalism, regardless of your personal opinion about either. Realism is closer to actual truth than any magical, supernatural, unrepeatable, unmeasurable, unobservable nonsense like ID. Atheism and humanism are not the same thing either. “Illegal good math”? What the heck are you on about?

  41. [...] the recent weeks and taken part in some interesting debate about the teaching of darwinism over at Voice of Revolution. Of course, there’s only so many arguments to give in support or argument of [...]

  42. Allan,

    You speak of “unobservable nonsense like ID,” which would suggest you know very little about how ID works and draws its conclusions. May I ask you which academic ID books you have read through carefully?  You may differ with conclusions, but to call it “unobservable nonsense” is to disqualify the credibility of your position from the outset.

  43. Allan is exactly right to say that empirical science involves that which is “repeatable, measurable, observable”. Unfortunately for Allan and other atheists, this means that evolution is unable to be proven using empirical science because evolution is neither repeatable, measurable or observable.  See here and here.

  44. “On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. – creation.com”

    You know that the ID people can’t even agree in which eon of time we exist – so how is the scientific community that doesn’t believe in the Bible as science going to accept any theory on the origin of life on the planet that doesn’t follow that same rules of evidence.

    Now it seems obvious that Evolution as taught in the public has become a protected class of thought, not to be criticized. Real science should welcome thoughtful critique and show with tests, proofs, and logic that the critique is false or that the theory itself is false. If the theory does not fit the evidence then it must be modified to fit the evidence or be replaced with something better.

    I think if Darwin had heard of a competing idea to evolution in his day, such as, “The Theory of Spontaneous Equilibrium”, he would have fallen on the floor and rolled around laughing his head off, but what was once laughable is now an accepted truth. A truth that is not to be questioned – at least not by anyone not on the approved list of who are real scientist.

  45. “You know that the ID people can’t even agree in which eon of time we exist – so how is the scientific community that doesn’t believe in the Bible as science going to accept any theory on the origin of life on the planet that doesn’t follow that same rules of evidence.

    I’m not sure what you’re asking here, but the issue is not that evolutionists and creationists follow different “rules of evidence.” The difference is not in the evidence but in the assumptions made when interpreting that evidence.

    It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.
    Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.
    Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote:
    “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
    So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data.

    From chapter 1, Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias of Refuting Evolution.

  46. If Intelligent Design magic were really science then why doesn’t even one CHRISTIAN college or university teach this magic as science? Why does every Christian college and university with a science department teach evolution, common descent, Big Bang cosmology and all the rest of science Bible believers think is flawed because it diesgrees with their flat immovable earth holy book.? If a professor in a Christian college even brings this stupid subject up (like theology ID isn’t even a subject) they will be denied tenure. Believing in Intlligent Design is no different than belieiving in a flat immoveable earth orbited by the sun. After all the ID hoax is based squarely on the Bible’s scientific inaccuracies and nothing else. ID is NOR sciene it is Christian religious dogma and nonsense.

  47. Bernie,

    Thanks for your input, you said:

    Why does every Christian college and university with a science department teach evolution, common descent, Big Bang cosmology and all the rest of science Bible believers think is flawed because it diesgrees with their flat immovable earth holy book.

    Could you provide your source for this information?  Thanks! 

  48. Marcus,
    An online “college” in Texas that taught creationism wanted to be able to give out teaching degrees. They were declined. Cedarville and Liberty University aside could you provide a list of Christian colleges and universities that do not teach evolution, common descent and Big bang cosmology? The whole idea that there is some kind of biology being taught other than evolutionary biology is ridiculous. We have only to look at history to see what happens when political ideology interferes with science.

    Contrary to creationist propaganda Stalinist Russia rejected Darwinian evolution as a bourgeois Western philosophy and adopted the ideas of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko called Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism was favored by those who see will as the primary driving force of life, such as the 20th century French philosopher Henri Bergson. One might think that Marxists would prefer Darwin’s theory of evolution with its mechanical, materialistic, deterministic, non-purposive concept of natural selection but this was never the case. But then the leaders of the Soviet Union weren’t really Marxists. They were a dictatorship of the proletariat by a professional dictator. It was due to Lysenko’s efforts that many real scientists, those who were geneticists or who rejected Lysenkoism in favor of natural selection, were sent to the gulags or simply disappeared from the USSR. A perfect example of what would happen in the United States if creationists had their way. The biological sciences in Russia were set back by decades by its rejection of evolution by natural selection in favor of Lysenkoism.

    Creationists fail to understand the reason scientists study nature in the first place. A scientific theory is not something that can be defined as true or false. Science isn’t done to conform to a particular ideology nor is it done by the majority rule of a scientifically ignorant public. A scientific theory must be useful and produce results by making accurate predictions. Our knowledge of how nature structures itself through natural selection has led to better medicines, better foods and doubled the average lifespan of humans over the last 120 years. Creationism and its pseudo-scientific co-hoax Intelligent Design offer no way to advance knowledge, have no explanatory powers, no application for future investigation, no way to lead to new discoveries let alone any of the advantages our knowledge of evolution has brought us already or promises to in the future.

    Again if evolution were a flawed theory as creationists falsely claim then the Christian academic community would not be teaching it. If Intelligent Design magic were real science Baptist schools like Baylor would not go to such lengths to distance them selves from this nonsense. The burden of proof isn’t on me Marcus. Anyone can check with any Christian college and see what I said is true. The burden of proof is always on the person making the outrageous claim. That would be you. Prove me wrong.

  49. Bernie,

    You definitely provide points to be considered, but with regard to my question, you stated that “every Christian college and university with a science department teach evolution.” I am simply asking you where you obtained this information.  If you did not search out every Christian college’s science curriculum, or find a source that did this research for you, then why would you state this as fact?  If you did this research, then I’d be interested in the information.  If you are stating this generally, from your limited knowledge, then perhaps you should alter your statement.

  50. Marcus,
    Limited knowledge? Your question is ridiculous and reflects a profoundly limited knowledge of science. It’s no different than asking me to prove all Christian colleges teach that the earth is round. What kind of biology is there besides evolutionary biology? Did you not read what happened to the biological sciences in Stalinist Russia because they rejected evolutionary biology in favor of Lysenkoism? There is no way to teach biology without teaching evolution by natural selection. If a college has an accredited science department it teaches evolution. One doesn’t have to search out every Christian college’s science curriculum, or find a source that did this research. I have searched for conservative Christian colleges that have legitimate science departments that teach biology. This would be one where students can say go on to med school. All of the schools I’ve checked teach evolution and common descent, Harding University, Belhaven College, Olivet Nazarene University – all of them.

    The important point is not what Christian colleges teach but what they don’t teach and have unanimously rejected. That would be creationism and Intelligent Design magic. Evolution is taught everywhere because there is nothing else, no competing theories to teach and there never will be. I find it fascinating that creationists such as yourself are so blissfully ignorant of these facts not top mention just the basic facts of science. Again Marcus, if you don’t believe my statement why don’t you do the research your self?

    Prof. Colling — who received a Ph.D. in microbiology, chairs the biology department at Olivet Nazarene University in Bourbonnais, Ill. and is himself a devout conservative Christian. In his book, Random Designer, he writes: “It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods” when they say evolutionary theory is “in crisis” and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. “Such statements are blatantly untrue,” he argues; “evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny.”

    I answered your question. Now how do you explain the fact that creationism and ID are NOT taught by the Christian academic community and evolution and common descent are? Why would believe what the hoaxers at the Discovery Institute publish rather than the scientists at your own Christian colleges and universities?

  51. Someone said:
    Such people need to follow the lead of Anthony Flew who was once one of the world’s leading atheists but has now converted to deism due to the evidence from microbiology that clearly demonstrates the need for an intelligence behind the creation of life.

    Sorry but atheists don’t play follow the leader. That’s what Christians do. Anthony Flew is not a scientist and thinks Christianity is absurd.

  52. Dr. Brown said: You speak of “unobservable nonsense like ID,” which would suggest you know very little about how ID works and draws its conclusions.

    How ID works: The Bible tells us so! ID is nothing but creationism disguised in a lab coat.

  53. I’ll reprint this lie and a refutation: Allan is exactly right to say that empirical science involves that which is “repeatable, measurable, observable”. Unfortunately for Allan and other atheists, this means that evolution is unable to be proven using empirical science because evolution is neither repeatable, measurable or observable.

    Creationists argue that Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it’s not science. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it’s falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Creationists accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution’s status as a science.

    In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haltane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn’t match what was predicted. Creationists are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they’re right.

    The next argument to be prepared for is that Evolution is itself a religion. This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try to convince us that their own position is science based, they correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the concept of evolution or Darwin’s role in its development. This argument is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human considers himself a member of any “evolution church.”

    Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed. Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There’s a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can’t be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over. – Brain Dunning

  54. It’s very easy to explain why many in the “Christian academic community” teach evolution rather than a biblical worldview, and that is that this category of Christian academics have become corrupt and compromised. Such ostensibly ‘Christian’ academics and colleges are more concerned with their reputations among their secular academic peers than they are with remaining true to Scripture. ‘Academic respectability’ is of greater concern to them than is biblical orthodoxy. It is simply another example of fearing man more than fearing God.

    See also <a href=””>this short article</a> which addresses the ‘herd’ mentality and its effect on Christian academic institutions.

    <blockquote>[The] tendency, to abandon commonsense, experience, and ultimately reality itself in the face of the overwhelming social pressure of the ‘herd’ has a lot to do with the sad state of the Christian church in the West today. I can think of a number of formerly sound Bible colleges here in Australia/NZ which have succumbed to it in various forms.
    It usually starts with the desire to gain ‘academic respectability’, in order to grant accredited degrees. Whether looking to Caesar for funds or ‘accreditation’, there is always a price to pay, namely capitulation to Caesar’s ‘standards’. And these are invariably determined by the current ‘herd’ mentality. Degrees in theology (theoretically about ‘knowing God’—Gk theos = God, logos = word or knowledge) become degrees in how not to know or understand the true, living God, who has revealed Himself in the Bible. God tells us that the herd is mostly in active rebellion against His truth, so, not surprisingly, the herd dictates that the Bible is not to be seen as a book of true history (cf. Matthew 7:14). The Bible college dutifully bends in that direction.</blockquote>

  55. This is a real pain. I can’t get the blockquote feature to work properly. When I highlight a passage and ‘click’ the ‘quote’ button, all the text becomes indented not just the highlighted bit. What am I doing wrong?

    Here is the URL I forgot to include to the article about ‘Herd Rule’.

  56. The article by Brain Dunning which is quoted by Bernie above, contains the usual evolutionist obfuscation. It is sophomoric to claim that “dog breeding” is an example of observable evolution in action today. Evolution is not about degree of change but direction of change. The examples of change cited are not examples of a change due to an increase in information which is what is required if evolution were true. See here.

    Notice also that Dunning in rejecting the claim that evolution is more religion than science, does so on the grounds of his own self-serving definition of what constitutes a religion – namely “the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing.” But if religion is defined as simply a philosophy based on faith not evidence, then evolution fits the category perfectly. See here and here.

  57. Ewan,
    Where is your scriptural evidence that the Earth actually moves? Please provide the passages in the Bible that claim the earth moves and orbits the sun.

  58. Bernie,

    I don’t have time to interact in these posts at present, but your comments about ID in #52, above, only expose your ignorance of the subject, which makes serious interaction with you virtually impossible. Anyone can make outrageous and bombastic claims (as you have demonstrated here, repeatedly), but backing the claims with facts is what counts. So, please let our readers know which academic books on ID you have studied and why you found their argumentation lacking, OK? (Please, no rehashing and requoting Amazon reviews of others; what have you read in detail yourself, and where was it lacking in academic rigor?)

  59. Ewan,

    Press the “HTML” button in the editor to edit the HTML code :)

  60. Dr. Brown,
    The kinds of arguments Christians make not only are full of logical fallacies most of them can be turned on their heads and used against the apologist or evangelist: Example: It’s probably best you have little time to interact in these posts at present, because your comments about ID in #42, above, only expose your ignorance of the subject of science, which makes serious interaction with you virtually impossible. Anyone can make outrageous and bombastic claims that ID writers and believers make (as you have demonstrated here, repeatedly), but backing the claims with facts is what counts. So, please let our readers know which academic books on evolution, paleontology, cosmology, anthropology and geology you have studied and why you found their argumentation lacking, OK? (Please, no rehashing and requoting Discovery Institute reviews of others; what have you read in detail yourself, and where was it lacking in academic rigor?)

    The history of the Intelligent Design hoax is basically this: Once creation “science” was thoroughly discredited by scientists and was barred from public schools by federal judges, the creationists modified it and disguised it by wrapping it in some new pseudoscientific double-talk designed to dupe an ill-informed and scientifically ignorant public, and presented it under the name “intelligent design.”

    I have read quite a few creationist and Intelligent Design Magic books. Some books on ID Magic I’ve read are Darwin’s Black Box by Michael Behe, Of Pandas and People, Design Inference by William Dembski and most recently The Edge of Evolution by Behe. Intelligent Design Magic is nothing more than repackaged creationism. In all of these books there was something that none of the ID Magic writers bothered to explain: How had the designs conceived by the “intelligent designer” been turned into organisms? How had the imaginings of the “primeval intellect” been turned into material creatures? How had the plans developed by the “consummate engineer” been turned into finished goods? In short, how had organisms come into existence? We already know don’t we? Yahweh the magic sky wizard breathed his magic breath into all his intelligently designed creations, which he fashioned from the ocean and dirt. And a sleeping man’s rib! Then over the last 6000 years over 99 percent of all these supposedly intelligently designed creatures somehow quickly went extinct. The “scientific” explanation for this: A rib woman ate from a tree with supernatural powers after having a conversation with a friendly talking animal which caused Yahweh’s perfectly designed creatures to all immediately be flawed! This is what all the ID Magic writers truly believe and trying to hide this belief behind a bunch of anti-scientific double-talk when all they’re doing is repeating the same old anti-science Christian woo woo we’ve heard ever since the Bible was formed is intellectually dishonest. ID Magic offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify their hybrid biblical creation/ID hypothesis. Intelligent Design Magic is nothing more than creationism disguised with a bunch of pseudo-scientific mumbo jargon: Example: “Evolution requires the expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genetic information, whereas speciation represents the loss of genetic information.” Now that might sound scientific to the garden-variety creationist but anyone who knows the first thing about science and just read that is laughing.

    Now if ID magic were real science I would have to read what the critics of ID said to see which one made more sense. But really neither one of us are scientists so neither one of us is actually qualified to decide between two competing scientific theories. That would be up to the scientists. Now ID magic sure looks to me like the same old repackaged creationist hocus-pocus and lies. But I went ahead anyway and checked with what the scientific community had to say about ID. Fortunately real scientists have taken the time to write harsh criticisms of all the ID and creationist literature and have completely demolished it and exposed it as what it really is: biblical creationism.

