You knew it was coming, didn’t you?

| 70 Comments

Shameless as ever, David Klinghoffer of the Disco Institute has already started trying to exploit the murder of Stephen Johns to prove the evil of evolutionary science: his murderer, you see, was supposedly a “Darwinist.” Except that he wasn’t, as The Sensuous Curmudgeon makes clear. Here’s a taste:

We must ask ourselves – can Klinghoffer read? If he can, then how can he find in von Brunn’s writing anything that Darwin ever wrote? Specifically, did Darwin really write anything remotely similar to von Brunn’s claim that “the species are improved through in-breeding”? Of course he didn’t. It’s biologically absurd. Indeed, it’s well-known that Darwin was even worried about his own marriage to his cousin.… Hitler never even mentioned Darwin in his writings. As we’ve pointed out in Hitler and Darwin, in Mein Kampf, Hitler clearly indicates that he’s a creationist.

HT: LGF

70 Comments

meh, the rant blaming “tolerance of Muslims” and “multiculturalism” beat it by nearly a whole day*. antievolutionists just aren’t trying as hard as they used to

*i’d put in a link but i’d have to go through Fark to find it again, and i’m just too lazy

I come here to get updates on this issue, but (maybe just due to my long exposure) have tired at anyone on the side of science bothering to be surprised, much less outraged, by someone as useless as Klinghoffer. This isn’t “Man Bites Dog” news. It isn’t even “Dog Bites Man” news. I’d characterize it as “Dog sniffs it’s* own butt” news, y’know, like the famous The Onion headline: “SHIT STINKS!!!!”

*In tribute to the thousands of Xians and Creationists

Xpost from Pharyngula. As usual it is play pin the atrocity on the donkey. Last night at Freeper (where von Gunn posted bizarre nonsense to cheers), von Gunn was a liberal, this morning he was a commie.

Klinghoffer the DI liar: There’s one element to his thinking that you predictably leave out, PZ: the evolutionary one, as he writes himself in his manifesto. See my Beliefnet blog entry on same.

Von Gunns’s main motivation was Jew hatred, antisemitism. Antisemitism predates Darwin by almost 2,000 years. The most notorious German antisemite before the Nazis (and Darwin) was Martin Luther. He called for killing the Jews and even drew up a Final Solution in his book, Lies of the Jews. At Niremberg, some Nazis cited him as an inspiration. The pogromists and the Spanish Inquisition never heard of Darwin either.

Hitler was a Catholic and his willing henchmen were all Catholics and Protestants. God and jesus is mentioned 32 times in Mein Kampf. Darwin and evolution are mentioned zero times.

As several have noted such as the Virginian, Western antisemitism has its roots deep in Xianity, as the Jews are accused of killing Jesus and not converting afterwards. Whether von Gunn was Xian or not, his main ideology has its roots in Xianity and not Darwinism.

Incidently, as David Klinghoffer would know if he bothered to think rather than lie, evolutionary biology is taught and researched in Israel. They even have their own journal, IIRC, The Israeli Journal of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. Most Jews exept those associated with the Xian Dominionist DI dumbtank, don’t buy the Darwindidit lie.

My humble blog has been quoted by Panda’s Thumb. Verily, this is the pinochle of my career.

Hitler hated tobacco so unless you are a chain smoker you must be evil, evil I say. Silly? Why yes. But it is exactly the same as the creationist reasoning.

Here, for the record, is the “evolutionary” paragraph from the writings of the murder and anyone can see it does not match what is taught by modern biology:

Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God’s children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal. These genocidal ideologies, preached from the American pulpits, taught in American schools, legislated in the halls of Congress (confirming TALMUDIC conviction that goyim are stupid sheep), are expected to produce a single, superintelligent, beautiful, non-White “American” population. Eliminating forever racism, inequality, bigotry and war. As with ALL LIBERAL ideologies, miscegenation is totally inconsistent with Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally deprived mongrels. Throughout history improvident Whites have miscegenated. The “brotherhood” concept is not new (as LIBERALS pretend) nor are the results — which are inevitably disastrous for the White Race — evident today, for example, in the botched populations of Cuba, Mexico, Egypt, India, and the inner cities of contemporary America.