    It wasn’t until 1835 before the first Protestant denomination accepted the basic findings of Galileo and Copernicus. Up until that time all Protestant denominations held fiercely to the flat, immovable earth upon a foundation supported by pillars or God’s hand according to flat-earther John Calvin that is clearly described in both the Old and New Testaments. The favorite argument of 19th century Christian apologists in support of a flat special creation of earth was that believing that Earth was just another round planet orbiting the sun would lead to moral decay and the eventual destruction of the race. Sound familiar? The exact same stupid arguments19th century Protestants used to support their staunch denials of discoveries made in the 17th century are being used today by 21rst century Christians to deny discoveries made in the 19th century. You don’t recognize the historical parallels between modern creationists such as yourself and your failed Protestant forerunners because Christian historical revisionists have continually made a cottage industry out of extinguishing the true facts about the ongoing war on science fought by Bible believers. If we were having this conversation 200 years ago you would be asking me if I had read any “scientific” research by flat earth Christian “scientists.” Well I’ve read plenty of it and it’s no less ridiculous than what Intelligent Design hoaxers write today. Think about it. Your entire religion is about to fall of its flat earth forever Dr. Brown. It isn’t because of evolution or any other science. It’s because of the sheer stupidity of things like Intelligent Design.

  61. Bernie,

    I find your accusations and rebuttals to a simple question like “where did you find this information” to be astonishing.  Why such defensiveness? 

    Are you really interested in a point by point analysis of the evidence to come to the truth on our biological origins? Or are you simply here to combat everything that is said by those you disagree with? Anyone that knows me will agree that I am very interested in the pursuit of truth, and will give anyone and everyone a fair hearing to challenge me in my current understanding of truth, but I do not have time to sit and debate endlessly the merits of simple requests like “what was your source?” If you react in this manner to such a simple question, I have little hope that when it comes to the hard questions, that you will give anyone a fair hearing other than yourself (and those that happen to agree with you).

    So… Are you really interested in a point by point analysis of the evidence to come to the truth on our biological origins? Or are you simply here to combat everything that is said by those you disagree with?

  62. Bernie,

    Thanks for the lengthy post and the list of books you’ve read. You’re obviously not getting the point of what you’re reading if you can say, “Intelligent Design Magic is nothing more than repackaged creationism.” Anyway, your invective and bombast really does disqualify any serious interaction — even I had the time to devote to this now — but if others choose to interact with you, I do hope that you’ll moderate your tone. Generally speaking, the louder someone yells and screams and insults, the weaker their point. We also do have guidelines for posting here in terms of etiquette, and I’d encourage you to re-read them before posting again. Argue all you want, but refrain from the rhetoric and invective.

  63. Marcus,
    The sad thing is that you are serious. Why should I believe your creationist woo woo when your own Christian academic community has not only rejected it but goes to great lengths to distance itself from this religious dogma of yours? If your own Christian scientists won’t buy your religious explanations for origins what in the world makes you think any atheists would? What makes you or any other creationist an expert on our biological origins? The only people qualified to speak on evolution are evolutionary biologists. Now if you were really interested in the truth about this subject you would enroll in a course on evolutionary biology at the Christian college of your choice. Like I said any college with an accredited science department teaches evolution. Instead you get your science information from a tax-exempt religious ministry called the Discovery Institute that is listed with the IRS as a non-scientific organization. If you are a creationist then your ideas are as non-scientific as the organization you get them from. Now answer my question from before. How do you explain the fact that creationism and ID magic are not taught as science by the Christian academic community and evolution has been for over a century? And why aren’t you creationists trying to railroad your nonsense into your own Christian universities like you did our public schools?

  64. Dr. Brown,
    Again your arguments can all be used against you: You’re obviously not getting the point of what you’re reading if you can say, that Intelligent Design Magic is not repackaged creationism. It’s the same backward reasoned nonsense as creationism written and promoted by the exact same people: The Discovery Institute – a bunch of science hating Bible believers. Fundamentalist Christians denying science. Imagine that. When have Bible believers ever been right about science? When have scientists ever had to abandon a theory because of the claims of Bible believers? Why is it always the Bible believers who eventually have to back off their religious claims? What makes you think any Bible believer including yourself can make an objective decision about anything let alone science? You’ve all been completely frightened out of your minds and into believing the impossible. You believe what you believe because you are afraid not to. Pathetic.

    You creation magic believers have just set yourselves up for a life of misery, anxiety, bitterness and ignorance. None of the scientific theories you people deny are going to undergo any major revisions let alone be replaced by supernatural mysticism. And let’s get real here. It isn’t just evolution you have a problem with. It’s just about every branch of science there is. You’ve been duped by the creationist hoaxers you’ve put your faith in. They have blurred the lines between scientific disciplines so the general public would not recognize their implicit anti-science agenda. They’ve tricked you by making it seem like they only have a problem with one area of science – biological evolution when in fact the goal of the creationists is to shut down the entire enterprise of science in this country. Obviously biological evolution has nothing at all to do with cosmology but I’ve never met a creationist that could distinguish between the two. Invariably creationists will make arguments against geology, oceanography, paleontology and other disciplines of science thinking they arguing against evolution because they’ve been so confused about the nature of science.

    No person in their right mind wants to be associated with rabid science deniers and haters let alone people who make their living lying about it. Your anti-science aganda is bringing a quick end to your religion so keep it up. Don’t let me discourage you. I’d love to live to see the end of Christianity and I think I’m seeing it right now.

  65. Bernie,

    One more note: If you can’t post without personal insults and invective, you’re not welcome on this blog. We have rules of civility, which are you constantly violating. (And I’m posting this here for the sake of other readers in case they wonder why you’re not around — that is, provided you can’t modify your tone.) Also, I’m also still waiting for you to raise an actual argument!

  66. Of course, far from Christianity being anti-science, modern science in fact owes its very origin to Christianity as historian Rodney Stark has documented in his book For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery. See a review here.

    Stark also debunks the popular myth about Galileo and the church. See also this article The Galileo ‘twist’.

    This is the relevant quote from Stark’s book:

    ‘Even children know that in 1492 Christopher Columbus proved the world is round. They also know that he … [faced] years of opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, which ridiculed all dissent from the biblical teaching that the world is flat. … Andrew Dickson White, founder and first president of Cornell University, and author of the most influential book ever written on the conflict between science and theology, offered this summary: “… Columbus’ voyage greatly strengthened the theory of the earth’s sphericity [yet] the Church … stumbled and persisted in going astray
    … But in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his famous voyage. He proves the earth to be round, for his expedition circumnavigates it
    … yet even this does not end the war. Many [religious] men oppose the doctrine for two hundred years longer.”
    ‘Like everyone else, I grew up with this story. It was retold in every account of Columbus’ voyage in my schoolbooks, in many movies, and always on Columbus Day. As for A.D. White’s immense study, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (in two volumes) when I was young, it was required reading … and I cited it in my second published paper.
    ‘Trouble is that almost every word of White’s account of the Columbus story is a lie. Every educated person of the time, including Roman Catholic prelates, knew the earth was round. … So why didn’t we know they knew? Why do only specialists know now? … White himself admitted that he wrote the book to get even with Christian critics of his plans for Cornell. … many of White’s other accounts are as bogus as his report of the flat earth and Columbus. The reason we didn’t know the truth is that … for more than three centuries [the claim of inevitable and bitter warfare between religion and science] has been the primary polemical device used in the atheist attack on faith. From Thomas Hobbes through Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins, false claims about religion and science have been used as weapons in the battle to “free” the human mind from the “fetters of faith”.
    ‘In this chapter, I argue not only that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, but that Christian theology was essential for the rise of science. In demonstration of this thesis [I show that] not only did religion not cause the “Dark Ages”; nothing else did either—the story that after the “fall” of Rome a long dark night of ignorance and superstition settled over Europe is as fictional as the Columbus story. In fact this was an era of profound and rapid technological progress … the Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth century was the … result of [Christian scholarship] starting in the eleventh century… Why did real science develop in Europe … and not anywhere else? I find answers to those questions in unique features of Christian theology… The “Enlightenment” [was] conceived initially as a propaganda ploy by militant atheists and humanists [e.g. Voltaire, Diderot and Gibbon] who attempted to claim credit for the rise of science [through promulgating] the falsehood that science required the defeat of religion’ (pp. 121–123, emphases in original).

  67. Ewan,
    If what you said were true, how do you account for the fact that no Protestant denomination accepted that fact that the earth is round and orbits the sun until 1835? Why didn’t the Southern Baptists accept the round earth until 1909? Sure some of the Catholics may have accepted a round earth but Protestants have always been much more anti-science than the Catholics. Most creationists still believe the sun orbits an immovable earth. The Discovery Institute promotes this belief in its literature and flat-earther Gerardus Bouw is on their board. Look at how much of modern science you and your Protestant brothers deny right now. If Christianity survives until the end of the century by then Christian apologists will have buried the past with their typical revisionist lies and claim Christians never doubted evolution and Darwin was a devout Christians and brag how Christian academic community has been teaching evolution since the 19th century. The thing is Ewan, what you said is NOT true. I wouldn’t believe you anyway because I’ve never met an honest Christian. I wouldn’t believe anything any Christian says even if they told me they were lying to me. I’ve been lied to too many times by too many Christians. You know the same reason the Palestinians will no longer negotiate with the nation of liars that stole their land. Burn me once, burn me twice.

  68. Dr. Brown,
    You called me ignorant. Now you insult my intelligence by claiming I haven’t made good arguments. I’ve made very good points and I’m the one who is still waiting for someone to refute them. If you had any arguments against what I’ve said we would have seen them by now. Instead you attack my integrity and character because I demolished the points raised in the articles I responded to and you know it too. Refute my posts if you think you can. Don’t just imply you can because we both know you cannot. Now what insults have I made and what invective are you talking about specifically? If I’ve done anything I should apologize for I will.

    FYI Intelligent Design magic is very much a purely Christian religious hoax and has nothing to do with science and especially scientific method. It has been thoroughly reviewed and rejected by your own Christian academic community which as gone to great lengths to distance itself from this nonsense. You have such a shallow understanding of just basic science and how and why science is done in the first place and you have the arrogance to call me ignorant. A scientific theory is something that has to be useful. The Theory of Evolution has produced results such as better medicines, better foods and many of the other advantages of our modern lives. What have your Intelligent Design writers produced that has improved our lives exactly? What explanatory or predictive powers does ID magic have? How can ID advance knowledge, be applied for future investigation or lead to new discoveries? Scientists don’t just sit around and make up ideas that have no useful scientific purpose. That is what these ID magic writers do and what the rest of you theologians do. Make no mistake the ID writers such as – Willaim Dembski are indeed theologians and not scientists . The most important discussion theologians have ever had is about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin! I suggest you theologians leave science to people who know what they are doing and stick with your imaginary hocus-pocus and supernatural mysticism. Those trains don’t meet.

  69. Colling doesn’t even know about punctuated equilibrium!  I know-I asked him myself-oh and I’m a second generation biology major from his school and learned how fake evolution really is just yards away from where he was teaching at the time! 
    Medical science goes against evolution! I learned that getting a degree in nursing just across campus from Colling!  The nursing books aren’t even written by nurses but PhDs in anatomy and or physiology or biochemistry.  I’m so glad a got a degree in nursing as well as biology.  When I only had the degree in biology I thought there was no scientific evidence against evolution.  Now I know better that I now have a degree in nursing as well.

    Evolution Theory In Crisis by Dr. Michael Denton puts to rest the homology argument and separation of church and state is what is holding evolution up not science.  Have you ever sat in a lecture hall and heard about the different court cases on origins in the public schools?  I have. It is a wake up call.
    There are hundreds of PhD scientists who don’t believe in evolution!  I started meeting them after I learned that medical science goes against the religion of evolution.  Maybe you need to check out the website science against evolution!
    Check out Dr. Jack Cuozzo’s web site on ape men!
     

  70. Bernie, anyone who can claim as you do that “Most creationists still believe the sun orbits an immovable earth”, is hardly worth debating. In reality you would be hard pressed to fine any creationist who believes that.

    And for your information, evolution theory is of no practical value to science. See the collection of articles at the bottom of this page under the heading Is evolution really relevant to real science?

  71. Bernie, anyone who can claim as you do that “Most creationists still believe the sun orbits an immovable earth”, is hardly worth debating. In reality you would be hard pressed to fine any creationist who believes that.
    What’s the matter? Are Christians who really take the literally and don’t try to lie about all the scientific and historical inaccuracies in it embarrassing to you? Dutch Astronomer Gerardus Bouw heads the Association For Biblical Astronomy, which insists as the Bible clearly states that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. Creationists who deny this stance are clearly denying one of the basic “truths” of the Bible. The Flat Earth Society is also a totally Christian organization. BTW two other organizations that require all their members to be Bible believing young earth creationists are the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party which also use the Bible to defend their hate, prejudice and ignorance. These are prime examples of where believing the Bible leads people. Adolph Hitler used the Bible and the writings of John Calvin and Martin Luther to defend his persecution of the Jews. You use the Bible and creationist literature to defend your hatred for women, homosexuals, scientists, philosophers and anyone else who disagrees with you.
    And for your information, evolution theory is of no practical value to science. See the collection of articles at the bottom of this page under the heading Is evolution really relevant to real science?
    Your claim that evolutionary theory is of no practical value to science reflects the kind of scientific imbecility and intellectual dishonesty typical of all creationists. All the links you provide go to creationist websites, not to any articles written by actual paid, employed working scientists. Excuse me for not getting my science information from the creationist woo woo that you do. If evolution had no practical value then Christian colleges and universities would certainly not waste their time teaching it. If evolution were a religion then Christian colleges and universities would be teaching a competing religion. Now why in the world would they do that?
    These creationist propagandists you worship have blurred the lines between scientific disciplines in order to hide the fact from the general public that they are simply continuing the same old fundamentalist Christian war on ALL science. You should be brave enough to come out of your science hating and fearing closet and admit you don’t accept any modern scientific explanations for anything, not just evolutionary biology. You don’t accept cosmology, geology, anthropology, zoology, paleontology, astronomy or any other science either. So don’t just pretend you only have a problem with one area of science. Other than your deluded creationist brothers and sisters who have been duped as you have by creationist liars, we can all see through your phony façade.
    Below is just one current example of discoveries made by evolutionary biologists, which are leading to improved lives for all humanity.
    Led by Dr J Oriol Sunyer, of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, and formed by researchers from Philadelphia, St Louis and Idaho (USA) and by Dr Llus Tort of the Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona, the group has been able to show that B cells in fish as well as in amphibians are capable of strong phagocytosis both in in vivo and in vitro experiments. The work has been published in Nature Immunology, the most prestigious journal worldwide in the field of immunology.
    According to Dr Sunyer, “this is important so that we can understand not only how the immune systems of fish and amphibians work but also the origin and composition of the immune systems of humans and mammals”. The work concludes that there is an evolutionary relationship between macrophages and cells by which both cell types derive from a common, ancestral cell with functional properties of both cells. So though the B cells of lower vertebrates (fish and amphibians) are still capable of phagocytis while they are producing antibodies, the B cells of higher vertebrates are no longer capable of phagocytis. The latter specialise almost exclusively in functions of the adaptive immune response.
    It is most probable that the less-elaborated, restrictive adaptive immune response of fish and amphibians makes the preservation of phagocytosis an evolutionary advantage to B cells in their defence against pathogens. One cannot forget that fish have had a significant evolutionary success, since nearly 50% of vertebrate species belong to this group and they are constantly in contact with a vast multitude of microorganisms in the water. According to Dr Sunyer, “From a practical perspective, this discovery will be used in the near future to produce a new design of vaccines for fish in order to stimulate phagocytosis in antibodies for B cells, increasing the effectiveness of the vaccine”.
    The study of comparative biology remains an important source of scientific knowledge.