Also see:

HEGEL believed that Man’s salvation would come through Reason. He believed that Reason operated according to the Dialectical Method, in which an Idea (Thesis) is challenged by its opposite (Antithesis), and the two subsequently metamorphose into an interfused Whole (Synthesis). Hegel saw this method working in logic; in World history; in management of the State; and in the establishing the Spirit of the Age. Hegal, an idealist who would have ridiculed Marx, believed the Dialectic produced harmonious and continuous evolution within the Nation-State and between its component parts. FEUERBACH, a materialist, said man is what he eats: matter in motion, nothing more. This concept appears, also, in Freud’s and Boas’ rantings.

Marx stated there is no God therefore man is not accountable for his acts to some divine Judge. Man is without soul or free-will therefore without significant individual value. He is an evolutionary animal dependent upon his mind (Reason) for salvation. Marx believed Man’s destiny is determined solely by his environment (Marx, apparently, never learned of his nemesis, Gregor Johann Mendel (1822- 1884), after whom Mendelism is named — the study of all things Genetic). In nature everything is evolving because everything is determined by its opposite: ergo, the thesis synthesizes with the antithesis thus becoming a new and different thesis — this process repeats itself ad infinitum. In society, therefore, conflict (Dialectical Materialism) is inevitable, essential and continuous until the entire structure (State) collapses. Because this fate is inevitable, and change is progress, why wait? Revolt. Now. Destroy! Kill! Bourgeoisie v. Proletariat = Revolution = dictate = ONE WORLD JEW GOVERNMENT. The ILLUMINATI sponsors Marxists/ Anarchists.

What I have copied-and-pasted alone should be enough to demonstrate that this guy has more than a few loose screws. The content of the half-book is his “demonstration” of the international Jewish conspiracy. Completely with a complete lack of evidence besides so-and-so-said-so and quote mining.

I certainly see no reason to suppose that this nut cared anything about the science of evolutionary biology. At most a few brief mentions that make it clear that he has no understanding of evolutionary biology

Here is the source for his writings at archive.org in PDF format. Those who combat other forms of nonsense might look at it. This nut job argued in a very similar way to other denialists.

The DI has stooped to a new low if it tries to equate white supremacist rantings with “Darwinism.” They should have their First Amendement rights taken away at this point, they have nothing to contribute to America.

KP said:

The DI has stooped to a new low if it tries to equate white supremacist rantings with “Darwinism.” They should have their First Amendement rights taken away at this point, they have nothing to contribute to America.

That “new low” is merely the next small, totally predictable step after “Expelled.” At this point I say let them talk all they want - outside of public school science class of course. Even some Biblical literalists must be embarrassed at Klinghoffer’s pathetic paranoia.

a lurker said: Hitler hated tobacco so unless you are a chain smoker you must be evil, evil I say. Silly? Why yes. But it is exactly the same as the creationist reasoning.

Quite true that just because a nutcase believes in something that doesn’t mean that it’s false.

But that doesn’t exhaust the depths of the stupidities.

Neither Hitler nor, apparently, this latest character said anything favorable about Darwin.

They do seem to like genetics and Mendel, but Darwin famously knew nothing of genetics and Mendel, and they were considered antithetical during the early period of the 20th century known as “the eclipse of darwinism”.

Israel Journal of Ecology & Evolution Editors-in-Chief

Blaustein, Leon University of Haifa, Israel

Kotler, Burt P. Ben-Gurion University, Israel

The Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution is dedicated to publishing high quality original research and review papers that advance our knowledge and understanding of the function, diversity, abundance, distribution, and evolution of organisms at all levels of biological organization as they interact with their biotic and abiotic environments. Conceptual and empirical contributions are all welcome. While we give special consideration to studies based in Israel, Mediterranean climate areas, the Mediterranean Basin, and the entire Middle East, we will consider any high quality contribution regardless of geography. To further our goals, we regularly publish special compendium issues on timely and exciting subjects guest-edited by outstanding scientists active in the field. Those wishing to suggest a topic or edit a special volume are invited to submit proposals to the editors. We are dedicated to a rapid, high quality review process.

Must be where the next antisemitic atrocity is being planned. Not keeping it very secret though, they have their own journal. Who would have suspected the plotters to be located at universities in Israel?