    Many areas of science have produced support for biological evolution;
    The origins of the universe, our galaxy, and our solar system produced the conditions necessary for the evolution of life on Earth;
    Radiometric Dating
    Living things appeared in the first billion years of Earth’s history;
    The fossil record provides extensive evidence documenting the occurrence of evolution;
    Common structures and behaviors often demonstrate that species have evolved from common ancestors;
    Evolution accounts for the geographic distribution of many plants and animals;
    Molecular biology has confirmed and extended the conclusions about evolution drawn from other forms of evidence (including The Evolution of Limbs in Early Tetrapods and The Evolution of Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises);
    Biological evolution explains the origin and history of our species.
    3. Creationist Perspectives
    Creationist views reject scientific findings and methods;
    “Intelligent Design” creationism is not supported by scientific evidence;
    The pressure to downplay evolution or emphasize nonscientific alternatives in public schools compromises science education.
    The hypocrisy of your position is evidenced by the fact that when you get sick you go to a doctor who uses his knowledge of natural selection to cure you. In your twisted mind you have to tell yourself that this doctor is using some other methodology to cure you. In other words your lies about science aren’t hurting me, they’re only hurting you. You are as deluded about reality and science as anyone I have ever come in contact with. You’re a prefect foil for your cult’s propagandists like Dr. Brown who is a person who has absolutely no respect for the truth – just like you.

  72. The Bible nowhere teaches a flat earth or that the sun orbits the earth. See the list of articles on this page under the heading Where did Geocentrism really come from? Does Scripture unambiguously teach that the earth is the physical centre of the solar system?

  73. It is interesting that Bernie wants to act like creationists are the ones responsible for Nazism when history says the other way around.  Dr. Jerry Bergman has shown in several articles that Nazism is founded in evolution.  Eugenics came from evolution and Hitler got his ideas from the eugenics evolutionists here in America.  Have you heard of the Carrie Buck court case?  It shows the relationship between Hitler and his forced sterlizations and eugenics here in America founded on evolution.

    Racism is based from evolution also. 

    Also the rational for abortion comes from the idea that the embryo goes through the various stages of evolution and is not a fully formed human yet.  Medical science (here is one of the things medical science has shown evolutionary thinking to be wrong) has disproven this theory.  The embryo has no tail like a monkey but the same number of vertebra, the so called yolk sac is really a blood forming sac until the baby has bone marrow to make its blood cells that way, and it has no gill slits either.  No tissue from that area produces anything for respriation.  Instead, the auditory canal, the parathyroids, and the thymus gland comes from this area.  Medical science is no friend of evolution here either.

    No, evolution is just the big bad wolf of atheism falsely acting like grammma (science).  It is based on a public school system that has a 2 plus 2 = 3 1/2 if 4 is God or the Bible mentality when it comes to origins.  Court cases wag the way of separation of church and state even though it is not in the constitution.  Also the ACLU, atheists, and humanists groups sue schools who even try to teach both sides.  This is not the way to the truth!!!!!!!!!!

  74. Jane
    It is interesting that Bernie wants to act like creationists are the ones responsible for Nazism when history says the other way around. Dr. Jerry Bergman has shown in several articles that Nazism is founded in evolution. Eugenics came from evolution and Hitler got his ideas from the eugenics evolutionists here in America. Have you heard of the Carrie Buck court case? It shows the relationship between Hitler and his forced sterlizations and eugenics here in America founded on evolution.
    Answer: I would like you to provide one quote in anything Adolph Hitler ever said or wrote where he mentioned the word evolution. The Nazi public schools did not teach evolution during Hitler’s reign they taught creationism. Christian creationism. The German public schools did not take creationism out of their public school textbooks until 1964. Anyone can check this out for them selves. Hitler’s anti-Semitism came from three years in a Protestant seminary and the influence of famous anti-Semite Martin Luther and in particular The Jews and Their Lies.
    Racism is based from evolution also.
    Answer: Sure it is. That is the kind of desperate, absurd, absolutely and obviously false claim we’ve all grown accustomed to hearing from creationists. Are you saying there was no racism before the Theory of Evolution came along? Racism has been around since there have been hominids. According to anthropologists Homo-sapiens (modern humans –us) probably killed off both Neanderthals and Homo-erectus. Racism is based in ignorance the same kind of willful ignorance that makes people claim not to believe in evolution.

    Also the rational for abortion comes from the idea that the embryo goes through the various stages of evolution and is not a fully formed human yet. Medical science (here is one of the things medical science has shown evolutionary thinking to be wrong) has disproven this theory.
    Answer: Another ridiculous claim. Medical science is based on evolutionary theory and nothing else. They are one and the same.

    The embryo has no tail like a monkey but the same number of vertebra, the so called yolk sac is really a blood forming sac until the baby has bone marrow to make its blood cells that way, and it has no gill slits either. No tissue from that area produces anything for respriation. Instead, the auditory canal, the parathyroids, and the thymus gland comes from this area. Medical science is no friend of evolution here either.
    Answer: There’s nobody doing medical research that doubts evolutionary theory. A college cannot get accredited teaching anything else because there’s nothing else to teach.

    No, evolution is just the big bad wolf of atheism falsely acting like grammma (science). It is based on a public school system that has a 2 plus 2 = 3 1/2 if 4 is God or the Bible mentality when it comes to origins. Court cases wag the way of separation of church and state even though it is not in the constitution. Also the ACLU, atheists, and humanists groups sue schools who even try to teach both sides. This is not the way to the truth!!!!!!!!!!
    Answer: Your claims are ridiculous. Name one Christian college or university with a science department that does not teach evolution, common descent, Big bang cosmology and all the rest of the science you claim isn’t any good. You creationists can’t get your own academic community to buy your religious nonsense and you have the nerve to try to force it into our public schools. You claim to have a degree in biology and nursing. Why don’t you take your degree and disprove evolution and pick up your Nobel Prize? We both know why don’t we? Biology majors know how to spell sterilizations and respiration and people who have taken Freshman English know that disproved is a word and disproven really isn’t. Excuse me for not buying the claims you make about yourself, science, history or anything else. Your reckless disregard for the truth comes across in everything you post. I don’t believe you have the nerve to make these absurd and untrue claims in public.

  75. This paragraph below by Jane is so ridiculous and intellectually dishonest it desrves to be refuted twice. Or perhaps more.

    “No, evolution is just the big bad wolf of atheism falsely acting like grammma (science). It is based on a public school system that has a 2 plus 2 = 3 1/2 if 4 is God or the Bible mentality when it comes to origins. Court cases wag the way of separation of church and state even though it is not in the constitution. Also the ACLU, atheists, and humanists groups sue schools who even try to teach both sides. This is not the way to the truth!!!!!!!!!!”

    Answer: At least Jane isn’t trying to hide her motives. Her real problem is she hates religious freedom, hates separation of church and state as all religious people do and wants to force her particular religion on public school students who are of many different religions and no religion at all. Jane, like most creationists thinks Christianity should be forced on people. There is no other country in the world where people are trying to keep evolution from being taught in the public schools. Only in the United States where it’s okay to be wrong. And most importantly there are no Christian colleges or universities anywhere teaching “both sides” either because there aren’t two competing scientific views on human origins or evolution. There’s a scientific one based on evidence and a religious one based on a staunch denial of the same evidence.

    What’s really asinine about creationism is that even most Christian seminaries try to distance themselves from creationism, especially young earth creationism and its pseudo-scientific hoax Intelligent Design magic. The only places that encourage creationist dogma are Bible colleges and mostly just here in the U.S.

    Now here is a challenge for you Jane. Since you claim to be an expert in biology and smarter than all the scientists in the world then here is your chance to disprove evolution. What is the mechanism that could keep microevolution from becoming macroevolution over time? Any other creationists want to give it a shot? Because if you get it wrong or cannot answer then your whole case against evolution is demolished. BTW “God can do whatever he wants” is not going to be accepted as a scientific explanation by me the ay it is you creationists. You’ll have to do better than that.

  76. OK, “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy”, hosted by the late D. James Kennedy, PhD. on DVD shows what I said with documentation about the connection between Nazism and evolution. Evolution’s Fatal Fruit by Tom DeRosa  shows excellent documentation of the connection between evolutionism and Nazism. Also, Dr. Jerry Bergman has excellent documentation on this topic.
    Even the late Dr. Stephen J. Gould did not believe in slow gradual evolution but in punctuated equalibria because the fossil record does not show the slow gradual evolution.
    Dr. Joachim Scheven, Ph.D. has a museum in Germany showing pictures of fossils and the living representative together showing statsis not evolution is shown here.  His DVD, in English is excellent showing slides of his pictures.  Creation magazine, now Answers Magazine, has had people who are artists who have drawn in scientific literature showing slow gradual evolution say they were just drawings they were hired to do.  They were given no fossil evidence for the drawings.

    Maybe the evolutionists shoud attack medical science!  It is a great enemy!  Since people die if medical science does not get it right-medical science has become evolution’s great enemy.  It is not subject to separtion of church and state! No, Haeckel with his idea that embryos recap the process of evolution has been disproven by medical science.
    Also, medical science has shown vestigal organs to be false.

    Again, it is the evolutionists that are to blame for trying to force their ideas on the public. They are the ones with all the lawsuits against public schools if they even try to show both sides.  The ACLU vs America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten is excellent.  American freedom was founded on the Bible, but atheist beliefs are the foundation for Nazism and communism.

  77. Microevolution has limits. Natural selection is actually the enemy of evolution.  The intermediate forms would be destroyed by natural selection.  How would a lizard survive while it was evolving wings? No, it would be destroyed.

  78. Jane,
    OK, “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy”, hosted by the late D. James Kennedy, PhD. on DVD shows what I said with documentation about the connection between Nazism and evolution. Evolution’s Fatal Fruit by Tom DeRosa shows excellent documentation of the connection between evolutionism and Nazism. Also, Dr. Jerry Bergman has excellent documentation on this topic.
    Answer: Like a typical creationist you have ignored the clear and easy to check refutations of your posts I’ve already made and repeat the same lies over and over again. I asked you to provide one quote from Hitler himself that even mentions Darwin or evolution. You couldn’t find anything and you won’t either. So you ignored me because you wouldn’t have been able to continue to spread your lies and Christian propaganda after admitting you had no evidence to back them up. You will find hundreds of statements of faith in Jesus Christ by Adolph Hitler though and his anti-Semitism comes from his belief that the Jews are responsible for the death of his dear Lord and savior. The American Nazi Party requires its members to be Bible believing evangelical Christians – people who do not accept evolution. So Jane, all of your claims are absolutely false and the complete opposite of the truth made to hide the truth about the greatest Christian atrocity of all, the Holocaust. The legacy of Christian historical revisionism: American eyes, American eyes, see the world through American eyes. Bury the past, rob us blind leave nothing behind. The Holocaust was a totally Christian deed. But Christianity doesn’t kill – people kill. It is wrong to blame the Christian religion because the Nazis perverted its teachings and Christians committed atrocities because of this. Yet you would like to claim a scientific theory is to blame for atrocities because people supposedly
    Appeals authority are a logical fallacy especially when that “authority” is a discredited liar like D. James Kennedy who made the claim that the United States was 99.8 percent Christian at the time the Constitution was written among thousands of other lies about the founding of the United States. Amazingly all your “authorities” happen to be evangelical Christian historical revisionists whose propaganda has all been refuted. Tom DeRosa is the founder of the Creation Studies Institute. Anyone who believes anything a creationist writes is literally insane.

    Even the late Dr. Stephen J. Gould did not believe in slow gradual evolution but in punctuated equalibria because the fossil record does not show the slow gradual evolution.
    Dr. Joachim Scheven, Ph.D. has a museum in Germany showing pictures of fossils and the living representative together showing statsis not evolution is shown here.
    Answer: Sure he does. They have been proved to be as phony as creationists loony Dr. Baugh’s faked man-tracks.

    His DVD, in English is excellent showing slides of his pictures. Creation magazine, now Answers Magazine, has had people who are artists who have drawn in scientific literature showing slow gradual evolution say they were just drawings they were hired to do. They were given no fossil evidence for the drawings.
    Answer: I would ask you for the names and testimonies of these artists but we both know you cannot provide them can you? That’s because no such artists exist and you know it.

    Maybe the evolutionists shoud attack medical science! It is a great enemy! Since people die if medical science does not get it right-medical science has become evolution’s great enemy. It is not subject to separtion of church and state! No, Haeckel with his idea that embryos recap the process of evolution has been disproven by medical science.
    Also, medical science has shown vestigal organs to be false.
    Answer: First of all name just one creationist wacko that even has an M.D. Just one. Name one creationist who has done or is doing any medical research. Louis Pasteur and Luke the fictional physician don’t count. You keep jumping from pretending to discuss science to revealing your religious and political motivations, which proves you aren’t interested in science at all but in fighting an ideological war to force your religion into our public schools and other venues and bring an end to religious freedom and separation of church and state in this country. You couldn’t be any more transparent not mention intellectually dishonest and ignorant of even the basic facts of science and scientific method.

    Again, it is the evolutionists that are to blame for trying to force their ideas on the public.
    Answer: Sure. It is the creationist lobby that has taken their case to the general public because none of their pseudo-scientific gobbledegook and religious nonsense has ever appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific publications. Ben Stein’s hoax of a movie proves that your claim is once again the complete opposite of the truth. Most of the books creation propagandist writers crank out are published by Zondervan which also just happens to be the world’s largest publisher of printed Bibles. What a coincidence huh?

    They are the ones with all the lawsuits against public schools if they even try to show both sides.
    Answer: There aren’t two sides to show. The Christian academic community doesn’t even show two sides and anyone who has actually attended college would know this. The creationists can’t sell their hoax to their own academic community yet they demand that their religious nonsense and dogma be forced into our public schools. No wonder there are lawsuits, they were made to keep our children from being indoctrinated with the lies, superstitions, and asininity of the Christian religion.

    The ACLU vs America by Alan Sears and Craig Osten is excellent. American freedom was founded on the Bible, but atheist beliefs are the foundation for Nazism and communism.
    Answer: This lie is very easy to refute. Nowhere in the Bible is any kind of democratic society pictured, only theocracies. The word democracy is a Greek word and appears nowhere in the Greek New Testament. Four of the Ten Commandments have nothing to do with laws but only the proper worship of one particular God. The Ten Commandments deny religious freedom and demand the worship of one particular God in a nation founded on religious freedom and have no business being posted in any public place. There are no references to the Bible or Christianity in any of our founding papers because our founders weren’t Christians, they were desists. Again Christianity was the foundation for Nazism and still is.

    Microevolution has limits. Natural selection is actually the enemy of evolution. The intermediate forms would be destroyed by natural selection. How would a lizard survive while it was evolving wings? No, it would be destroyed.
    Answer: You just proved you’ve never taken one class on biology let alone having a degree in it. Again in saying macroevolution has limits you’ve said exactly nothing. I asked you what mechanism could possibly cause these limits and you proved you have no answer. You claim things are impossible without offering one scientific explanation as to how this could be. Then you make a typical creationist straw man argument and pretend to knock it over and confidently announce you’ve disproved the Theory of Evolution. Although you would again reveal the fact you’ve never set foot on a college campus by using the word disproven instead of disproved. What exactly would cause lizards to be unable to survive while developing wings? There are plenty of winged animals that either cannot fly or can barely fly. But you insist they would all be destroyed for some mysterious reason. You have no reasons at all for any of the absurd unscientific claims you make. Yet you’ll continue to make them oblivious to the fact that they have been clearly refuted by the scientific community. That’s because you have a very evil and false religious agenda.

    You should be brave enough to come out of your fundamentalist science hating and fearing closet and just admit you don’t believe any scientific explanations for anything not just evolution. You don’t accept the findings of cosmology, anthropology, paleontology, zoology, physics, geology, oceanography, astronomy or any other science either. You’re a Bible believer, a member of a cult of ignorance that has denied every scientific discovery and theory made because of it ever since the Bible was voted on. As I pointed out before no Protestant denomination accepted a round moving earth until 1835! Your arguments against evolution are just as ridiculous and insane as the arguments Protestants used to claim scientists like Galileo and Copernicus were wrong 200 years after their discoveries were made.

    So Jane, answer this question: Does the earth move and what is your scriptural evidence for this? The Bible says the earth does not move. Is the Bible wrong about this? You’ll ignore the question because like all my other questions they demolish your positions and prove everything you post to be outright lies. People like you are such great representatives for such an obviously false religion as Christianity.

  79. Richard Weikart, professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus, has thoroughly documented the Darwinian roots of many aspects of the Nazi terror in his recent book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. See a review here.

    Weikart points out that pre-Darwinian racist ideas were usually repulsed by the dominant Christian worldview that all people come from Adam and Eve. But the German Darwinian racists dismissed the darker ‘races’ as being closer to the apes than to the ‘superior’ lighter humans.
    The line from Darwin to Hitler was not straightforward, because it was so highly branched. Weikart shows that Darwin’s ideas became enormously popular in educated German circles largely through the writings of Ernst Haeckel, of forged embryo drawing infamy. Haeckel in turn strongly influenced Alfred Ploetz, the founder of the German Society for Race Hygiene, the world’s first eugenics organization. This organization included Julius Lehmann as a leading member. He was a racist eugenicist and major publisher of medical and scientific textbooks, and had extensive contact with Hitler from 1920.
    These ideas were not only widespread in elite academic circles, they had filtered down into the Viennese press during Hitler’s pre-WWI days. After Hitler’s rise, Nazi propaganda spread these ideas still further to the masses.

    This review also has a YouTube link to one of the actual Nazi propaganda films that uses evolutionary concepts to justify murder of the handicapped.

    See also the collection of articles on this page: How are Communism and Nazism based upon evolutionary thinking?

  80. In post 57 I asked you to provide scriptural evidence that the Earth actually moves and orbits the sun. Like a typical creationist when asked to provide evidence for your superstitions you ignored this request. I’ll ask again. Give me some scriptural evidence that the Earth actually moves. If you cannot provide this evidence then please tell us all why you believe the Earth moves and orbits the sun.

    You can post all the links to your creationist liars you want. No one in their right mind believes anything an evangelical Christian says. Neither Nazi Germany nor Stalinist Russia accepted Darwinian evolution and anyone can easily check this fact out for themselves. You creationist hoaxers have no scientific arguments against evolution or any of the other scientific theories you deny so you engage in typical right-wing fear mongering and spread your Christian lies like fertilizer. But your lies are made of the same thing fertilizer is. So is your ridiculous Bible.

  81. Hitler Was a Christian

    The Holocaust was caused by Christian fundamentalism:

    History is currently being distorted by the millions of Christians who lie to have us believe that the Holocaust was not a Christian deed. Through subterfuge and concealment, many of today’s Church leaders and faithful Christians have camouflaged the Christianity of Adolf Hitler and have attempted to mark him an atheist, a pagan cult worshipper, or a false Christian in order to place his misdeeds on those with out Jesus. However, from the earliest formation of the Nazi party and throughout the period of conquest and growth, Hitler expressed his Christian support to the German citizenry and soldiers. Those who would make Hitler an atheist should turn their eyes to history books before they address their pews and chat rooms.

    Considering that Christianity has thus far been incapable of producing an unbiased, educated follower which speaks the truth, (I haven’t encountered any), I have been forced to dispel the myth by writing this essay. It is not until I bring up his speeches, my personal info on the Nazi regime and their tactics that a Christian will begin to question what their clergy told them. (I am the offspring of a German soldier. My Opa served under Hitler in WW2 and my father was raised during the time of the Nazi regime. This is important information to take into consideration for I am privy to some info that most Americans do not know. It is common for American media and education institutions to lie to their citizens concerning Nazi Germany.) So, in presenting this information I must break it into four parts: 1) Facts about Hitler and his involvement with the Church. 2) How the Church was the catalyst for anti- Semitism. 3) Facts concerning how the Nazi regime drilled these beliefs into Germanic society. 4) Quotes Hitler made which prove he had a disdain for atheism/occultism, upheld his Christian faith, and hated Jews due to his Christianity.

    Hitler’s involvement with the Church:

    a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.

    b) As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery’s coat of arms bearing a swastika.)

    c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.

    d) As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

    f) Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

    Hitler and the Popeg) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.

    Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

    h) Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

    How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:

    Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.

    Now, you must remember before Hitler rose to Chancellor of Germany the country was in a deep economic depression due to the Versailles treaty. The Versailles treaty demanded that Germans made financial reparations for the previous war and Germany simply was not self sufficient enough in order to pay the debt. Hitler was the leader that raised Germany out of the depression and brought them back to a world recognized power. Due to his annulment of the financial woes of the Germanic people he became their redeemer and they anointed him as the leader of the German Reich Christian Church in 1933. This placed him in power of the German Christian Socialist movement which legislates their political and religious agendas. It united all denominations, mainly the Protestant/Catholic and Lutheran people to instill faith in a national Christianity.

    How the Nazi Regime converted the people:

    a) In the 1920s, Hitler’s German Workers’ Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a “Programme” with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a “positive” Christianity: “We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession…”

    b) The Nazi regime started a youth movement which preached its agenda to impressionable children. Hitler backed up the notion that all people need faith and religious education: “By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious- dogmatic principles– or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles– by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence.” – Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    c) The Nazi regime began to control schools insisting that Christianity was taught.

    d) The Nazi regime included anti-Semitic Christian writings in textbooks and they were not removed from Christian doctrines until 1961.

    e) The Nazi regime having full blown power over the people began to forcibly convert all its military.

    Nazi Belt Bucklef) The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is this German army belt buckle (I believe my Opa had one) which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.

    g) The German troops were often forced to get sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going out on a maneuver.

    h) The Nazis created a secret service called the “SS Reich” that would act as spies on the dealings of other citizens. If anyone was suspected of heresy (Going not only against the Socialist party but CHURCH DOCTRINE) they would be prosecuted.

    Quotes from Hitler:

    Hitler’s speeches and proclamations, even more clearly, reveal his faith and feelings toward a Christianized Germany. Nazism presents an embarrassment to Christianity and demonstrates the danger of their faith So they try to pin him on other theistic views. The following words from Hitler show his disdain for atheism, and pagan cults, and reveal the strength of his Christian feelings:

    “National Socialism is not a cult-movement– a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship… We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938. [Christians have always accused Hitler of believing in pagan cult mythology. What is written here clearly expresses his stand against cults.]

    “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism. Hitler wanted to form a society in which ALL people worshipped Jesus and considered any questioning of such to be heresy. The Holocaust was like a modern inquisition, killing all who did not accept Jesus. Though more Jews were killed then any other it should be noted that MANY ARYAN pagans and atheists were murdered for their non-belief in Christ.]

    Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

    “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

    “Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

    “The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)

    “With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people.” -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)

    “The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties– and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    “…the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion.” -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (See Genesis Chapter 3 where humankind is cast from Eden for their sins. Hitler compares this to the need to exterminate the Jews for their sin against Christ.)

    “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

    “The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)

    “Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (Here Hitler is admitting that his war against the Jews were so successful because of his strong Christian Spirituality.)

    Quotes from Other Nazis about Hitler and Religion:

    “Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Gobbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.” (Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer page 95-96) – Evilbible.com

  82. Actually, what did Hitler really say?  He fooled the whishy washy church of the day thinking he was a christian.  They were took in although the true believers were not.  You see the gold-true believers like Bonhoeffer and the compromizers separated like gold and fools’ gold here.  The compromizers were fooled and later when Hitler came to power his true beliefs became known.  “The Bible is the Jewish book of lies!” he said.  So he was not a real Christian.  Of course there are wheat and tares within the church but the New Testament says on judgment day they will be separated.  So the true believers will be separated from the false church.

    Not too many people believe that Hitler was a true Christian.  I feel sorry for people who do because this shows they really don’t know what Christianity is all about.
    Also both Dr. Rick Colling and I have our B.A.s in Biology from the same school.  You mean I’m supposed to recognize his and not my own?  What?  Evolutionists like to throw rocks at the person rather than stick to the facts because they can’t document themselves as well as creationists.  Again, separation of church and state or 2 plus 2 equals 3 1/2 since 4 is religion is their trump card.  No truth here.

    Real empirical science is based on being observable, repeatable, and measurable-last but not least not making answers illegal.  In origins all changes.  Now supernatural explainations are all ruled out because the atheists say so and sue if they can’t have it their way.  So who is forcing their ideas on people?  Creationists just want to have both sides stated.

    Most Americans want to hear both sides.  It is wrong when the state rules they can not.  Or when schools are afraid of being sued, so they only allow one side.  Either don’t teach origins, or show both sides.

      

  83. Bernie,

    You’re sounding more and more like atheist Fred Weiss (aka Boris or Fearless). Now it’s Hitler the Christian! This was all refuted long ago in my interaction with Fred on the Truth Talk Live website, along with on my radio interview with Fred in 2008.

  84. Dr. Brown,
    It would be quite impossible for anyone to refute the fact that Adolph Hitler was Christian on your radio show or anywhere else. You lied about it perhaps and the gullible people who listen to your show probably believed you. If a lie is repeated often enough many people will believe it. How else could any religion survive especially yours? Anyone can go on the Internet and see over 100 pictures of both Hitler and the supposed atheist Joseph Stalin hob-nobbing with church leaders, Protestant and Catholic churchmen saluting Hitler, Hitler in all sorts of poses and situations that reveal his love for Jesus Christ and the Christian religion. Pictures don’t lie but Christian apologists certainly do. I’ll be glad to post the links so people can see what I’m talking about if you want to dispute this matter further. These pictures alone demolish any claims that Adolph Hitler wasn’t a Christian.

    Where does most of the anti-Semitism come from in the world? Mostly from the New Testament and Christianity and you know it. It’s important that people know where Adolph Hitler acquired his hatred for the Jewish people and that they remember that Hitler did not act alone. Martin Luther would have done the same thing to the Jews the Nazis did had he been a politician and it was the Bible that drove Luther, the Catholic Church and the Europeans to their insane hatred for the Jewish people. It was the Jews who cursed the world with monotheism but this curse has come back to haunt them in so many ways as well. Ironically the majority of Jewish people no longer believe in the imaginary God their ancestors invented but other people do and so it still comes back to haunt them.

    I would never have brought any of this up. But people on this blog want to blame science for human rights violations that have occurred in the past. These are the same people who get their ideas about morals, ethics and values out of the Bible, the single biggest cause of strife, war and human rights violations in the history of the world! The Bible not only condones slavery and other human rights violations, it condones unprovoked war in the name of religion and the slaughter of unarmed prisoners, genocide and infanticide, the death penalty for crimes other than murder and it describes some of the most disgusting and violent acts done in the name of and by a God in all of literature. I shutter to think there are still people in the 21rst century who think we should all derive our morals and ethics from a book full of obviously fictional stories and barbaric myths that describe an unbelievably cruel God and from a religious system that has been the most bloodthirsty of them all and without a doubt the greatest human tragedy in all of history. Anyone who needs a moral compass has many choices available to them that are a lot better and safer than the Christian Bible or belief in its God.

  85. Jane is still whining: “Now supernatural explainations are all ruled out because the atheists say so and sue if they can’t have it their way. So who is forcing their ideas on people? Creationists just want to have both sides stated.”

    Who is forcing their ideas on people and attempting to do it through the courts? The creationists! Jane, you keep ignoring the fact that “both sides” as you falsely imply even exist are not taught at even one Christian college or university with an accredited science department. So until you can get “both sides” taught at all the Christian colleges and universities first you have no business trying to force your religious delusions into our public schools. What right do you Bible believers have to force your “supernatural explanations” into our public schools when your own academic community has rejected them and continues to distance itself from creationism and its pseudo-scientific hoax Intelligent Design magic? Supernatural explanations don’t explain anything anyway. They’re just a way to try to get people to be satisfied with not knowing how things work.

    Jane falsely claimed: “Most Americans want to hear both sides. It is wrong when the state rules they can not. Or when schools are afraid of being sued, so they only allow one side. Either don’t teach origins, or show both sides.”

    Answer: Science isn’t done according to popular demand. The demand to not teach something, in other words to just make our children more ignorant than they already are, is simply ridiculous like everything else you post. “If we have to give up either religion or education, we should give up education” – William Jennings Bryan – fundamentalist ignoramus who prosecuted John Scopes for teaching evolution. This is the kind of narrow-minded backward thinking that you fundamentalists embrace.

    The idea that we shouldn’t teach origins naturally would lead to our country which is already falling behind the rest of the world in science and technology being the only nation in the world with no future human origin researchers, biologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, zoologists and of course no origins means no origins of the universe either; so no astronomers, geologists, cosmologists, oceanographers, no scientists doing any scientific research at all. A fundamentalist Christian paradise, a return to the Dark Ages when Christianity and Bible believers ruled the Western world and anyone who dared study nature as arrested, tortured and murdered by angry Christians or the Church it self. Why? Because every fact of nature that has ever been discovered has just further proved the Bible is full of scientific and historical inaccuracies. Bible believers have been fighting against scientific progress ever since the Bible was written and as long as people believe this collection of nonsense there will be people who will deny scientific facts and attempt to block scientific and social progress. Fortunately the age of information is bringing a quick end to belief in the Bible. There are harsh criticisms of the Bible and the apologetic literature that pretends to defend it in bookstores and all over the Internet. I suggest some of you believers start reading something other than the anti-scientific hocus-pocus and Christian historical revisionism that you’ve been brainwashed with and start reading what real credentialed employed scientists say about science and real unbiased historians sat about our true past.

    “Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.” -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

  86. Bernie,

    I will allow your comments that I “lied” about Hitler not being a Christian to remain here on the forum simply to expose the extremity of your position. In any case, to say that Hitler was a “Christian” – or, in Fred Weiss’s even more ridiculous formulation, a “devout Christian” — would be like saying that Richard Dawkins is a devout theist!