{For the slow, this is sarcasm}

I’d like to see how David Klinghoffer lies his way out of this fact. I’m sure he will come up with something preposterous and untrue.

Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless?

Approximately one year ago he had published in the Brown Alumni Magazine a rather self-indulgent, self-serving essay explaining why he would consider sending his kids to a bastion of extreme liberalism like his alma mater:

http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/[…]_._1893.html

(Thankfully David and I never ovelapped in college. I wrote a terse rebuttal to his breathtaking inanity that was published in the following issue (which you can find under mail in the march/april issue).)

John Kwok said:

Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless?

Maybe he got his scholarship to Brown University in a box of Crackerjacks?

John Kwok said:

Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless?

Goes to show that a college education doesn’t mean shit anymore. People like Klinghoffer apparently think that a degree from a prestigious northeast university adds credibility to paranoia.

Stanton and KP,

You ought to read his essay. It literally reads as though it could be an “outtake” from either Saturday Night Live or the Jon Stewart show, or perhaps even the Colbert Report.

Anyway, am about to turn in for the night. Have spent last night and will again, this evening, volunteering at the World Science Festival. Am looking forward to hearing Ken Miller and Lawrence Krauss speak on Science, Faith and Religion this Saturday.

Cheers,

John

@ KP -

Some of the smartest people I know never attended an Ivy League institution. In Klinghoffer’s case, he wasted both his - and Brown’s - time by studying there, judging from his ongoing inane conduct as an alumnus.

John Kwok said:

Stanton and KP,

You ought to read his essay.

I tried, I couldn’t get very far.

John Kwok said:

Stanton and KP,

You ought to read his essay. It literally reads as though it could be an “outtake” from either Saturday Night Live or the Jon Stewart show, or perhaps even the Colbert Report.

From what I’ve read of and about Klinghoffer, I’d find the act of peeling off the skin of my feet until I bled to death to be a far more pleasant, enjoyable and constructive use of my time than to read his essay.

Did Hitler say anything about “the horridly cruel works of nature” Darwin mentioned?

HG Wells wanted to wipe out most of the world, presumably including the Jews, as he was anti-Jewish. D’you think he influenced A.H.?

In Jebus Price’ name.

In a certain way I was hoping the people like David Klinghoffer wouldn’t try to equate the murder to the theory of evolution. People have always hide behind religious views to justify their hatred for others. However, we must recognize that people like David Klinghoffer are trying to scare people who are foolish enough to seek spiritual advice from him.

Something that was pointed out in a blog article I read a while ago - and which I’ve never seen discussed except in that one article - is that creationists and evolutionists agree with respect to within-species improvement. Evolutionists believe that populations can adapt to their environment, becoming more fit. So do creationists. The difference is that evolutionists - based on mountains of evidence - believe (or accept) that given enough time and suitable environmental and migratory (or sexual segregation) conditions, entirely new species can emerge from a common ancestor. Creationists would simply say that mosquitoes can become more adapted to a given environment or adapt to a new or changed environment, but mosquitoes will always be mosquitoes.

Now that’s within-species changes. What about eugenics? Well, don’t both of groups reject it out right? Darwin did from the get-go saying that to engage in deliberate acts of selecting who gets to live and reproduce and who doesn’t, we sacrifice our nobility and moral virtue.

Yes, creationists often insist upon their acceptance of evolution within a “kind”. Some have even made up a word for “kind” - “baramin” (look it up online, and Wikipedia has an article on “baraminology”) - and borrow the scientific term “microevolution”.

One major way that the creationists differ from the pro-evolution people is that the creationists believe that without purposeful, intelligent intervention, the kind - let’s say “mankind” for example - will deteriorate, objecting to the idea that “random mutations and natural selection” is productive. Which of these sounds more like eugenics? Not that creationism bears any responsibility for eugenics. It’s probably more just a leftover in both cases from pre-scientific ideas about animal breeding and inherited nobility.

You had better sense than I did. I had to force myself to, knowing that I would have to write a blistering rebuke, which thankfully, the editor-in-chief of the Brown Alumni Magazine did publish in the following issue:

KP said:

John Kwok said:

Stanton and KP,

You ought to read his essay.

I tried, I couldn’t get very far.