    Of course, Fred and others had to reject the authenticity (or, even existence!) of the compilation of quotes in Hitler’s Table Talk, but those remain, nonetheless. Here are just a few:

    Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
     

    National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

     
    10th October, 1941, midday:
     

    Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

     
    14th October, 1941, midday:
     

    The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

     
    19th October, 1941, night:
     

    The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

     
    21st October, 1941, midday:
     

    Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

     
    13th December, 1941, midnight:
     

    Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

     
     
    14th December, 1941, midday:
     

    Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

     
    9th April, 1942, dinner:
     

    There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

     
    27th February, 1942, midday:
     

    It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)

  87. Below are a few links that show why now historians accept Table Talk as being authentic. Christian apologists like Dr. Brown know very well these quotes are probably fraudulent but they have not one other source to back up their propaganda about Adolph Hitler. Anyone and check these links and see for themselves why historians reject Table Talk and why anyone who would use this book to defend absurd claims that Adolph Hitler was not a Christian is not just intellectually dishonest but has a reckless disregard for not only the truth but their fellow human beings as well.

    Hitler’s table talk and other extraneous sources by Jim Walker
    Hitler compared to God/Jesus/Christians by Jim Walker
    Real History and Hitler’s Table Talk – http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Table_Talk/Picker.html

    Those that argue against Hitler’s Christianity fail to see that Christianity comes in many forms, two of which consist as: a belief system held by Christians, and organized religion. It was the latter, organized Christianity, that Hitler spoke against (just as many Christians do today). Not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. But the problems with using Hitler’s table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler’s apostasy are manyfold:
    1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)
    2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler’s other private or public conversations.
    3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.
    4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler’s actions for “positive” Christianity

    The reliability of the source
    Not one of Hitler’s table talk conversations were recorded or captured by audio, film, or broadcast on radio.
    The table talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler’s other private or public conversations
    If Hitler actually desired to eliminate personal Christianity, then why do we not find it in his other private dialogs and conversations? Why do we not find it in any of his public speeches or interviews?

    Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity
    A damaging blow to any apologist argument against Hitler’s Christianity comes from the fact that nowhere in any known source does Hitler denounce his Christianity or Jesus.
    If one is to use the Table-Talk as evidence against Hitler’s Christianity, then where does it appear? Nowhere in Trevor-Roper’s introduction does he argue that Hitler was not a Christian.
    Nowhere in the conversations of Table-Talk, does Hitler denounce his Christianity or Jesus.
    On the contrary, Hitler’s (or Bormann’s editing) aims to show that the Church form of religion produces lies, and that the original Christian religion was an incarnation of Bolshevism, from a falsification from St. Paul. But whenever he mentions Christ, Hitler has nothing but admiration:

    The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler’s actions for his views for Christianity
    Further injuries to the argument against Hitler’s Christianity reveals itself in Hitler’s own personal actions toward Christianity.
    If Hitler had really wished to eliminate Christianity, then why did he act to unite the Protestant and Catholic Churches in Germany?
    If Hitler wanted to denounce Christianity, then why did he remain a Catholic in good standing until he died?
    Why did Hitler not break the Concordat between the Vatican and Germany? A case might be made that Hitler signed the Concordat in the first place, to help himself into power, but by no means does it explain why he kept it after winning power. His absolute power of the German state, Hitler could have, at any time, broke the Concordat if he was so against the Catholic religion. Why did he not do so, nor even consider it?
    In an attempt to rewrite history, those who desire to eliminate Hitler from membership of Christianity, always find an excuse to dismiss Hitler’s actual words. Instead they rely on indirect quotes from a questionable source such as Bormann’s edited version of the table talk. But if we were to use this form of dubious scholarship, shouldn’t we also quote Hitler from other indirect sources? If so, then, again, their plan fails and reveals the slanting of their bias. For if we took these apocryphal sources as evidence, then Hitler’s Christianity become even more evident.

    Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language! -Table-Talk [p. 9]

    If simply speaking against a Christian religion were enough to oust one from Christianity, then some of the most influential Christians would have to reside with Hitler.

    The papacy is truly the real power and tyranny of the Antichrist…. As beautiful as it was to keep a state of virginity, in the early days of Christianity, so abominable has it now become, when it is used as a means of eliciting Christ’s help and grace. -Martin Luther (Luther’s Confession, March 1528)
    We maintain that the government of the Church was converted into a species of foul and insufferable tyranny. -John Calvin (The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 1544) – Jim Walker

    Here are some quotes Dr. Brown conviently ignore.
    We don’t want to educate anyone in atheism. Table-Talk [p. 6]
    An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)… Table-Talk [p. 59]
    It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to re-establish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. -Table-Talk [p. 61]

  88. Bernie,

    1) I find it interesting that, in a post dedicated to questioning the veracity of Table Talk, you then supply quotes from it to buttress your position. You can’t have it both ways.

    2) Many of the top Holocaust historians in the world recognize that Hitler’s agenda was anti-Christian, including Jewish scholars.

    3) The anti-Catholic quotes from Calvin and Luther that you supply here cannot be compared with Hitler’s repudiation of Christianity as a whole. Calvin and Luther also did not engage in systematic persecution and muder of Catholic priests, as Hitler did.

     4) As I stated earlier, since the New Testament (and Church creeds) clearly define what a Christian is, Adolph Hitler cannot be called a Christian — even if every word he ever spoke or wrote having to do with Christiantiy was praiseworthy. As Jesus said, you will know a tree by its fruits. He also warned us that many would claim to be His followers on that day but would be exposed as workers of lawlessness (Matt 7:21). 

    5) I think any fairminded reader understands the facts here: Hitler knew how to manipulate the religious system for his purposes, but his murderous deeds and hateful words expose his true nature. Again, that should be obvious to any but the most biased.

  89. I think any fairminded reader understands the facts here: Dr. Brown knows how to manipulate the religious system for his purposes, but his dishonest deeds and hateful words expose his true nature. Again, that should be obvious to any but the most biased.

  90. My Two Friends:
    Dr. Brown & Self proclaimed Genius-Bernie,

    I could’t help but jump on here after reading the arguments of you two.  Over the span of the last month or so I found myself laughing out loud at times as Bernie began to seem more and more like a Bill O’Rielly protege rather than a level headed fact oriented debater.

    To say the very least I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion  here and it has only reaffirmed the fact that free speech no longer exist in the scientific community.  Whatever the conclusive evidence may suggest, Bernie, (which you have time and time again failed to provide) the most vital point to be drawn here is the undeniable fact that the status quo in the scientific community has outlawed the very mention of anything other than Darwin and the “Big Bang”.  When it comes to cosmology and the exact origin of intelligent life some of the most revered physicist and evolutionist provided scenarios and theories that are comical at best, and in my opinion require more faith for me to believe than ANY form of spirituality or religion that I’ve come across.

    The important thing for any reader here to remember is that the critical review of scientific matters is of the utmost importance; however, prejudgments and contempt of such matters echos the days of Nazism. Whichever the case may be I challenge the members of both parties, both intelligent design and whatever you call the counterpart (because I am sure we all understand that evolution only simply means a change over time, not a creation from inert matter such as energy) to become an independent thinker and not base your decisions on the political popularity of your augment or rely on the theories of evolutionist who had no idea of the cell (Darwin)

    With my time well spent and my rambling thoroughly boring I would like to say to Dr Brown:
    You are an admirable seeker of the truth and wholehearted lover of Christ, which I find hard to come across these days.
    and to Bernie:
    Well.. what do you expect when you continue use brash rhetoric and routinely state generalizations as fact.

    Remember there is only one way to be, so keep on burning for The Lord,
    Goldman Lowe

  91. Bernie,

    Thanks for bringing some humor into the discussion. It was getting a little dry before that. Much appreciated!

  92. “Eugenics came from evolution and Hitler got his ideas from the eugenics evolutionists here in America.” –Jane Underwood
    Yeah, a lot of evolutionists do tend to be in favor of eugenics or even lukewarm of the idea. I don’t know if you were aware of an article a couple years back from the Sunday Herald of Scotland titled, “Eugenics may not be bad,” by professor Richard Dawkins, defended the need to reexamine the positive “benefits” of selective human breeding or “eugenics”.  
     
    Here’s the article:http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php
     
    “IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
     
    Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from “ought” to “is” and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as “these are not one-dimensional abilities” apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
     
    I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn’t the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?”

  93. Goldman
    I could’t help but jump on here after reading the arguments of you two. Over the span of the last month or so I found myself laughing out loud at times as Bernie began to seem more and more like a Bill O’Rielly protege rather than a level headed fact oriented debater.
    Answer: If I’ve misstated any facts then I challenge you to point them out, explain why I am incorrect and back you claims up with verifiable facts. Until you do that your attacks on my character and integrity actually reflect very poorly on yours. I don’t appreciate being compared to right-wing lunatic Bill O’Reilly either.

    To say the very least I have thoroughly enjoyed the discussion here and it has only reaffirmed the fact that free speech no longer exist in the scientific community.
    Answer: That is simply not true. Nothing is more open to scrutiny than science. Scientific method dictates that no finding is the last word and all findings are always open to future revision. The Theory of evolution continues to be revised and refined but it is never going to be replaced. You better get used to that. Every private CHRISTIAN college and university in the world that teaches science teaches evolution, common descent and Big Bang cosmology. They also teach old earth geology, oceanography and zoology that refute the Bible’s flood story, paleontology that refutes the Bible’s creation story, anthropology that refutes the Tower of Babel story and most interestingly archaeology that disproves the Exodus events and proves that not only did the Davidic dynasty not exist neither of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel described in the Bible ever really existed either. You have a lot bigger problems than just evolution. If you don’t believe me you can easily verify this for yourself.

    Whatever the conclusive evidence may suggest, Bernie, (which you have time and time again failed to provide) the most vital point to be drawn here is the undeniable fact that the status quo in the scientific community has outlawed the very mention of anything other than Darwin and the “Big Bang”.
    Answer: Of course, the real reason why science does not admit supernatural hypotheses is because they can’t be subjected to scientific observation, experimentation, and falsification. The business of science is to try and explain things through naturalistic processes, because that’s the only objective method we humans have of independently verifying how the world works. With a supernatural solution, not only is there no means to explain things, there’s no point in explaining anything at all. If science does go beyond the bounds of natural phenomena, it stops being science and becomes metaphysics or theology. Nevertheless, creationists feel victimized and offended by what they see as a deliberate, mistaken, and unjust snubbing of the supernatural by science.

    When it comes to cosmology and the exact origin of intelligent life some of the most revered physicist and evolutionist provided scenarios and theories that are comical at best, and in my opinion require more faith for me to believe than ANY form of spirituality or religion that I’ve come across.
    Answer: You think science is comical? What about your explanation involving a talking snake, a woman made from a rib who was still fertile when she was 130 years old, magical trees and the rest on that nonsense? People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    The important thing for any reader here to remember is that the critical review of scientific matters is of the utmost importance; however, prejudgments and contempt of such matters echos the days of Nazism. Whichever the case may be I challenge the members of both parties, both intelligent design and whatever you call the counterpart (because I am sure we all understand that evolution only simply means a change over time, not a creation from inert matter such as energy) to become an independent thinker and not base your decisions on the political popularity of your augment or rely on the theories of evolutionist who had no idea of the cell (Darwin)
    Answer: The problem with you creationists is that you view Darwin as if he was someone who just came up with an idea one day after being drunk all night. Alfred Wallace and other scientists independently made the same discoveries and wrote about them too. Charles Darwin just wrote a more detailed and comprehensive book. In the front of the book Darwin said that his work was incomplete and need much further revision. This is exactly what has occurred. Much of what Darwin wrote has been disproved. For example Darwin thought modern humans are descended from Neanderthals. Scientists have proven this hypothesis to be incorrect but by no means does this advancement in knowledge disprove the entire field of evolution. So far every advance in our knowledge has only solidified the Theory of Evolution, much to the dismay of the creationists. By the way the complexity of cells just bolsters evolution as it took four billion years for simple cells to become as complex as they are today. Claiming that kind of complexity just popped into existence and is needed by a God to get things done who can just do anything he wants without it is a perfect example of the contradictory nature of creationism.

    With my time well spent and my rambling thoroughly boring I would like to say to Dr Brown:
    You are an admirable seeker of the truth and wholehearted lover of Christ, which I find hard to come across these days.
    and to Bernie:
    Well.. what do you expect when you continue use brash rhetoric and routinely state generalizations as fact.
    Answer: Unless you can tell us exactly what generalization was misstated as a fact you have said nothing. Now you have accused me of a few things and I’d like to see you back up your claims. I say you cannot and you owe me an apology for making false statements about me.

  94. I find it interesting that, in a post dedicated to questioning the veracity of Table Talk, you then supply quotes from it to buttress your position. You can’t have it both ways.
    Answer: I wasn’t. I was illustrating how YOU were selectively quote mining because much of what is in Table Talk refutes your position and common Christian claims that Hitler was an atheist or a Pagan. He was neither. What else was he if he wasn’t a Christian may I ask?

    Many of the top Holocaust historians in the world recognize that Hitler’s agenda was anti-Christian, including Jewish scholars.
    Answer: Hitler did not act alone and had millions of willing Christian accomplices. One wound up in a concentration camp for being anti-Christian. 5 million Pagans, deists, atheists and other infidels were also exterminated. It wasn’t just the Jews.

    The anti-Catholic quotes from Calvin and Luther that you supply here cannot be compared with Hitler’s repudiation of Christianity as a whole. Calvin and Luther also did not engage in systematic persecution and muder of Catholic priests, as Hitler did.
    Answer: As a whole you’ve got nothing. You apologists have only one very spurious source to back up your claims about Hitler ever saying anything at all negative about Christianity. Meanwhile you ignore his book Mein Kamph, his speeches, the Christian indoctrination of his armed services, SS and Gestapo, the teaching of Christianity and creationism in the Nazi public schools and most importantly the three years he spent in a Protestant seminary. I’d like to see you stop ignoring those facts and explain why you keep ignoring them exactly. We already know why don’t we? By the way both Calvin and Luther held to a flat immovable Earth.

    As I stated earlier, since the New Testament (and Church creeds) clearly define what a Christian is, Adolph Hitler cannot be called a Christian — even if every word he ever spoke or wrote having to do with Christiantiy was praiseworthy. As Jesus said, you will know a tree by its fruits. He also warned us that many would claim to be His followers on that day but would be exposed as workers of lawlessness (Matt 7:21).
    Answer: Christians often claim that the people involved in the Crusades, Inquisitions, witch burnings and other such atrocities cannot be defined as or called Christians. This is known as the “No true Scotsman fallacy.” I could easily assert that no true Christian would ever tell a lie. Such a bold proposal would undoubtedly eliminate all two billion Christians at the blink of an eye, if you will. I suppose you would say Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and perhaps even Catholics aren’t true Christians either. Both they and I disagree. If you Christians cannot agree on who is a Christian and who is not then all you have is a baseless and arbitrary guideline. In other words whether someone is a Christian or not can never be proved and is always simply a matter of opinion.

    I think any fairminded reader understands the facts here: Hitler knew how to manipulate the religious system for his purposes, but his murderous deeds and hateful words expose his true nature. Again, that should be obvious to any but the most biased.
    Answer: The thing is I’m not biased. I’m not blaming the Christian religion, Christians or the Bible for the atrocities or ideology of Adolph Hitler and his more than willing accomplices. It isn’t fair to blame a religion because power-mad dictators have perverted its teachings for their own political ambitions is it? Yet the Christians on this blog want to blame a scientific theory because they think certain dictators used it as an excuse to further their own political agendas. So in response to your first point it is you and your bloggers who wish to have it both ways. If a Christian reflects poorly on his religion we naturally blame the Christian, the person, not the religion. But if a non-Christian reflects poorly on an ideology or even an incorrectly assumed ideology other than Christianity we should all blame the ideology and not the person. Just one more example of the hypocrisy Christians are so well known for.

  95. Bernie,

    Have you ever read my book Our Hands Are Stained with Blood, documenting anti-Semitism in Church history and starting with “Christian” anti-Semitism in the Holocaust? I’d be happy to send you a copy if you’ll read it. Apparently, once again, you miss my points — but I’m getting used to that by now.

    Also, please do supply me with that list of world-respected Holocaust historians (not fringe cooks) that recognize that Hitler was a true Christian.

  96. Dr. Brown,
    You are missing the point. The whole reason I brought up the fact that Adolph Hitler was a professing Christian and the evidence to support it was to refute claims by some bloggers that the Theory of Evolution was somehow responsible for atrocities committed by the Nazis and communist Russia. These claims are simply not true. It doesn’t matter in this particular discussion what Hitler’s anti-Semitism or the rest of his ideology was based on, only what it wasn’t which was science. The same with Stalinist Russia, which rejected Darwinian Evolution as a bourgeois Western philosophy in favor of Lysenkoism. Millions of people starved to death because of this failed science, which was based on a ridiculous ID like belief that Nature was being guided and had specific goals. In reality it was a rejection of evolutionary theory and biology in Russia which caused the failure of their agricultural system, biological sciences and thus economy. Creationists who blame evolutionary theory or Darwin himself for the things that happened in Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany are either lying, ignorant or likely both.
    Your request for a list of Holocaust historians that must fit your definitions of “world-respected” (only people who agree with your point of view) and not “fringe cooks” (non-Christian writers) and that they must “recognize” (they have to be professing Christians) that Hitler was a “true” Christian (your particular definition of what a Christian is) is loaded with too many adjectives. It’s just not the way a person who puts “Dr.” in front of his name usually requests information. Request denied.

  97. Bernie,

    I understand why you initially posted what you did, but your comments about Hitler were actually irrelevant, as evidenced by the fact that you have now had to clarify things with the word “professing” — as in “professing Christian.” If you had called him a professing Christian from the start — as opposed to simply “Christian” or, in Fred Weiss’s even more bizarre expression, “devout Christian” — I would have not have taken as strenuous objection (although I still would have questioned your comments). Again, however, the Hitler thread you started does not relate to the question of the Nazis and eugenics.

    As for my request for documentation — which you decline — it is precisely because of my academic background that I make my request so specific. There are more than enough pseudo-scholars parading around these days, especially online, who could never get their work published in a peer-reviewed, scholar-based setting, and if you’ve studied the Holocaust seriously, you know there are serious, respected scholars, and then there are folks like David Irving. So, if bona fide scholars back your claims, let us know. If not, simply say that the people who support your position are not respected Holocaust scholars (which, by the way, is the conclusion to which most readers here will come to by your “Request denied” comment).

    One last point: Your parsing of my requirement reads your highly biased views into what I said. How about showing the integrity to reply forthrightly rather than twisting the points of myself and others? It will really advance constructive dialogue and the pursuit of truth — if, that is, you have a real interest in either of these. 

  98. Again you’re using the “No true Scotsman fallacy” as your defense that Hitler was not a Christian. The Catholic Church excommunicated Galileo but never excommunicated Hitler. I pointed out that Hitler was neither a Pagan nor an atheist and asked you what he was if he wasn’t either of those. You’ve conveniently ignored that question as well as several other points I’ve made that really show you have no evidence for your claim but only your opinion. What was Hitler is he wasn’t a pagan or an atheist?
    As to the question of the Nazis and eugenics the famous eugenist Julian Huxley wrote that a more moral view of eugenics involves the inclusion of sympathy, leading him to state that “no eugenist in his senses ever has or would ever suggest that one particular type or standard should be picked out as desirable…it takes all kinds to make a world” (Freeden 648-649). Hitler was not correctly justifying his actions with “Darwinism,” or even the moral consensus of fellow eugenists. Darwin himself emphasized cooperation, sympathy, and a general concern for others as the key to progress for the species, which is a far cry from the extermination policies of the Nazis.
    Your request for documentation is perfect example of the hypocrisy of Christian apologetics. We can only use “serious, respected scholars” and must stay away from “pseudo-scholars parading around these days, especially online, who could never get their work published in a peer-reviewed, scholar-based setting.” Really? If we are going to apply that rule to one avenue of research then we must apply it all the time right? There are more than enough pseudo-scientists parading around these days, especially online, who could never get their work published in a peer-reviewed, science-based setting, and if you’ve studied science seriously, you know there are serious, respected scientists, and then there are folks like The Discovery Institute. So, if bona fide scientists back your claims, let us know. If not, simply say that the people who support your position are not respected scientists (which, by the way, is the conclusion to which most sensible people here will come to by your denials of science).
    Now I just proved that when it comes to scholarship you pick and choose what scholarship you will accept and what you won’t. So you are making another logical fallacy called an “appeal to authority” and what’s worse they can only be authorities that agree with your own dogmatically held positions. None of your ID magic writers and creationist propagandists have ever gotten any of their work published in a peer-reviewed, science-based setting yet you have the nerve to demand skeptics read this nonsense: “So, please let our readers know which academic books on ID you have studied and why you found their argumentation lacking, OK?” “You speak of “unobservable nonsense like ID,” which would suggest you know very little about how ID works and draws its conclusions. May I ask you which academic ID books you have read through carefully?”
    Of course ID doesn’t work, it hasn’t produced any results that could improve our lives, advance knowledge, lead to new discoveries, which are the reasons we do science in the first place and ID certainly hasn’t drawn any new conclusions either. So could you explain why something being written by respected scholars and getting peer-reviewed is only important when you say it is?
    Now here are a few respected historians who dispute apologetic claims that Hitler wasn’t a Christian: Tamas Pataki, Frederick Heer, Eberhard Jackel, Lucy Davidowicz, Saul Friedlander [Nazi Germany and the Jews], Daniel Goldhagen [Hitler’s Willing Executioners], Ian Kershaw [Hitler, 1889-1946: Hubris] which discusses the German society’s fear of social Darwinism, The Holy Reich, by Richard Steigmann-Gall

    A few more things that really demolish your case:
    Pastor Wilhelm Rehm from Reutlingen, declared publicly, that “Hitler would not have been possible, without Martin Luther.

    Hitler had a lot of support in his war of extermination. Father Charles Coughlin was a radio preacher based in Michigan. Millions of people tuned into his broadcasts. In a rally in the Bronx, New York in 1938, Coughlin said: “When we get through with the Jews in America, they’ll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing.”

    On November 1933, A Protestant mass rally of the Deutsche Christians, which brought together a record 20 000 persons, passed three resolutions:
    Adolph Hitler is the completion of the reformation,
    Baptized Jews are to be dismissed from the Church
    The Old Testament is to be excluded from Sacred Scriptures.

  99. Berne,  I appreciate your logic, and your defense, but, I too would not call Hitler a Christian, simply because some writers do, or do not.  I would not call Hitler a Christian based on the teachings and discipled fruit of Jesus the Christ.  A read of James’ (Jacob), Peter’s, or Paul’s letters would soon lead to some kind of conclusion regarding forming an actual definition of a Christian, or disciple of Christ.  Such is not an externally imposed label as an identifier alone, such has certain internal components which are manifested in this world which follow a life.   Some measures are: 1) the attitude of the beatitudes of the Sermon on the mount spoken to a crowd coming to hear the sermon by Jesus; 2) the assumptive personal devotional practice of the “wisdom from above,” spoken of in descriptive contrast to a mere religiousity or followers of the Spirit of this world by James (Jacob, the Lord’s half brother); 3) The lack of manipulative and predatory intention mentioned of false followers or teachers by Peter; 4) The fruit of the Spirit alluded to by Paul; 5) the practice of the New Commandment Jesus commanded his followers to practice, along with what is commonly called the Golden Rule he taught; 6) the fruit of a follower of Jesus’ life as contrasted with Hitler’s own life, false claims, and eccentricities (such as the use of Crystal Meth); 7) the reasons written in the New Testament for “the hope within” which a Christian can readily outline for you.

    It is not a matter of which scholars claim what as to attempting to understand Hitler’s own patheticly contradictory religiousity, or link him with this or that religious construct–it is a matter of the heart.   Dr. Brown walks in both academic circles and simple faith in his own alliances and associations, so, he will have a track record of concern over what he could rightly qualify is good or bad, or relevant, or irrelevant, or irreverent scholarship (in the light of my seven identifiers of a Christian).  But thanks for your attempts at asserting what could have been a way at arriving at a definition of a Christian for Hitler’s instance, where obviously ignorant of the source of the term, its references, and foundations.

  100. Bernie,

    Thanks for finally responding to my request. I’ll check the references you mentioned, which are familiar to me and within mainstream scholarship. (I’ll also ignore your ID-related rhetoric once again.) 

    Also, if you had taken up my offer re: reading Our Hands Are Stained with Blood, you would not be making statements here that allegedly prove your point — as if you were posting new information here.

  101. Dr. Brown,
    Thanks for finally responding to my request. I’ll check the references you mentioned, which are familiar to me and within mainstream scholarship. (I’ll also ignore your ID-related rhetoric once again.)

    Answer: That’s the problem with debating creationists. They don’t know the rules and customs of a debate. When you make a point that demolishes their entire position or pose a question that will trap them in their own dogma and intellectual dishonesty they simply ignore it and change the subject like you are doing. This thread has nothing to do with Hitler it’s about Bible believers attempting to cram their religious nonsense into public school science classes. What gives you the audacity to demand peer-reviewed scholarly research on one subject and then demand others read non peer-reviewed pseudo-scientific nonsense that supports your absurd religious claims? Answer the question please. Also I proved Hitler was neither a Pagan nor an atheist, and I asked you what he was if he wasn’t one of those. You avoided this embarrassing question also because any answer would obviously demolish your entire position or else be untrue. You’ve also ignored some important facts such as the fact that the Nazis did not teach evolution in their public schools but rather Christian creationism. Had Hitler been trying to use evolutionary science in his brand of genetic research he would have insisted his public school students learn that science instead of being brainwashed by creationism – another point that demolishes your entire case – conveniently ignored by you and the rest of your bloggers.

    Also, if you had taken up my offer re: reading Our Hands Are Stained with Blood, you would not be making statements here that allegedly prove your point — as if you were posting new information here.

    Answer: I haven’t read that book but I have read some of the drivel you’ve written Dr. Brown. What I have read should be filed under junk apologetics.

    You said: “I’ll also ignore your ID-related rhetoric once again.” This is what all you creationists do when you get cornered in a debate. You remind me of a small spoiled child who when he hears something he doesn’t like he covers his ears and runs around screaming I can’t hear you. Right now I have you right where I want you anyway. You’ve backed yourself into a corner with your own nonsense and there’s no way out. You either have to continue to ignore my requests that you respond to my questions and the points I’ve made or risk responding and watch me bring the hammer down on your excuses and humiliate you with your own words as I have already done now several times. Your move.

  102. Bernie,

    Your last comments are completely unworthy of a response, except to point out that once again, you are sounding more and more like the atheist Fred Weiss (aka Boris; Fearless, etc.), whose conduct got him banned from this forum. He too claimed that he was ready to humiliate me — on my radio show at that — only to disappoint so many of us with his lack of solid arguments when he was on the air. I was really hoping for more from him, just as I had hoped here that the solid arguments and points from you would outweigh the vacuous rhetoric, but once again, serious substance has been all but lacking in your posts.

  103. The only group who are “cram[ming] their religious nonsense into public school science classes” are the Secular Humanists. They are forcing their religion via the promotion of the myth of evolution. It would seem though that the anti-creationists are becoming more shrill in their rhetoric as more U.S. states are introducing legislation encouraging public-school students to examine scientific evidence against Darwinism. See the following short article entitled Anti-creationists: do they fear an overthrow of Darwin in the U.S.?

    This year, as has been happening every year for several decades, various U.S. states are introducing legislation encouraging public-school students to examine scientific evidence against Darwinism. And again, anti-creationist lobby groups, such as the National Center for Science Education, are pushing the panic button, claiming that such efforts aim to introduce Christianity into government-run schools.

    This year, however, the anti-creationists seem to be pushing the button harder, saying that such bills “are multiplying out of control”. Perhaps that is because more states now seem to be involved. Bills are pending or currently passed in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, while more are sprouting in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina. As usual, one tactic the anti-creationists are using is to label such efforts as “creationist” and therefore “religion”, even though the bills only propose teaching more science evidence.

    The main creationist organizations, including CMI, think that it is more profitable to educate individuals about the issue than as organisations themselves to lobby governments. Then when enough individuals understand, they can do the lobbying … as may be happening. To teach merely the scientific evidence against evolution is only a tiny sliver of what creation science teaches. But the Darwinists have made it clear that they cannot tolerate even that sliver. I think they know that once students begin considering scientific evidence, Darwinists have lost the war, because they know (at least the leaders know) that they have no real evidence on their side.

    The Intelligent Design (ID) movement, started by University of California Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson, is undoubtedly providing much of the impetus for the new legislation. By paring the issues down to only one—did it require intelligence to design living things?—ID has made it much more difficult for evolutionists to avoid discussing the evidence. But because the Darwinists “control the microphone” (Professor Johnson’s phrase for media dominance), they can still get away with what Phillip Johnson called “cheap lawyer tricks”, such as attacking the man (by labeling him “creationist” for example) rather than discussing the ideas.

    Because polls consistently show the percentage of anti-creationists in the U.S. is small, it seems clear that their dominance is unstable, maintained only by keeping the majority in ignorance. However, the majority may be allowing themselves to be misled, thinking the issue is unimportant to them personally. Perhaps every time an evolutionist lobby group shrilly attacks people who oppose them, a few more of the majority may wonder, “What’s all the fuss about? Maybe the issue is important after all. Maybe the Darwinists should be confined to churches of their own, and not permitted to run the schools.”

    So I applaud the anti-Darwin legislators and the efforts of the ID movement. The panicky reaction of the Darwinists makes me somewhat hopeful. Who knows whether there might even be an overthrow of evolution in the coming years? In the meantime, we need to “occupy” (Luke 19:13 KJV)—i.e. keep busy with the work of the Kingdom. The more people are informed with the truth, the fewer will swallow the Darwinian lie that has seen so much “falling away”.

  104. Bernie,

    Attacks on individuals, such as “I haven’t read that book but I have read some of the drivel you’ve written Dr. Brown. What I have read should be filed under junk apologetics.” have no place on this site.  Please abide by the rules laid forth here while commenting: http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/commenting/.  You are free to debate the ISSUES, but this will not be a forum to attack INDIVIDUALS.

    Marcus French
    Editor: Voice of Revolution

  105. Bernie,

    You wrote the following,

    Also I proved Hitler was neither a Pagan nor an atheist, and I asked you what he was if he wasn’t one of those. You avoided this embarrassing question also because any answer would obviously demolish your entire position or else be untrue.

    In fact, it depends on your definition of both of these terms. Did you know that for a while the National Socialist party tried to set up their own church – with the worship of a ‘messianic’ Hitler as the saviour of the Germanic race? For a Christian, this is idolatory and, again in the Christian sense of the word, this is paganism. As far as I can see, he was not an atheist – but he certainly wasn’t godly or believing on Christ for his salvation (probably because he didn’t believe there was a need for eternal salvation.)

    You’ve also ignored some important facts such as the fact that the Nazis did not teach evolution in their public schools but rather Christian creationism.

    This is simply untrue. Could you cite a source that you built this statement on? I would be interested to see it. In nearly 4 years of academic study on 20th century German History (my specialty), I have not come across one document to substantiate your claim. In fact, if anything, Hitler’s government taught a racial doctrine very similar to evolution but not evolution itself. Think about it, creationism condones the belief that half of the world’s historical population descends from a Jewish ancestory and the other half from a Muslim/Islamic gentry, this certainly seems like it would not sit well with the Nazi Weltanschauung.

    “Had Hitler been trying to use evolutionary science in his brand of genetic research he would have insisted his public school students learn that science instead of being brainwashed by creationism – another point that demolishes your entire case – conveniently ignored by you and the rest of your bloggers.

    Have you ever read Nietzsche? In fact, Friedrich Nietzsche hated the founders of the nationalistic ideology but he was frequently cited in right-wing German publications and implicated in the Nazi belief system (although they seem to have missed the points that he was trying to make.) The main philosophy of Nietsche’s writing was the principal of an übermensch – a kind of ‘superman’ who by self-examination and questioning his every desire, is able to become a pure man and actually advance to the next stage of humanity (see the opening theses of ‘The Gay Science’ – which has nothing to do with homosexuality.) This is closely related to the doctrine of racial purity which was ‘rife’ in Europe but particularly in Germany (pre- and post-unification.) In a sense, Evolutionism/Darwinisms theory of survival of the fittest is a close relative (again not exactly the same) of both Nietzsche and the Nazi party – although almost certainly all three would not have had a happy home together.

    In conclusion then, what I am saying is, perhaps think about doing a bit more study before making claims like these. It’s only one paragraph and I have shown you lots of places that you’ve gone wrong because of your assumptions/lack of reference. Is it possible that you’ve done this in lots of other places in this discussion as well?

    Marc
    (heknocks.com)

  106. Ewan,
    There are several points that I keep making that all you creationists continue to ignore because each one them completely destroys your entire case. If there really were any evidence against evolution then CHRISTIAN colleges and universities would be discussing them in their science classes. If there really were any evidence for Intelligent Design magic or creationism then CHRISTIAN colleges and universities would be teaching them instead of going out of their way to distance themselves from these hoaxes. Again if your own Christian scientific academic community has unanimously rejected creationism and Intelligent Design, not to mention soundly scientifically refuting them, then what gives you creationists the audacity to demand that public school students be indoctrinated with this religious nonsense? Get each and every CHRISTIAN college and university in at least the United States to stop teaching evolution, common descent and all the other science you disagree with and replace it with creationism or Intelligent Design magic and then you might have a case. But that’s never going to happen and you know it.

    The problem with Intelligent Design is that it’s a “movement” that wasn’t started by a scientist or scientists in the Christian academic community but an evangelical Christian lawyer. A scientific theory is based on a new discovery or discoveries not some kind of ideological movement. It isn’t science because unlike real scientists such as evolutionary biologists the ID writers haven’t produced any scientific results anywhere that could improve our way of life nor have they demonstrated how ID actually explains anything, has any useful applications of any kind, or how it could advance knowledge or lead to new discoveries in the future. I challenge you to give me some useful realistic applications that scientists could use creationism or Intelligent Design magic for and one reason we should scrap a theory that has consistently demonstrated its usefulness for 150 years.

    Another point I’ve made is that creationist writers have blurred the lines between scientific disciplines in order to dupe people like you into thinking they only have a problem with one area of science so you wouldn’t realize that they actually are denying and trying to stop the teaching of ALL science not just evolution. Creationists have problems with the teaching of cosmology, zoology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy, chemistry and all the other science that refutes their particular interpretation of the Bible also. Don’t just hide behind your hatred for Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. Just come out of your science hating closet and admit you are intent on continuing the almost 2000 year long Christian war on science. You cannot hide your hatred and fear of advancing scientific and social progress.

    The last part of your post about an “overthrow” of evolution is just hilarious and reveals how creationists view science. Evolution isn’t going to be overthrown and it isn’t going to be scientifically refuted either. Creationists actually believe that even if the majority of the population did not accept evolution they would all automatically become Bible believing young earth creationists. This of course is a false dichotomy only a creationist would be too blind to see. Creationism is an almost strictly American disease. Nowhere else in the world do we have Bible believers attempting to force their religious dogma and nonsense into our public schools. Ken Ham and Ray Comfort came to America because they knew they could not foment their nonsense in Australia or anywhere else but the good ole United States of Bubbadom where it’s okay to wrong.

    What creationists are proposing would essentially turn the United States into a third world country or worse and return us to the Dark Ages when the Christian Church and angry Christians hunted down, arrested tortured and murdered anyone who dared study nature. That’s what you really want for the U.S. and in fact the entire world. Just be honest enough to admit it.

  107. Marcus,
    I didn’t attack Dr. Brown personally I criticized some things he wrote. I apologize for not being more clear about this.

  108. Marc Thomas,
    In fact, it depends on your definition of both of these terms. Did you know that for a while the National Socialist party tried to set up their own church – with the worship of a ‘messianic’ Hitler as the saviour of the Germanic race? For a Christian, this is idolatory and, again in the Christian sense of the word, this is paganism. As far as I can see, he was not an atheist – but he certainly wasn’t godly or believing on Christ for his salvation (probably because he didn’t believe there was a need for eternal salvation.)

    Answer: First of all “bowing on bended knee to the authority of the Bible” as Hank Hanegraaf puts it is a form of idolatry. Fundamentalist Christians worship a collection of ancient literature because without that they have no evidence for their God or any of his absurd invisible friends and enemies. The early church fathers would certainly see modern fundamentalist Christians as pagans and idolaters and I agree because it’s true. So since it depends on my definition of terms I’m sticking with Hitler being the true Christian he always publicly and privately claimed to be and I’m saying the people on this blog challenging me are all pagan idolaters who worship a paper idol instead of a God. So as I said before, I’m not lumping any other people in with Hitler other than his millions of willing evangelical Christian assassins.

    This is simply untrue. Could you cite a source that you built this statement on? I would be interested to see it. In nearly 4 years of academic study on 20th century German History (my specialty), I have not come across one document to substantiate your claim. In fact, if anything, Hitler’s government taught a racial doctrine very similar to evolution but not evolution itself. Think about it, creationism condones the belief that half of the world’s historical population descends from a Jewish ancestory and the other half from a Muslim/Islamic gentry, this certainly seems like it would not sit well with the Nazi Weltanschauung.
    Answer: When the Nazis conquered Norway they installed the traitor Quisling as their puppet and told the nation’s teachers that they had to teach Nazi curriculum in the schools. This included creationism and you can check this out for your self. Creationism was used to indoctrinate students with racism. The teachers balked and were locked out. The German public schools taught creationism until 1964 and you can verify this also but they weren’t the last country whose public school system taught creationism. There is a more recent example of creationism being used to instill racism in public school students that Christian historical revisionists haven’t been able to disguise with their apologetic excuses and lies.
    According to the South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135- 137 1998, the CNE (Christian National Education) system was officially in place in South Africa from 1967 to 1993. A quote from that document:
    “Christian National Policy stated, amongst other things, that white children should “receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles … ”
    The SAA Bulletin document clearly show that creationist dogma was employed as a weapon to instill racist ideals in South African children for more than a quarter of a century.
    This is the introduction to the SAA Bulletin document: “The Christian National Education (CNE) system continued in South Africa until as late as 1993. In 1994 the education system underwent radical change when the African National Congress came to power. The ANC’s education policy required a ‘reconstruction’ of school curricula to ‘rid the education and training system of a legacy of racism, dogmatism, and outmoded teaching practices’. Under this more enlightened government hominid evolution was made a part of the interim History syllabus.”
    This is proof that right-wing Christian fascists such as the Nazis and the South African government that practiced apartheid used creationism to further their racist ideals. Claiming that fundamentalist Christians such as the Nazis actually accepted the facts of evolution, or “believed” in evolution as the creationists put it is no less ludicrous than trying to claim Jerry Falwell believed in evolution. When have any Bible believers ever believed in any science that refuted their paper idol?

    Have you ever read Nietzsche? … In a sense, Evolutionism/Darwinisms theory of survival of the fittest is a close relative (again not exactly the same) of both Nietzsche and the Nazi party – although almost certainly all three would not have had a happy home together.
    Answer: What you don’t realize is that survival of the fittest isn’t some kind of doctrine somebody came up with. It is a fact of nature that was discovered and we humans have had to learn to deal with it and in fact have largely been able to control it for our own benefit. If we just ignored facts like this like creationists wish we would we would not be able to combat things like this. For example people with genetic defects that would have killed them off centuries ago before they could reproduce and pass those defects on to their children can now live long and normal lives and have children. In effect scientists have been able to neutralize Nature’s survival of the fittest method of natural selection with our own artificial selection thereby reversing the effects of evolution. There is no way we could do this if we had never learned how nature structures itself through natural selection.

    Here are some things Nietzsche said about Christianity:
    “God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers – at bottom merely a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think!”
    “Out of terror, the type has been willed, cultivated and attained: the domestic animal, the herd animal… the Christian.”
    “I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity… the one immortal blemish on the human race.”
    “Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life’s nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in ‘another’ or ‘better’ life… The Christian resolution to find this world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.”

    In conclusion then, what I am saying is, perhaps think about doing a bit more study before making claims like these. It’s only one paragraph and I have shown you lots of places that you’ve gone wrong because of your assumptions/lack of reference. Is it possible that you’ve done this in lots of other places in this discussion as well?
    Answer: In saying there are lots of places I’ve gone wrong with no documentation to back it up you’ve said nothing. Is it possible that you really have no evidence to refute anything I’ve said? Of course if you did actually have anything you would have happily posted it. Don’t accuse people of not doing research when you haven’t done yours and you have no case anyway. By the way academic credentials are as worthless as the paper they’re written on. Moonie Jonathan Wells has a degree in biology and he knows almost nothing about the subject. Four years of German history and you don’t know the Nazis indoctrinated their armed forces and public school students with Bible based Christian superstitions. Sure.

  109. Hmm. Interesting stuff. Not really what I asked you though was it? My points were not to do with South Africa. Of course, I see the similarities between apartheid and the racial policy of National Socialism, and you have a valied point.

    What I do fail to see, is why you used evidence from South Africa, to back up your claims about the Third Reich.

    With regards to the problem of Hitler’s statements about how much in adoration he was of Christianity, what you must remember, and I am sure that you will, is that Germany was (before the 1960s particularly) was a country professing a large catholic population (Bavaria and the rest of the South were steeped in Catholacism,) while the north (Saxony) and the West (Saarland for example) were a protestant areas. In fact, there was little variation from the theme of Christian belief – exceptions being the large northern cities such as Berlin and Frankfurt. For a map of the distribution of Catholic voters please see http://www.ewanco.com/~eje/robert.html

    With regards to voting, I can imagine that your logical conclusion (given previous statements) would be that ‘Hitler still managed to gain power which must show the church supporting him.’ You know, you wouldn’t be entirely in error or without good logic for saiyng that. It is true that the Church widely supported Hitler and that many of the Nazi leaders professed to being Christian.

    Voting outcomes, however, were not due to Hitler’s ‘excellent moral stance’ but the fact that he had lead Germany in somewhat of a miraculous recovery. I know that you know this because you used it to support a different argument earlier.

    I guess you also know that the full name of the Nazi party included notions of socialism and workers’ rights also? All the same, Hitler managed to make deals with big business and alienate lots of the workers… sure he gave them holidays on boats and cinema tickets but what I’m trying to say is that the Nazi party were well trained in rhetoric. They were masters of inference and deception.

    Seeing as Hitler’s own life seems to show no ‘fruit’ of his belief, isn’t it more likely that he was just using this as a way of gaining support?

    With regards to written evidence, I am sorry, and I realise this sounds like a cop-out, but I live in Paris at the moment and cannot get to my books because they are still in Wales. If you would like to read about the situation at the beginning of the Nazi rule, there’s an interesting article by Ian Kershaw (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QAPmule8mdcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR35&dq=Voting+Statistics+in+the+Third+Reich&ots=GQu16M7AYs&sig=F_LfHcKDzSzeJrJ9u9OhULpqoRk),
    additionally you could look up some other reputable names, Schoenbaum, Conan, Bullock – a lecturer of mine but world renowned academic, Heiko Feldner writes about Nationalistic belief in Germany but also writes on Nazi Germany from time to time. He is highly objective. Mommsen is good – and was himself in the German army. I would very much like to give you better references but this will have to wait until my circumstance changes.

    I have not overlooked the use of Christian symbols and Germany’s christian past. I know full well that the Nazis used Christianity. Doesn’t mean they believed it.

    Marc

  110. Also, why include the remarks Nietzsche made about Christianity? These have nothing to do with the point I was making.

  111. Bernie, I already answered your question as to why “Christian” colleges and universities teach evolution and reject biblical creation. It is in one of my earlier comments above. Here is the permalink. This in part is what I said there:

    It’s very easy to explain why many in the “Christian academic community” teach evolution rather than a biblical worldview, and that is that this category of Christian academics have become corrupt and compromised. Such ostensibly ‘Christian’ academics and colleges are more concerned with their reputations among their secular academic peers than they are with remaining true to Scripture. ‘Academic respectability’ is of greater concern to them than is biblical orthodoxy. It is simply another example of fearing man more than fearing God.

    Genuinely  Christian colleges do indeed teach biblical creation and also teach about evolution including why it is bad science. So this is not the knock-out argument that you imagine it to be. One of the most significant reasons which lead to the present day enfeeblement of the church in the West, was the capitulation to Darwinism of many church academics going back many years.

  112. Ewan,
    Of course none of what you posted is even close to being accurate. The Christian academic community has not become corrupt and compromised. Your problem is that they refuse to be corrupted compromised by fundamentalist Christian dogma. Christian schools aren’t concerned with their reputations among their secular peers they are only concerned with science. Your statements are absolutely false, disrespectful and defamatory. Christian colleges do not teach biblical creation they teach those stories as allegory and so do most Christian seminaries. Only Bible colleges and places like Bob Jones teach biblical creation because of course, they don’t teach science at all. Also no Christian colleges or universities attempt to teach why evolution is bad science because that would be impossible. Evolution is not bad science. If your religion claims otherwise then it’s a bad religion.

  113. Marc Thomas,
    The reason I pointed out that Hitler was a Christian in the first place was to counter the creationist propaganda I’ve seen plastered on this blog that the Nazis used “Darwinism” as basis for justifying the atrocities they committed. The counter argument that you and others make is that Hitler used Christianity to further his own political ambitions and wasn’t a real Christian. People will always debate Hitler’s Christianity and nothing will ever be settled in everyone’s mind. But the claim that Hitler used Christianity proves my original point, which is that the Nazis did NOT use “Darwinism” or evolution by natural selection as a basis for anything. The two don’t mix and we all know this. The Nazis did not accept Darwinian evolution any more than most of the people on this blog do and for the exact same reasons.
    The problem is that the creationists know they can’t win a scientific battle so they’ve waged an ideological war on the entire enterprise of science. They use smoke and mirrors to dupe the public into thinking that their only problem is with one particular theory, which they deceptively refer to as “Darwinian Evolution” rather than the scientific term “evolution by natural selection.” (The term natural selection by itself demolishes the vast majority of creationist arguments you know.) But the creationists wish to bring an end to science done by scientific method and in their own words “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies.” Now the reason Europe is no longer Christian is because they’ve learned the hard way what creationist thinking and dogma like that quote from the Discovery Institute leads to. Since Christians only believe what other Christians “who see God’s hand in everything” [read historical revisionists] write they never learn from their mistakes. This is why it is so important to point out the fallacies in their arguments and the untruth of their claims.

  114. I see what you’re saying.

    I woould entirely dispute your statement that “Now the reason Europe is no longer Christian is because they’ve learned the hard way what creationist thinking and dogma like that quote from the Discovery Institute leads to.” It’s not that simple. It would be great if it was though – would certainly make it easier for everyone to be more accepting!

    Like I have said in previous posts, National Socialist racial theory is a ‘cousin’ of Darwinism/Natural Selection. It places the Aryan race/ Germanic people as the pinnacle of humanity because of its ‘racial purity.’

    Again, interesting stuff.
    Marc

  115. Of interest to this discussion: http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/2009/05/20/missing-link-between-humans-and-apes-found/

  116. Marc,
    “Like I have said in previous posts, National Socialist racial theory is a ‘cousin’ of Darwinism/Natural Selection. It places the Aryan race/ Germanic people as the pinnacle of humanity because of its ‘racial purity.’ ”

    Answer: This statement is just ridiculous. There is no such thing as “Darwinism.” An ideology such as the National Socialist racial dogma (not theory) cannot be a cousin of a scientific theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. That’s all it is. It makes no ideological statements and no dogmatic claims and its only cousins are other useable scientific explanations such as atomic theory for example. Scientists do not tell us how to live according to their theories. Instead their make our lives much healthier, safer, longer, more satisfying and interesting among other things. The Nazis in Germany had about as much grasp of evolutionary theory as the creationists on this blog or anywhere else, which is exactly none at all; and just like the Russians, neither did their scientists. The German approach to genetics was just as absurd and unscientific as the Russian approach to biological science, which told them to try to grow wheat on the frozen tundra. Millions of people died either resisting this insane idea or starving to death because of it. Yet somehow in the creationist revisionist history “Darwinism” was responsible for this tragedy. It was a staunch rejection of evolutionary theory based purely on ideological grounds and not scientific ones that caused this tragedyin Russia, not an acceptance of it. The idea that people would blame a scientific theory for the actions of a power-mad dictator and his associates is ludicrous. Following that argument we should blame atomic theory if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attacks Israel or one of his other imagined enemies with nuclear weapons. After all atomic theory is just a theory and so according to your line of thinking it must therefore be an ideology or even a religion. But we know the real threat is religious people having nuclear weapons now don’t we? Not the weapons themselves. Gods don’t kill people. People with Gods kill people. Science saves.

  117. Bernie, that’s really funny. ‘There’s no such thing as Darwinism.’ Guess all the books, tv shows I’ve seen on it, and scientists I’ve heard talk about darwinism are wrong. lol.
    Unless you’re just arguing for the sake of it??

  118. Paul,
    Bernie, that’s really funny. ‘There’s no such thing as Darwinism.’ Guess all the books, tv shows I’ve seen on it, and scientists I’ve heard talk about darwinism are wrong. lol.
    Unless you’re just arguing for the sake of it??

    Answer: Name a book written by a scientist that uses the term Darwinism in its title or a TV show that did or quote a real scientist who has used that term. lol. The term “Darwinism” is a creationist invention made to fool unsuspecting scientifically ignorant people into getting the false impression that science is really just an ideology or even a religion. It is a typical distortion of language that fundamentalist Bible believers have been engaging in ever since advancing science began debunking their holy book many centuries ago.
    No Protestant denomination accepted the findings of Galileo and Copernicus until 1835. Up until that point in time all the Protestant denominations held to the flat immoveable earth clearly described in both Testaments of the Bible. The terms “Galieoism and “Copernucusism” were invented by Protestant Christians to confuse people into thinking that Copernicus’ ideas were religious rather than scientific. Even today the majority of creationists hold that the earth does not move and is the center of the universe and I can link you to several creationist websites who promote this belief and use the term “Copernucusism” to describe what they believe is a false theory.
    “Is there “Einsteinism”, “Newtonism”, “Copernucusism” or “Euclidism”? I think not. Evolutionary biologists would greet the term “Darwinism” with a blank stare, as rightly they should. The correct term is “Biology”, of which evolution of species is a core principal.

    I think I have complained before about the distortion of language for political ends, and “Darwinism” ranks right up there with the “Clean Coal” invention, except this time it’s meant as a slam. If you find yourself in a discussion, and either the term “Democrat Party” or “Darwinism” is floated, the interjector is a professional @$%, and you have my permission to be rude.” – Mean Mister Mustard

    I’ve asked creationists this question hundreds of times before and not one of them has ever had the nerve to respond. Let’s see if you have the intestinal fortitude to defend your beliefs. Where is your scriptural evidence that the earth moves and orbits the sun?

  119. Well here’s an article on why the term ‘Darwinism’ is not Evolution… but all the same, even they accept the term ‘Darwinism’ (NY Times) - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10essa.html?_r=2

    And here’s one by The Guardian (One of the UK’s Number one papers…) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/feb/12/simon-conway-morris-darwin

    Here’s a use by Mr Dawkins himself - http://richarddawkins.net/article,3594,Heat-the-Hornet,Richard-Dawkins

    Evidently it’s an accepted term and we’re just arguing about semantics… but that’s not even a word eh? 

    Marc
    (heknocks.com)

  120. Bernie, check the BBC show achives they did show after show on the subject of evolution often using the word darwinism in the title, had scientist on there using the term darwinism, and the BBC is not a christian/creationist institution. I suppose you’ll try and argue it’s wrong cause it’s british, but then so was darwin. Darwinism is a widely accepted term, hasn’t reached you yet, but is widely accepted nonetheless.

  121. p.s Bernie here’s a link to google books http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=darwinism you can go on there yourself and see all the books with Darwinism in the title, not by creationists. There is one called refuting the myth but that is not by a creationist. Here’s another link to dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/darwinism 
    Here is a BBC link http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?go=homepage&scope=all&q=darwinism again you’ll find mr. dawkins listed there.  I may not agee with his beliefs about God but you can’t doubt that a man with who is a science professor at oxford falls into your definition of ‘real scientist.’
    Hope this helps!

  122. This term “Darwinism” is no different than the bogus term “evolutionist.” Sometimes scientists use that word too. What’s an evolutionist? Well according to creationists that is anyone who accepts evolution. So what that means is that there are 7 billion evolutionists on this planet as opposed to 20 million creationists almost all of whom live in the United Confederacy of Bubbadom more commonly known as the southern and mid western United States. Creationists are heavily concentrated in the states that have the worst public schools in the nation. Gee, what a surprise. Creationism, like Mormonism is a strictly Americanized version of Christianity. This kind of scientific ignorance exists nowhere else in the world and has the international scientific community laughing at us. You creationists should be so proud.

  123. Hey Bernie, 

    Are you a generalist? Because you’re really pushing the theory of generalisation. 

    Ahem.
    Marc

  124. Bernie, correct me if im wrong, but you say there’s no such thing as darwinism, I prove you wrong, and you assume Im a southerner who believes in creation and that no other than southerners do?? Good come back!! FYI New Zealand, Australia, Western Europe all have prominent Biblical creationists. In fact there has been a rise in the UK of people believing in creationism over the last few years. You’ll also find that Islamic nations have many scientists and apologeticists that believe creation. Again you’ve made statements that are simply not true, which leads me to ask the question, is anything you’ve said on this forum actually got any valid support to it?? Not representing science very well are ya?

  125. Paul
    You proved nothing my good man. Is there such a thing as “Copernucusism?” I think not. Famous creationist Gerardus Bouw who heads The Association for Biblical Astronomy, which insists as several Bible passages clearly state that Earth is the center of the universe and does not move uses the term “Copernucusism” all the time. He blames it for much that is wrong with the world today. So do other creationists who hold this view and they have been using the term “Copernucusism” in their apologetic literature for centuries. Just because someone uses a particular term doesn’t give the term real meaning and I’m going to prove it right now. What is the definition of Darwinism?

    Obviously you did not read my post carefully. It couldn’t have been that incomprehensible to you. I made no assumption about you living anywhere on this planet in particular as one blogger posting here is in France. Also I said the majority of creationists do live in the southern U.S., not that none do. I know there are creationists in the countries you mentioned but Ray Comfort, Ken Ham and many other creationists came to the United States because they knew they couldn’t foment their brand of nonsense in their own countries even in Australia whose president recently made the claim was still a Christian nation and anyone who didn’t like it or speak English should just leave. So there are all kinds of narrow-minded thinking going on overseas. We Americans don’t have a monopoly on it. Now I think I’m more open-minded than this head of state in Australia but why should I have to press 1 for English?

    I haven’t made any statements that I haven’t or that cannot be verified. By claiming I have without saying what these were exactly you have said nothing. If you can disprove something I’ve said have at it. Until you do or someone else does everything I’ve posted here stands irrefutable.

  126. Actually Bernie. I did. I came on the forum to bring up the point that darwinism does exist and is a widely accepted term. Something that in your ‘does not exist.’ Of course you changed that statement to no respected scientists, books or tv shows use it, and challenged me to prove. Again I did. No acknowledgement from you on that. So as far as Im concerned job done, made the statement I came on here to make.
    As far as copernicism goes it’s a mute point. The lack of discussion from others on this is probably because no one on here believes it or knows any one that does. Also another point to show that you’re on the point of making things up is as of May 2009 earth’s population is roughly 6.7 billion not 7.02 billion as you implied earlier.
    So I’m done now, before this downward spiral of sillyness goes into the depths. So Bernie enjoy life and have nice Christmas

  127. Paul,
    Since you cannot define Darwinism you just proved it doesn’t exist. Like this last post all your arguments are self refuting. I don’t know why you even bother to make such ridicuous claims when you have no way to back them up.

  128. If I theorized that an alien race from somewhere else in the galaxy designed and experimented with life on this planet could I not challenge evolution by random chance and natural selection as the sole driver of life on this planet? Wouldn’t this be intelligent design? Could I bring scientific evidence contrary to evolution into our public schools? - example: DNA - The most complex, error correcting code known to exist to mankind. Could I not argue that DNA is evidence of a designer, a programmer – I haven’t seen this kind of complexity come even close to anything that is random. Granted I may look at something as magic or from God if I don’t know how it works but it seems that life on this planet is unique, incredible, amazingly complex and I am in awe at its wonder.

  129. “One blogger posting here is in France. ”

    Look ma! I’m on the internettttt…. 

  130. Robert May,
    If I theorized that an alien race from somewhere else in the galaxy designed and experimented with life on this planet could I not challenge evolution by random chance and natural selection as the sole driver of life on this planet?
    Answer: No because that isn’t a theory it’s a hypothesis that fails do to the lack of evidence necessary to support that hypothesis.

    Wouldn’t this be intelligent design? Could I bring scientific evidence contrary to evolution into our public schools?
    Answer: Can the Flying Spaghetti Monster people teach their version of ID magic too? The public schools are not places for new scientific ideas that haven’t been tested to be discussed and validated. Students are not qualified to decide the validity of scientific theories anyway.

    example: DNA – The most complex, error correcting code known to exist to mankind. Could I not argue that DNA is evidence of a designer, a programmer – I haven’t seen this kind of complexity come even close to anything that is random.
    Answer: This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have. – Brian Dunning

    Granted I may look at something as magic or from God if I don’t know how it works but it seems that life on this planet is unique, incredible, amazingly complex and I am in awe at its wonder.
    Answer: Just because you don’t know how something works is no reason to jump to conclusions and credit supernatural mysticism. The ancients used to give God credit for a lot of things we now have naturalistic explanations for. There is no reason to think that there aren’t naturalistic explanations for everything just because we haven’t discovered all of them yet. You really should read what scientists say about the things you are in awe of. It’s a lot more interesting than the supernatural clap trap and nonsense cranked out by the Discovery Institute and these intellectually dishonest creationist websites people keep posting links to. Anyone who gets their “science” information from these places is reading about science at all.

  131. Bernie,
    Bernie’s Answer: No because that isn’t a theory it’s a hypothesis that fails do to the lack of evidence necessary to support that hypothesis.
    “But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.” Charles Darwin

    After 150 years of digging they are still looking.
    Bernie’s Answer: Can the Flying Spaghetti Monster people teach their version of ID magic too? The public schools are not places for new scientific ideas that haven’t been tested to be discussed and validated. Students are not qualified to decide the validity of scientific theories anyway.
    The public schools should be a place where our kids are taught to think – they should have to tools to test the Flying Spaghetti Monsters, Alien Designers, Creation, Global Warming, Flat Earth, or whatever. Granted to most of the problems with Evolution are in the details but process of questioning evidence should be routine.
    Isn’t really all this about the pursuit of truth. Not my truth or your truth but what is testable and verfiable. We come into these discussions with our agenda, preconcieved ideas, religous background or cultural upbringing and try to test it or push it on someone else. I often look at science and wonder did I get it right, do I understand what I am seeing. I know I am human and can have one opinion today and another tommorrow. It is good to test Evolution and see what holds up and what doesn’t , but I am afraid I see a intellectual snobbery from our Education system that hates to be tested. The Education system has become, in regards to Evolution, like a relgion itself with its own saints, sacraments, and adversion to change.
    – Back to the top
    Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
    Statement A  14%
    Statement B  78
    Neither  5
    Other/Not sure  2
    Bernie, isn’t this reasonable?
     

  132. Robert,
    Under innocuous-sounding guises such as “academic freedom,” “critical analysis of evolution,” or “teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution,” IDCs attempt to encourage teachers to teach students wrongly that there is a “controversy” among scientists over whether evolution has occurred. So-called “evidence against evolution” or “weaknesses of evolution” consist of the same sorts of long-discredited arguments against evolution which have been a staple of creationism since the 1920s and earlier. – National Center for Science Education

    Until you creationists can convince the Christian academic community to have “academic freedom” to teach creationism (the do and they don’t teach it) or “teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution” then you have a lot of nerve demanding that our public schools do these things.

Leave Comment