I decided to have an “e-mail dialogue” with David after I read some of his pro “EXPELLED” commentary, and this turned out to be just as weird the unexpected one I had had with Bill Dembski. By the end of it, David had referred to me in third person at his Disco Tute blog as an “obsessed Darwin lover”.

Not only that, but, not surprisingly, he apparent subscribes to a Moonie-esque version of Orthodox Judaism (I understand that his spiritual “guru” has been described as someone who is bizarre and has a Messianic complex similar to Reverend Moon’s.):

Anthony said:

In a certain way I was hoping the people like David Klinghoffer wouldn’t try to equate the murder to the theory of evolution. People have always hide behind religious views to justify their hatred for others. However, we must recognize that people like David Klinghoffer are trying to scare people who are foolish enough to seek spiritual advice from him.

novparl:

HG Wells wanted to wipe out most of the world, presumably including the Jews, as he was anti-Jewish. D’you think he influenced A.H.?

HG Wells was a science fiction writer. Who even cares? Got me.

Hitler does detail his influences often. They usually include god and jesus. One quote of many is below.

Hitler 1922:

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.

Hitler was a xian and a creationist.

Alan Macneill partial quote:

Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed “from the very beginning”, and could not have evolved from apes:

“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” - Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im

David Klinghoffer uses a common technique made popular by someone he should despise. The Big Lie of Joseph Goebbels.

Have y’all read the comments to the article? Klinghoffer’s getting punk’d, junk’d, debunk’d and defunk’d all around. His protestations of innocence, and pathetic attempts to change the subject and pretend his “point” is being proven, make the whole thing all the more laughable.

Like I said on his site: Recovering the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible – UR DOIN IT WRONG!

Thanks for the tip, Raging Bee. I just added my two cents worth of praise on behalf of my “favorite” fellow Brunonian:

Raging Bee said:

Have y’all read the comments to the article? Klinghoffer’s getting punk’d, junk’d, debunk’d and defunk’d all around. His protestations of innocence, and pathetic attempts to change the subject and pretend his “point” is being proven, make the whole thing all the more laughable.

Like I said on his site: Recovering the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible – UR DOIN IT WRONG!

raven said:

novparl:

HG Wells wanted to wipe out most of the world, presumably including the Jews, as he was anti-Jewish. D’you think he influenced A.H.?

HG Wells was a science fiction writer. Who even cares? Got me.

Hitler does detail his influences often. They usually include god and jesus. One quote of many is below.

Hitler 1922:

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.

Hitler was a xian and a creationist.

Alan Macneill partial quote:

Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed “from the very beginning”, and could not have evolved from apes:

“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” - Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im

David Klinghoffer uses a common technique made popular by someone he should despise. The Big Lie of Joseph Goebbels.

One should be a little careful about proclaiming Hitler to be a Christian. It is quite true that in his writings and public speeches, he claimed to be a believing Christian. However, it is my understanding that, in private, he was contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

SLC said:

One should be a little careful about proclaiming Hitler to be a Christian. It is quite true that in his writings and public speeches, he claimed to be a believing Christian. However, it is my understanding that, in private, he was contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

I quite agree. Indeed, Hitler’s beliefs are very difficult to assess at all from his words, public or private, especially casual conversation. He almost certainly was contemptuous of actual Christianity as a belief system, but he referred approvingly to it, though with some very strange interpretations of the life and ministry of Jesus. He was careful to stay on the right side of the Church, generally.

He was also superstitious and prone to mysticism, including many irrational fears and anxieties, and he did personalise nature to a curious degree. He often referred to “Providence”, “Fate” and “The Goddess of Luck”. Many of his mystical ideas were derived from Christian eschatology, oddly metamorphosised. He was interested in paganism, but it wasn’t much more than a vague approval of the stark brutality and virility of the old Germanic gods and a willingness to co-opt the symbols attached to them.

He was baptised a Roman Catholic, and never renounced that religion, but he was at most an occasional adherent for ceremonial purposes. On the other hand, he was never excommunicated, either.

He would certainly have agreed with the proposition that he was doing God’s work, and that he had been sent by God to lead the German people. He said as much, repeatedly. However, whether he actually ever thought that, in the sense of having it as real motivation, is very doubtful.

The truth is probably that religion was used by Hitler as he used everything in his mental world - as a buttress and support for his hatreds, an amelioration of his fears and an expression of his fury, and also as a device to influence the minds of others. Were it not useful for those purposes, he would have discarded it immediately.

I recommend the comments by Gabriel Hanna, for example the one dated June 11, 2009 8:41 PM.

Von Brunn was sick beyond either Klinghoffer’s or my ability to understand. But let’s not try to rationalize everyday subjects as motivation for his sickness. He wasn’t driven to shooting by Darwin, he was driven to shooting by being crazy. It’s not only pointless but disingenuous to lay the blame on a scientific theory, so why bother? I’d suggest the IDiots just drop the subject and treat the whole thing as it should be treated: a senseless tragedy.

Otherwise, given all the rot about “Liberals” in his writing, some might make a more persuasive (though really just as invalid) case for his politics being more causative than whatever misconceived ideas about evolution he might have possessed. Given the DI’s own abundant political rhetoric, such an examination might make them uncomfortable.

John Kwok said:

Why am I not surprised that David Klinghoffer is demonstrating once more how and why his Brown University education was utterly worthless?

Approximately one year ago he had published in the Brown Alumni Magazine a rather self-indulgent, self-serving essay explaining why he would consider sending his kids to a bastion of extreme liberalism like his alma mater:

http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/[…]_._1893.html

(Thankfully David and I never ovelapped in college. I wrote a terse rebuttal to his breathtaking inanity that was published in the following issue (which you can find under mail in the march/april issue).)

Don’t feel bad, John. Jonathan Wells got his Biology PhD at my alma mater, to my everlasting chagrin.

Parts of this book are known to be forged. The parts forged make Hitler look like a Xian critic.

Forged or not, it’s worth noting that none of these passages (to my knowledge) have Hitler denying the existence of God or the divinity of Christ; they just have Hitler criticizing the Church and the religion of Christianity. In other words, even if they’re accurate, all they really tell us is that Hitler thought everyone but him was doing Christianity wrong.

(Which is not terribly surprising, since Hitler thought everyone but him was doing everything wrong. That attitude comes naturally when you’re a paranoid megalomaniac.)

So even if taken to be reliable, they don’t argue for Hitler’s being an atheist.

As a general aside, I would agree that a politician’s words to close adherents in private, if reliably recorded (which is very rare) are more to be accepted as an index to his/her real mind than any public statement.

Just how reliable are those “close adherents” anyway? We aren’t talking about normal people. They lead a movement that gassed 6-9 million unarmed civilians for no particular reason, killed tens of millions in a world war, and were just getting started when the allies stopped them. Many of them committed suicide as the war ended and the rest were convicted and hung at Niremberg for crimes against humanity.

The other point is more important. Hitler never killed anyone and focusing on him too closely isn’t all that important. It was all done by his millions of followers and supporters. They were all xians with “gott mit uns” screaming Seig Heil, not evolutionary biologists screaming “Darwin”.

Forged or not, it’s worth noting that none of these passages (to my knowledge) have Hitler denying the existence of God or the divinity of Christ; they just have Hitler criticizing the Church and the religion of Christianity.

Hitler had some harsh things to say about the existing xian churches from time to time. A lot of it was because significant elements in both the RCC and Protestant churches resisted or weren’t rabidly supportive of his goals. As a dictator convinced of German superiority and intending to rule the world, anyone in his way was going to end up on an enemies list. He also wanted to “reform” xianity as a warrior religion with an Aryan jesus. Such reforms are common in the history of religions.

Towards the end of the war, he had some harsh things to say about the German people as well. They let him down by losing the war and it ultimately cost him his life. But no one is claiming this proves Hitler was anti-Aryan.

As a matter of interest, who were the other Nazis who were Christians? I.e. like Bormann, Himmler, Goering (provably anti-Christian). Where did Himmler mention the Christian thinking behind the Shoah? Christians often are friends with local clergy. Which Catholic priests visited Hitler frequently? When Adolf married Eva (a nudist, incidentally, like most devout Catholix), after living together, was it a Cath or Prod ceremony? When Adolf committed incest with his niece (who killed herself), did he marry her in church first?

As for the gent who asked who cares about HG Wells’s political opinions, he played a significant role in British politics. Read for instance Orwell’s fascinating essay “Hitler, Wells, and the World State”.

I look forward to the usual abuse.

Peter Oloffson said it best when he wrote:

“the validity of a scientific theory does not hinge upon how it has been interpreted by German dictators.”

If someone says one thing in public but another thing in private to his confidants then it is with good reason that one would prefer the latter, provided it is from a reputable source.

Sorry, it’s not that simple. First, as you well know, the reliability of the source in this case is what’s in question. Second, when the “someone” in question is Adolph Hitler, whose dishonesty and insanity are so well known to so many people, we really can’t tell for sure what he really believed, or whether he had any opinion one way or the other, whether he had any grasp of reality at all, or who he would choose to trust with his “true feelings.”

Furthermore, the question of whether Hitler was or was not a “true Christian” is a bit less significant than the question of why so many Christians in the overwhelmingly Christian nation of Germany supported Hitler. Did they really believe Hitler was doing God’s work? Was their doctrine not sufficient to deliver them from all the temptations the Nazis offered?

Dan,

The Templeton Foundation didn’t fund the World Science Festival’s panel discussion on Science, Faith and Religion. Instead, I believe it was aimed primarily at the sessions pertaining to physics (I have this information from a most reliable source, but since this was probbaly confidential, I can’t disclose who told me.).

As for the University of Chicago, its financial support from the Templeton Foundation is apparently in the tens of millions of dollars (I strongly doubt that Coyne would have received any funding directly - or indirectly - from them, since the Templeton Foundation is more interested in funding research that addresses the “Big Questions” that pertain more to Cosmology. Funding research on patterns and processes in the speciation of Drosophila - which is Coyne’s research interest - wouldn’t be of sufficient importance to Templeton.).

Anyway, the point I made is still valid. It is ridiculous for Coyne to reject so openly an invitation from the World Science Foundation to appear on a session panel discussion because he thought the Templeton Foundation was funding either that very session or a large portion of the event (or both), when his university is receiving tens of millions of dollars in support from this very foundation. He could have, like his friend physicist Lawrence Krauss - who participated in several sessions and replaced Coyne on this session - have made a public statement during the session expressing both his displeasure at the WSF for receiving Templeton Foundation funding and the very rationale for having a World Science Festival panel on science, faith and religion.

Coyne’s rejection of the World Science Festival’s invitation is regrettably, similar to his criticism of Eugenie Scott and the National Center for Science Education for adopting an “accomodationist” stance towards religion. In both instances he began by praising individuals (In the WSF’s case, physicist Brian Greene and his wife, journalist Tracy Day, the WSF’s co-founders; in NCSE’s case, Eugenie Scott) and their organizations, and then, almost immediately, attacked these organizations for their “accomodationist” stances towards religion.

As a matter of interest, who were the other Nazis who were Christians?

The vast majority of the Nazis were Xians, RCC and Lutheran. The ones who did all the work. They sure weren’t Jewish. This is obvious and has been posted on this thread a half dozen times.

You are simply trolling.

Troll:

As for the gent who asked who cares about HG Wells’s political opinions, he played a significant role in British politics.

Oh really? And this explains why Britain installed a Nazi government, joined the Axis powers, exterminated their Jews, and helped the Germans invade Russia during World War II?

More trolling. And bad science fiction.

Raging Bee said:

Furthermore, the question of whether Hitler was or was not a “true Christian” is a bit less significant than the question of why so many Christians in the overwhelmingly Christian nation of Germany supported Hitler. Did they really believe Hitler was doing God’s work? Was their doctrine not sufficient to deliver them from all the temptations the Nazis offered?

You might want to look at the book “Why did the heavens not darken?” by Arno Mayer, which investigates this question in detail, gathers massive amounts of data but, in the end, fails to answer the question. It is, I warn you, a depressing book.

This is why I prefer not to allow comments on my posts. I have had to spend more than an hour weeding through the comments to delete non-substantive, pointless insults that do nothing but cause offense and disruption.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Timothy Sandefur published on June 11, 2009 4:42 PM.

Freshwater brings suit against Board of Education was the previous entry in this blog.

Disco ‘Tute gets into censorship is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter