Montana Creationism Bill: dead in committee(?)

| 508 Comments

As Matt noted above, one of the creationist so-called “academic freedom” bills was filed in the Montana state legislature. Now the Sensuous Curmudgeon reports that the bill has been tabled in committee, whatever that means. In that post SC also has a video of some of the testimony at the committee hearing on the bill, noting that the proposer, Representative Clayton Fiscus, was the only speaker in support while a couple of dozen professors, teachers, and citizens testified in opposition. It’s worth watching both for the testimony in opposition and for the almost sad ignorance and confusion of Representative Fiscus. I genuinely wonder how he navigates through life given his evident inability to think coherently. if he’s the best the Disco Tute can come up with to sponsor their bills, they’re in deeper trouble than I thought.

That video is edited from the full hearing, and another set of excerpts consisting mostly of speakers’ identifications is on NCSE’s YouTube channel. It does not include Representative Fiscus’ remarks. I wouldn’t be surprised if video of the full hearing including all testimony is somewhere, but I haven’t looked for it.

508 Comments

Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/[…]enda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.

To whet your appetite, here’s a direct quote from Representative Fiscus:

House bll 83 simply states we would teach what we don’t know along with what we don’t know. It s not a threat to intelligence in any way. It encourages intelligence. (ca 2:05)

Clayton Fiscus. Painful to see. He reminds me of Ronald Reagan.

“We should teach what we don’t know along with what we don’t know.”

I watched Fiscus on that YouTube video.

Wow; poor fellow.

I wonder if this is why Casey Luskin didn’t show up to testify. Perhaps even a Discovery Institute clown can recognize gradations in the “quality” of its rubes.

We should teach what we don’t know along with what we don’t know.

Teach what Fiscus doesn’t know? Where would you start? It was great that a theologian showed up to vote against him.

Mike Elzinga said: Perhaps even a Discovery Institute clown can recognize gradations in the “quality” of its rubes.

With every legislator or board or litigant they’ve ever supported, the DI has always removed themselves from the scene before the critical moment. :)

My usual 2c on all anti-evolution activism in general, not just this issue:

The minute you let these scam artists frame it as “either ‘Darwinists’ advocate censorship or they don’t,” you have lost. Even if you convince the majority that “Darwinists” do not advocate censorship. The only way to begin to turn the tide on this scam is to get the majority to see which side is truly going out of their way to censor, or at least attempt to censor, information.

I know that it’s fun to watch these clowns put their feet in their mouths. But these people, and the voters that are so compartmentalized that they will not admit evolution under any circumstances, with or without these clowns, are maybe 1/4 of the voters. But probably another 1/2 says things like “I hear the jury’s still out on evolution,” “I guess something like evolution is true, but it’s fair to teach both sides” or “What’s the harm, let them believe.” They’re the ones we need to reach. Whining about “lying for Jesus” is more likely to chase them into the arms of the scam artists than impress them.

eric said: With every legislator or board or litigant they’ve ever supported, the DI has always removed themselves from the scene before the critical moment. :)

The “useful idiots” that the Dishonesty Institute uses and then discards are sometimes so appallingly ignorant that they can serve a useful purpose: To scare away other useful idiots who have enough self-awareness to realize what’s happening.

(Which explains why Casey Luskin is still around, come to think of it…)

Frank J said:

My usual 2c on all anti-evolution activism in general, not just this issue:

The minute you let these scam artists frame it as “either ‘Darwinists’ advocate censorship or they don’t,” you have lost. Even if you convince the majority that “Darwinists” do not advocate censorship. The only way to begin to turn the tide on this scam is to get the majority to see which side is truly going out of their way to censor, or at least attempt to censor, information.

I know that it’s fun to watch these clowns put their feet in their mouths. But these people, and the voters that are so compartmentalized that they will not admit evolution under any circumstances, with or without these clowns, are maybe 1/4 of the voters. But probably another 1/2 says things like “I hear the jury’s still out on evolution,” “I guess something like evolution is true, but it’s fair to teach both sides” or “What’s the harm, let them believe.” They’re the ones we need to reach. Whining about “lying for Jesus” is more likely to chase them into the arms of the scam artists than impress them.

I more or less agree.

What happened in Montana is what should happen.

As I noted on another thread, although maybe the message didn’t get through, fight the bills by addressing what is in the bills.

The bills are about the local high school curriculum. They don’t make direct mention of “ID” or “creationism”, so launching into a diatribe about ID won’t be relevant, unless you explain why that is relevant first.

The approach I, as an interested amateur, recommend, is…

The bills are designed to encourage or permit ideological science denial, including evolution denial, in public high school science class. This is likely to make bad things happen. 1) In the past this type of thing has always led to teachers inserting their particular science-denying religious beliefs, and subsequent expensive and losing lawsuits. Another few points…2) Local bad science education might discourage employers who need at least some technically or scientifically skilled employees, from locating in the state, 2) Local bad science education puts local students at a significant competitive disadvantage when applying for college or good jobs, 3) Local bad science education could hurt the ability of local universities to recruit the best science faculty.

I recommend focusing on what is in the bills and why it is bad for Montana (or whatever state the bill is being pushed in).

2 more c:

I hope everyone realizes that by “scam artists” I mean mainly the DI, and a few politicians who are in on the scam. Even ICR, which transformed creationism from “misguided but mostly innocent belief” to full-blown pseudoscience a half century ago, is at best a “useful idiot” these days. And like AiG and WorldNetDaily, may even be a bit of a hindrance to the DI’s agenda. IOW they could be our useful idiots - if we avoid the foot-shooting.

The irony is that very few people have heard of the DI, yet their sound bites have “trickled down” enough that they have trained the majority to (1) believe that the “debate” is about “weaknesses” of evolution, and (2) remain oblivious to the fact that no one dates to try to support a testable alternate “theory,” let alone encourage students to critically analyze it. Even ICR and AiG, which makes testable claims of “what happened when” (easily refuted - sometimes by other creationists) know better than to advocate critical analysis of them. If anything, they seem to be doing their own retreat, from “scientific” creationism to a weak Omphalism.

harold Wrote:

The bills are designed to encourage or permit ideological science denial, including evolution denial, in public high school science class.

And prevent or discourage non-denial, and real critical analysis. That’s the part that I object to most. By the time most students enter high school they have already been exposed to some encouragment or pressure to deny evolution. With much more to come after high school along with the misleading caricarure of evolution that usually replaces whatever they did learn. These bills add little or nothing to that. But they subtract a lot of what has earned the right to be taught. Both from a standpoint of informing students about science and of “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

Laugh all you want, but I like Clayton Fiscus – I like his name and I like his style. He’s the ideal model for a creationist legislator. I’m thinking of describing legislators in other states who sponsor such bills as the “Clayton Fiscus of [name of state].”

Always remember, just because someone is unbelievably ignorant doesn’t mean he can’t be useful – not only to the Discovery Institute but also to us.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

Laugh all you want, but I like Clayton Fiscus – I like his name and I like his style. He’s the ideal model for a creationist legislator. I’m thinking of describing legislators in other states who sponsor such bills as the “Clayton Fiscus of [name of state].”

Always remember, just because someone is unbelievably ignorant doesn’t mean he can’t be useful – not only to the Discovery Institute but also to us.

I agree. In fact, our motto could be: “Don’t let them Fiscus again”.

Frank J said:

…These bills add little or nothing to that. But they subtract a lot of what has earned the right to be taught. Both from a standpoint of informing students about science and of “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

One problem is that these students are often taught, if not forcibly encouraged to bend, break or flout rules For Jesus, including those mentioned in the Bible.

There’s a lot to be said for teaching what we don’t know. It should be done vigorously, across the curriculum. Done right, it might induce a sensible intellectual humility. It might keep us from screaming at each other over our differing perspectives on the unknown and unknowable. And it might inspire some youngsters to get to wotk on what we don’t know and find answers so we do know. Somehow, though, I don’t think this is what Clayton Fiscus had in mind.

CJColucci said:

There’s a lot to be said for teaching what we don’t know. It should be done vigorously, across the curriculum. Done right, it might induce a sensible intellectual humility. It might keep us from screaming at each other over our differing perspectives on the unknown and unknowable. And it might inspire some youngsters to get to wotk on what we don’t know and find answers so we do know. Somehow, though, I don’t think this is what Clayton Fiscus had in mind.

I can’t speak for high school, because for a variety of reasons I had a disprupted high school education, but my science classes at university, especially above the freshman level, often included discussions of current problems. Same with medical school. I never encountered the slightest implication that everything is already known in scientific circles.

As I have noted before, the only people who think or claim that everything is already known are creationists themselves. The very idea of accusing research scientists of claiming that everything is already known is absurd - why would they be doing reseach if everything were already known?

It’s not that people who respect science want to say that nothing is unknown, it’s that creationists want to deny that what is known is known.

harold said:

It’s not that people who respect science want to say that nothing is unknown, it’s that creationists want to deny that what is known is known.

Some creationists justify this by insisting that, because the world is sin, trying to investigate it is therefore sin, in addition to being a colossal waste of time that could be better spent doing nothing but praying and preparing for Kingdom Come.

So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence.

It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism’s goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class.

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.

It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due. anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations.

Seems that way from Canada here.

Is it safe to assume that that will be the one and only poop stain tolerated from the ridiculous Byers troll on this thread?

This particular Byers comment is worth responding to…

So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence.

Although it does not make sense for public majorities to decide the details of public high school education, and does make sense for the public to delegate that task mainly to experts, creationism in schools has, so far, always lost at that ballot box when directly challenged. Kansas school board creationists were voted out. Dover school board creationists were voted out as well as losing in court. Montana representatives just effectively tabled this bill. The few “academic freedom” bills on state books have not been used to teach creationism yet, and have a good chance of being repealed.

It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism’s goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class.

Any vague, non-specific poll question will always trick many people into choosing what superficially seems to be the reasonable answer. Faced with actual creationism in their local high school science classes, though, people have shown a strong tendency to vote against those responsible.

Censorship, to a reasonable person, means suppression of an idea for arbitrary reasons, or to serve an authoritarian agenda. Therefore, it is not censorship to keep narrow sectarian anti-science dogma out of public schools, it would be censorship to include it. Government favoritism of a narrow sectarian viewpoint is equivalent to government censorship of all other viewpoints.

(Note: In a trivial sense, science classes, and all other high school classes, are “censored” - a vast amount of extraneous material is implicitly excluded. But to define “staying on topic” as “censorship” is absurd. However, discriminating against some viewpoints by excluding them, while including other sectarian dogam as “science”, which would represent implicit but severe official censorship against all other religions and viewpoints.)

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.

Although it is my experience that all “kids” who have no been brainwashed, and a decent proportion of those who have, can see that science makes more sense than science denial, it is outrageous for you to think that your sect should be allowed to use public school time for recruitment, but that the local mosque, Hindu temple, Mormon temple, and Wiccan coven should not.

That is not the function of public school. There is absolutely no restriction on private religious proselytizing. If creationism makes more sense than science, it should be easy to make the case.

It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due.

It might actually add some interest to science class if creationist ideas were brought up and refuted, but that would be unfair. We don’t have time to spend science class showing that all creation myths are unscientific, and it would be discrimination to do this only to the creation stories of your sect. Therefore, since I support your rights and don’t want you to be discriminated against, I would oppose this.

anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations.

Seems that way from Canada here.

1) Actually, some supporters of “Biblical” creationism (in open or coded form) as “science” in public school are anti-Christian - for example, some radical Muslims, some some ultra-Orthodox Jews (although even some members of these groups support the teaching of science). And although many non-religious people are vocal on the internet, it has been Christian majorities who have voted out creationist school boards.

2) Again, it is favoritism of some sects over others in science class which would represent a form of censorship.

Robert Byers Wrote:

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.

Nice try. As you know, and pretend not to, the kids already hear the scam artists’ side, and we 100% encourage that they do. All we want is that they also hear what the scam artists make 100% clear that they will omit and/or misrepresent - IOW censor in taxpayer-funded classes.

Surely you do not believe that 70% of the people supporting an idea makes it morally right. Or do you? Those 70% (except for the small % that are scam artists intent on misleading) are simply misinformed. And I was one of them years ago. In fact I still want students to learn “both sides.” But those who have earned the right to teach it need do determine how and where “both sides” are taught. The scam artists and their trained parrots have made it 100% clear that they not only have not earned that right, but that they refuse to do so.

Now why in God’s name would anyone miss such a fabulous opportunity to develop their alternate “theory”? Don’t even think of repeating that lie that they are “shut out.” I alone have requested R&D proposals for 6 years and have not received one. I would be their greatest backer if they just submitted one. I don’t care if it’s old earth, young earth, with or without common descent. It just needs to be testable, and have what Pope John Paul II called “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated.” Once the theory gets some “traction” - it doesn’t need to be nearly as well supported as evolution - it will be taught.

apokryltaros said:

Frank J said:

…These bills add little or nothing to that. But they subtract a lot of what has earned the right to be taught. Both from a standpoint of informing students about science and of “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

One problem is that these students are often taught, if not forcibly encouraged to bend, break or flout rules For Jesus, including those mentioned in the Bible.

The intent may be mostly “for Jesus” given the demographics of the scam artists and their trained parrots. But ironically, the outcome would me more “for Muhammad.” Harold also notes that above. Islam embraces that pseudoscience much more than Christianity or Judaism.

Let’s take booby seriously. I demand that the stork theory of reproduction, the flat earth theory, the geocentric theory of the Solar System, etc. be taught. Not to do so is censorship. End snark.

Robert Byers said:

So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence.

It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism’s goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class.

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.

It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due. anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations.

Seems that way from Canada here.

SLC said:

Let’s take booby seriously. I demand that the stork theory of reproduction, the flat earth theory, the geocentric theory of the Solar System, etc. be taught. Not to do so is censorship. End snark.

Let’s hear what the alternative is to evolutionary biology. Let’s hear what happened and when. Let’s hear what it is about the intelligent designer(s) that leads them to make humans to be so much like chimps and other apes. Let’s hear what sort of thing is not likely to happen when intelligent design does whatever it does - even just a hypothetical example of something that might not result. Let’s hear something substantive and positive, rather than just being negative about it: “whatever happened, it wasn’t evolution”.

And I’m not being snarky about this. When I’m being snarky, I suggest that they present the alternatives to the arbitrary rules of basketball or football (why not say that the fewest points wins, like in golf?). Why censor Calvin Ball?

SLC said:

Let’s take booby seriously. I demand that the stork theory of reproduction, the flat earth theory, the geocentric theory of the Solar System, etc. be taught. Not to do so is censorship. End snark.

Don’t forget phlogiston, steady state, and “Pluto is so too a planet”!

The URL for the hearing start to finish is available from:

http://leg.mt.gov/css/Video-and-Aud[…]?vbill=HB183

Frank J said:

apokryltaros said:

Frank J said:

…These bills add little or nothing to that. But they subtract a lot of what has earned the right to be taught. Both from a standpoint of informing students about science and of “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

One problem is that these students are often taught, if not forcibly encouraged to bend, break or flout rules For Jesus, including those mentioned in the Bible.

The intent may be mostly “for Jesus” given the demographics of the scam artists and their trained parrots. But ironically, the outcome would me more “for Muhammad Allah.” Harold also notes that above. Islam embraces that pseudoscience much more than Christianity or Judaism.

Which is painfully ironic if one remembers how the great Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates did so much to preserve and foster so much scholarship.

Robert Byers said:

So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence.

It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism’s goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class.

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.

It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due. anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations.

Seems that way from Canada here.

Robert Byers, for teaching what isn’t either known or sensible.

Faithful practitioner of what isn’t known or sensible, as well.

Glen Davidson

Moron For Jesus babbled:

So what if one spoke for it and a bunch against? What if it was the other way around?! It all comes down to whether the people will decide these things or not the people but a few people. If its to be democratic then let the games commence.

You don’t understand how democracy or science or education works.

It is about overturning censorship by democratic means. The year has just begun and theres more and more to come agitation to bring the search and teaching of truth to subjects currently under state censorship in public institutions. If its about democracy then creationism’s goals for freedom will prevail. i understand 70% support both sides being taught in science class.

No, moron. It’s about keeping a bunch of religious fundamentalists and their political cronies from destroying science education in order to brainwash children into becoming Science-Hating Idiot Zombies For Jesus.

You guys just show you are not confident your side can make the better case before the kids! Thats part of your passion and not just giving up ground.

So says the Hypocrite For Jesus who always runs away from explaining why Creationism and not Science should be taught in science classes.

It really would add interest to sciency subjects if the contention was given its due. anyways its the moral and intellectual right and duty for America to demand a end to this censorship that also smacks of anti-Christian motivations.

Not wanting science education to be replaced with religiously motivated anti-science propaganda is not anti-Christian, unless you specifically define Christianity as being nothing but anti-science propaganda.

Seems that way from Canada here.

No, you do not speak on behalf of Canada, you are merely an idiot who parrots Lies For Jesus.

Actually, her is the link to lots of good tutorials on the evolution of translation.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/schulten/tutorials/

Seems like we actually know quite a lot about this topic. Big surprise.

Maybe some day Floyd will actually learn some science. Maybe not. Who cares?

stevaroni said:

FL said:

Dembski’s right. Evolutionists always get a little riled up when they get reminded of Dembski’s reminder. But that’s the way the ID hypothesis goes, and it’s not going to change, not going to go away.

FL

Apparently, it’s never going to improve, either.

Or ever going to actually, you know, DO anything.

So Flawd, I’m no biologist, much less a creationist, so I need a really simple example of how to tell design from non-design.

You assert that you can tell just by looking. You assert that there is an objective method to distinguish the two which applies to strings.

Here are two character strings. One is designed, and one is random. How can I tell which is which?

The strings:

1. A

2. B

Well, according to subjectively specified complexity, they are obviously both designed, or not. Wait, what was the answer that will disprove evolution again?

FL is doing the typical ID/creationist shtick of pretending to “disagree” with a real scientist in order to make himself appear to be an expert.

But as I already said, he doesn’t have even a middle school grasp of science to be able to vet a “paper” by Trevors and Abel, or any other paper for that matter.

Real scientists can read that “paper” and know it is bullshit. FL can’t.

By the way; Trevors and Abel aren’t real scientists. Abel in particular is a fake. FL doesn’t know it, but I have read their papers; and I know exactly how they operate. FL doesn’t.

As usual, FL is full of shit; and proud of it.

DS said:

Actually, her is the link to lots of good tutorials on the evolution of translation.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/schulten/tutorials/

Seems like we actually know quite a lot about this topic. Big surprise.

Maybe some day Floyd will actually learn some science. Maybe not. Who cares?

It can’t happen with the likes of people like FL.

He doesn’t have a clue about what is wrong with the stuff he just copy/pasted. He simply doesn’t have the knowledge.

He is taunting and trying to piss people off. He really wants to be the big turd in the punch bowl. It’s a form of mental illness. This character has some real demons and pent up hatreds; and he seems to like having them.

One has to wonder why he doesn’t get any social satisfaction from that cult he belongs to. Maybe it really is a bigoted hate group.

stevaroni said:

prongs said:

Gee FL, I’m sittin’ here with my quartz crystal in my hand…

Um.. this isn’t some weird double entendre’ is it?

Sometimes a quartz crystal is just a quartz crystal!

Moron For Jesus Quotes Another Moron For Jesus:

ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.

Dembski’s right. Evolutionists always get a little riled up when they get reminded of Dembski’s reminder. But that’s the way the ID hypothesis goes, and it’s not going to change, not going to go away.

FL

Except that, if Intelligent Design proponents are going to whine that Intelligent Design Theory does not explain anything, let alone explain how GODDIDIT is supposed to explain better than Evolutionary Biology, then it is not a science, and you and all other Creationists have absolutely no right to waste people’s time or money demanding that your favorite religiously inspired anti-science propaganda should be taught in science classrooms, in place of actual science, at taxpayers’ expense.

If Intelligent Design proponents like Dembski and FL are going to whine that Intelligent Design Theory is not obligated to match explanation for explanation like Evolutionary Biology does just so they can worm their way out of having to show everyone how to do science using GODDIDIT Intelligent Design, then they have lost entirely before they even begun, and everything they say is useless posturing in the hope that their audience is too dumb to realize that Intelligent Design was not even meant to be an explanation, let alone a magic replacement science to magically replace Evolutionary Biology.

DS said:

Actually, her is the link to lots of good tutorials on the evolution of translation.

http://www.scs.illinois.edu/schulten/tutorials/

Seems like we actually know quite a lot about this topic. Big surprise.

Maybe some day Floyd will actually learn some science. Maybe not. Who cares?

Dang! Just take a look at the graphics of some of those “proteins”. Sheeze. No person not on some psychoactive drug could look at a picture of a Ribosome and claim it was “designed”.

diogeneslamp0 said:

For example. Consider Houston Stewart Chamberlain, perhaps the most important ideological influence on Adolf Hitler, and an implacable enemy of Darwinism. In his books like “Foundations of the Nineteenth Century” he attacked Darwinism and Darwinists. In his book “Immanuel Kant” (written 1905, translated to English 1914) in Chapter 6 he launches into a long, extended attack on Darwinism and the intellectual inferiority of Darwinists.

Here we have a false implication that Hitler and the Nazis were anti-Darwinism.

Let us listen to Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans, writing in the widely available “The Third Reich In Power” (2005):

“Nazism’s use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. ‘Hitler’s studied usurpation of religious functions,’ as one historian has written, ‘was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.’ The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals” (p.259; boldfacing added).

Many years before, however, one can identify the true origin for this “basis for action.” Mein Kampf or “My Struggle,” Hitler’s infamous autobiography title was inspired by natural selection or the struggle for survival that Darwin emphasized.

Moreover, as the Darwinists ratified natural selection during the synthesis of the 1930 and 40s, Hitler and the Nazis were in the field selecting their perceived enemies for extinction. Darwinian evolution was the Nazi “basis for action” now that science had finally dispensed with the God of Christianity.

Not conceding, but SO WHAT if the Nazis adopted “darwinism”?

Would that have any effect on whether evolutionary theory was valid or not?

The Nazis also made important pioneering strides in rocket development, jet-propelled flight, and high-speed highways. Does it follow that we should then abandon the principles and practices in those fields, just because the science behind them was used to further the Nazi cause?

We’re not going off into ‘Darwin was a proto-Nazi’ territory, folks.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

We’re not going off into ‘Darwin was a proto-Nazi’ territory, folks.

What you mean “we”, Kemo Sabe? Ray’s already there.

Just Bob said: The Nazis also made important pioneering strides in rocket development…

Of course, when asked where they got the ideas and early development data on liquid fueled rockets, the Germans all cited…American Robert Hutchins Goddard (who the US had been ignoring all along).

Name dropping time…I met his widow once.

Outright lying from the fascist right, whose authoritarian values and anti-rationalist worldview are indistinguishable from the Anti-Darwinist, anti-Semitic Nazi leaders:

Ray Martinez said: Here we have a false implication that Hitler and the Nazis were anti-Darwinism.

I don’t imply anything. I state directly that Hitler and the Nazis were religious and anti-Darwinist, just like the Intelligent Design movement and American creationists, who by the way were fervent supporters of Hitler in the 1930’s because they agreed with his treatment of the Jews.

The US government prosecuted much of the Christian right in America for sedition during WWI because they supported Hitler.

As for Hitler being a Darwinist, many historians have proven “obviously NOT”, for example historian Robert J. Richards in “Was Hitler a Darwinian?” Short answer: no, duh.

Ray Martinez said:

Many years before, however, one can identify the true origin for this “basis for action.” Mein Kampf or “My Struggle,” Hitler’s infamous autobiography title was inspired by natural selection or the struggle for survival that Darwin emphasized.

Moreover, as the Darwinists ratified natural selection during the synthesis of the 1930 and 40s, Hitler and the Nazis were in the field selecting their perceived enemies for extinction. Darwinian evolution was the Nazi “basis for action” now that science had finally dispensed with the God of Christianity.

Oh really? You’ve never read Mein Kampf, have you?

“Kampf” in the title is the noun version of “kampfen”, which means “to argue”, “to fight” and for the Nazis, “struggle” had a religious, specifically Christian meaning: their exemplars of “struggle” were Jesus Christ and Martin Luther, as I’ll prove below.

No major Nazi ever mentioned Darwinism except to denounce it and ban it, as it was denounced by Hans Schemm in 1933 and banned by the Nazi Party in 1935.

No creationist including Richard Weikart has ever found a quote in which Hitler or any other major Nazi, with control over ideology, praises Charles Darwin or Darwinism. On the rare occasions they mentioned Darwinism, they called it the basis of their arch-enemy, Marxism.

But by contrast, Hitler and other Nazis frequently stated that Jesus their Savior was the greatest Jew-fighter of all time, and they frequently stated that Nazism was the completion of the revolution of Martin Luther, infamous author of “Against the Jews and their Lies”, in which he said, “We are at fault in not slaying them [Jews].”

But since Ray brought up the word “struggle”,

HERE’S A LOOK AT HOW NAZIS SAY THEIR “STRUGGLE” IS BASED ON CHRISTIAN HEROES.

Here’s how Hitler says “struggle”/kampf in Mein Kampf:

From Mein Kampf: “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 [kämpfe] for the work of the Lord.” [Mein Kampf, Manheim transl., p.65]

Hitler said it again in a speech at the Reichstag in 1938.

Here is Walter Buch, devout Lutheran Nazi, Supreme Party Magistrate, head of the Nazi Party court and Martin Bormann’s father-in-law, on what Nazis mean by “struggle”.

Buch: “When Point 24 of our program says the party stands for a positive Christianity, here above all is the cornerstone of our thinking. Christ preached struggle as did no other. His life was struggle for his beliefs, for which he went to his death. From everyone he demanded a decision between yes or no.. That is the necessity: that man find the power to decide between yes and no.”

“Just as Christianity only prevailed through the fanatical belief of its followers, so too shall it be with the spiritual movement of National Socialism.” [Speech to the Nazi Student League, Steigmann-Gall, p.23-4]

Newspapers of the Stormtroopers [Sturmabteilung, or SA] described what “struggle” meant to Nazis.

From an SA article titled “Under the Cross”: “To us Christianity is not an empty phrase, but a glowing life. It lives through us and in us… Thus is the strength of the nation gathered under the sign of the cross. When the red beast threatens us, or the well-behaved philistine [sittsame Spießer]… sneers at us, we look up to the Cross and receive the doctrine of struggle.

From another SA article titled “Christ’s Spirit - SA [Stormtrooper] Spirit!”: “We interpret in the Gospel not the word, but the spirit. We see in the seed, in the model of our Savior not only that he does good and shuns evil, but also that he struggles… Jesus was not locked up in a church, waiting for the throng… What SA man has not surprised himself with the thought that the orator in a meeting, the man of the people, says exactly what a minister would preach?” [cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.145]

Is that what Darwin meant by “struggle”?

Erich Koch was a devout Lutheran Nazi elected president of his provincial church synod, also a powerful Nazi who murdered perhaps a million people in the Ukraine and the enslavement of the rest.

Koch: “Externally, much has changed. But in our church the Word of Christ according to the doctrine of Luther remains Righteousness, truth and love should guide us, not only at the level of charity but also in the joyful and active struggles for our Protestant confession of faith.” [cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.145]

Is that what Darwin meant by “struggle”?

Alfred Baumler, Nazi philosopher, tells us what “struggle” means in Nazi language.

Baumler: “Protestantism is strong when it finds itself engaged in struggle, when it does what its name implies. It is strong when the heroic key of Luther, who mercilessly fought for God’s Kingdom against the Devil’s Kingdom, prevails in it. Outside the context of struggle Protestantism degenerates very quickly into brittle orthodoxy or effeminate pietism.” [cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.106]

Baldur von Schirach, the head of the Hitler Youth, explains who is his model for struggle in a 1934 poem called “Christ.”

von Schirach: “If today he descended from Heaven, the great warrior who struck the moneychangers/ You would once again shout ‘crucify!’/ And nail him to the cross that he himself carried/ But he would gently laugh at your hatred/ ‘The truth remains even when your bearers are passed/ Faith remains, because I give my life…’ / And the fighter of all the world towers on the cross.” [Baldur von Schirach, Christ (1934), cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.143]

Hitler, on the day the Enabling Act was passed giving him dictatorial power, described his struggle as against materialism, just like the struggle of creationists and Intelligent Designers, who struggle against materialism.

Hitler: “While the regime is determined to carry through the political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating and ensuring the prerequisites for a really deep inner religiousity. Benefits of a personal nature, which might arise from compromise with atheistic organizations, could outweigh the results which become apparent through the destruction of general basic ethical-religious values. The national regime seeks in both Christian confessions the factors most important for the maintenance of our folkdom… The national regime will safeguard to the Christian confessions the influence due them, in school and education. It is concerned with the sincere cooperation of church and state. The struggle against a materialistic philosophy and for the creation of a true folk community serves the interests of the German nation as well as our Christian belief.” [Hitler, Reichstag speech, 23 March 1933; in Cuno Workenbach, Das Deustsche Reich von 1918 bis Heute (1935), p.133, cited in William Donovan’s Nuremberg Report; compare Steigmann-Gall, p.116]

So when Darwin said “struggle”, did he mean struggling against “materialistic philosophy”, as Hitler says above?

Hitler: “Along with the fight for a purer morality we have taken upon ourselves the struggle against the decomposition of our religion… We have therefore taken up the struggle against the Godless movement, and not just with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out. And above all we have dragged the priests out of the lowlands of the political party struggle and have brought them back into the church.” [Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933. Cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.117]

So when Darwin said “struggle”, did he mean struggling against atheism, as Hitler says above?

Hitler: “There has been no interference, nor will there be any, with the teachings or religious freedom of the confessions. To the contrary, the state protects religion, though always under the condition that that it will not be used as a disguise for political purposes… I know that there are thousands of priests who are not merely reconciled with the present state, but who gladly cooperate with it… Where can our interests be more convergent than in our struggle against the symptoms of degeneracy in the contemporary world, in our struggle against cultural bolshevism, against the Godless movement, against criminality, and for a social conception of community… These are not anti-Christian, but rather Christian principles!” [Speech at the Ehrenbreitstein fortress in Koblenz, 26 August 1934, cited in Steigmann-Gall, p.118]

So when Darwin said “struggle”, did he mean struggling against atheism, and equate atheism with criminality, as Hitler says above?

Hitler: “…of all the tasks which we have to face, the noblest and most sacred for mankind is that each racial species must preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it… there is one error which cannot be remedied… namely the failure to recognize the importance of conserving the blood and the race free from intermixture and thereby the racial aspect and character which are God’s gift and God’s handiwork. It is not for men to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize the fact that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation

…my first feeling is simply one of thankfulness to our Almighty God… He has blessed our labors and has enabled our people to come through all the obstacles… Today I must humbly thank Providence, whose grace has enabled me, who was once an unknown soldier in the War, to bring to a successful issue the struggle for the restoration of our honor and rights as a nation.” [Hitler, speech to the Reichstag, 30 Jan. 1937]

Here’s Goebbels describing what the Nazi struggle was about.

Goebbels:The struggle we are now waging today until victory or the bitter end is, in its deepest sense, a struggle between Christ and Marx.” [Joseph Goebbels, Michael (1929), p.66, cited by Steigmann-Gall, Holy Reich, p. 13]

Is that what Darwin meant by “struggle”?

Ray doesn’t know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.

diogeneslamp0 eloquently summarized:

Ray doesn’t know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.

That’s because Ray Martinez is actually a stupid troll who pretends to be an Old Earth Creationist who is the world’s only Christian, and tries his hardest to try and shock us by accusing other Creationists, with the stark exception of the other Creationist trolls here at Panda’s Thumb, of actually being evil undercover Atheists.

That is, when he is not pounding his chest and screeching some truly inane lie, i.e., that Hitler and the Nazis were fervent Darwinists.

diogeneslamp0: A tour de force. Thanks.

diogeneslamp0 said:

[.…]

Ray doesn’t know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.

It appears the Moderator has allowed your reply, but he won’t allow anymore exchanges. Rest assured, I could easily refute your counter-claims. And you failed to address the Professor Evans quote. If you really mean business then travel over to the Talk.Origins Usenet/Google Groups. We can have a widely read discussion. And there are no Moderators to save Evolutionists.

RM (student of history)

Why don’t you go back there and wait on us, Ray.

Ray Martinez said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

[.…]

Ray doesn’t know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.

It appears the Moderator has allowed your reply, but he won’t allow anymore exchanges. Rest assured, I could easily refute your counter-claims. And you failed to address the Professor Evans quote. If you really mean business then travel over to the Talk.Origins Usenet/Google Groups. We can have a widely read discussion. And there are no Moderators to save Evolutionists.

RM (student of history)

Good ole Ray Martinez! Another creationist Black Knight!

Ray Martinez said:

diogeneslamp0 said:

[.…]

Ray doesn’t know shit about the history of the anti-Darwinist, anti-atheist, Nazi movement.

Rest assured, I could easily refute your counter-claims.

The fuck you could! I call bullshit. Creationists are always doing this– saying, ‘Oh, I’ve got authorities who have refuted your claims!’ Well where is their evidence then? ‘My authorities have it’ Well copy it here, you stupid fuck! ‘Rest assured I could.’ I rest assured you’re a bullshitter.

Like we’ve been arguing with FL for a week– ‘I have a design detector algorithm’– well where is is then? ‘My authorities have it.’ We read your authorities; they don’t. ‘You haven’t explained the Big Bang.’ Oh, fuck you!

Ray, if you could “easily” refute my counter-claims, you would have done so. You did not refute anything, because we have all the evidence on our side.

Last time you asserted that “Kampf” in Mein Kampf meant Darwinian selection. You did not produce any quotes from any Nazis mentioning Charles Darwin nor Darwinism– not one; and you ignored my dozen-plus quotes on how Nazis interpret “Struggle”, “Kampf” in terms of Christian heroes and the Protestant Reformation.

We have the evidence to to prove Nazism was anti-atheist and anti-Darwinist. Anti-atheism was in particular central to Nazi ideology, because Nazis accused the Jews of being closet atheists. No anti-atheism, no Holocaust.

I notice you did not attempt to refute my link to Coels Blog, “Nazism was Religious and Creationist.” You did not attempt to refute my link to historian Robert J. Richards, “Was Hitler a Darwinian?”

You ignored the fact that the Nazi Party banned the “false scientific enlightenment of Darwinism” in 1935.

And you failed to address the Professor Evans quote.

Indeed, because Evans’ statements, as usual with Evan’s opinions, are his opinions not supported by evidence, and therefore may be refuted without evidence. You did not make any attempt to refute “Nazism was Religious and Creationist” or Richards’ “Was Hitler a Darwinian?” or the Nazi Party banning Darwinism in 1935, and you ignored the dozen-plus quotes which refuted your bullshit about the “Kampf” in Mein Kampf meaning Darwinian selection.

Whereas we cited primary sources, and actual evidence, you by contrast cite APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. If appeal to authority were valid, then we win, because 99.9% of scientists believe evolution is real and creationism is a fraud.

If regarding the history of the Third Reich, you cite APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, we can then cite historical authorities who stated that Nazis opposed Darwinism: Richards, Alfred Kelly, Werner Maser, etc. But this is not much fun; I find it more fun to cite primary sources rather than authorities. As for Evans quote: you presented no evidence at all that Nazis were pro-Darwinist. Where is your evidence that Nazis were pro-Darwinist? Here is your Evans quote:

Evans wrote: The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals” (p.259; boldfacing added).

Right– where does Hitler mention Darwinism? He doesn’t. Hitler invokes “science” for his authoritarianism just as creationists says they’re on the side of “science”, anti-global-warming people say they’re on the side of “science”– everyone invokes science.

At no point does Hitler praise Darwinism or define the scientific method or say science has disproven God’s existence.

Evans reads Darwinism into Hitler when it isn’t there. This is Evan’s problem, and proves he is an unreliable source. This and Evans’ other works prove he is biased against science and wishes to indict science in general for the brutal crimes of Christian anti-Semites. Christians murdered Jews and lied about them for 1,900 years. Charles Darwin NEVER bad-mouthed the Jews. Hitler and the Nazis ban Darwinism, never praise Darwin, constantly praise Jesus and Martin Luther and cite them as their authorities, and kill the Jews like Martin Luther ordered them to. Then creationists blame Darwin. They’re fucked. Evans may not be creationist, but I’ve read his stuff, he’s anti-science.

Evans ignores thousands of statements from Nazis where they say their racism, values etc. are a return to Christian tradition, and he plucks out a quote where Hitler talks of “science”, the same way every creationist does.

Evans wrote:

Nazism’s use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance.

“More a matter of style than substance”? How is this not true of all religion? How is it different than the fake Christ-love of the creationists? Continuing:

‘Hitler’s studied usurpation of religious functions,’ as one historian has written, ‘was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.’

This is begging the question: neither Evans nor his unnamed ‘historian’ provide evidence that Hitler hated Christianity. Re-stating your hypothesis and presenting it as evidence for your hypothesis.

Here’s real evidence: Hitler speaking in private to a meeting OF NAZIS, and ONLY TO NAZIS, not to the general public. This is what Evans calls “hatred of the Christian tradition”:

Hitler said: “My feelings as a Christian point me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter [tumultuous, prolonged applause from all-Nazi audience]. 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 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. Today, 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 myself 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.” [Hitler, speech in Munich, April 12, 1922]

Evans calls that “hatred of the Christian tradition”, so fuck him, he’s a liar.

Hitler called the Jews Christ-Killers. Julius Streicher’s rag Der Sturmer had cartoons of Jews chortling at the crucifixion.

Last time, when you asserted that “Kampf” in Mein Kampf meant Darwinian selection, you portrayed it as CRITICAL, CRUCIAL, RELEVANT, IMPORTANT because you thought you could lie and we’d let you get away with it. But now you act as if your falsehood is IRRELEVANT, UNIMPORTANT, TRIVIAL. When did it become trivial? When we proved you were lying?

This is so far off-topic that I hesitate to post it, but I would appreciate the informed advice and criticism of anyone here who cares to give it for a short paragraph of science fiction I am working on.

It’s intended to be a Wikipedia article, but four hundred years from now. It’s about the technology of teleology. I’ll put it on the Wall, and anybody who wants to can respond there.

Thanks in advance.

diogeneslamp0 said:

[snip all material.…]

I am prevented from responding due to a Moderator warning just upthread. Why not travel over to Talk.Origins Usenet like I suggested? Mostly evos post there; you’ll have a strong peanut gallery to support your rhetoric. Again, there are no Moderators to save the Evolutionist. Perhaps this is why you have evaded answering?

Or perhaps we could take this to the Bathroom Wall?

j. biggs said:

Hey Floyd, I have three more strings and I promise that using your criteria at least one is designed. Please use your non-mathematical method to determine which one(s) are designed and explain how you arrived at your conclusion.

DDURVIERSCOREENZEVENJAARGELEDENONZEVADERENBRACHTFORTHOPDITC ONTINENTEENNIEUWENATIEONTWORPENINVRIJHEIDVZ

PRQLVOAVLEEZRTKTQEHSETEANONOSSOSPAISTROUXERAMFORTHNESTECONT INENTEUMANOVANACAOCONCEBIDANALIBERDADEFEIE

IRBNKDOEORJYNVNDKSOWKRNTYIYIOMXCMSKSKNRKIFKFNDKSIOJGNMDKSKL FJBZJVUEYQLOKIFUDYNWHRHFJMTIJKIQJNMWENYVHSK

OK, I’ve given Floyd plenty of time to complete this task. The fact that he can’t or won’t demonstrates just how useless his qualitative design detection algorithm is. Floyd’s claim is that he can recognize CSI qualitatively. He also claims that our comments represent specified complexity. The first two strings are translations of the example of CSI Floyd gave earlier. His sample string was translated into Danish and Portuguese with some noise added at the front and back ends to make the strings equal in length. The last string was just random gibberish. Here is Floyd’s original string with his sources commentary on it.

Imagine that a friend hands you a sheet of paper with part of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address written on it:

FOURSCOREANDSEVENYEARSAGOOURFATHERSBROUGHTFORTHONTHIS CONTINENTANEWNATIONCONCEIVEDINLIBERTY

Your friend tells you that he wrote the sentence by pulling Scrabble pieces out of a bag at random.

Would you believe him? Probably not. But why?

One reason is that the odds against it are just too high. There are so many other ways the results could have turned out–so many possible sequences of letters–that the probability of getting that particular sentence is almost nil.

Also according to Floyd’s source:

But there’s more to it than that. If our friend had shown us the letters below, we would probably believe his story.

ZOEFFNPBINNGQZAMZQPEGOXSYFMRTEXRNYGRRGNNFVGUMLMTYQ XTXWORNBWIGBBCVHPUZMWLONHATQUGOTFJKZXFHP

Why? Because of the kind of sequence we see. The first string fits a recognizable pattern: It’s a sentence written in English, minus spaces and punctuation. The second string fits no such pattern.

So obviously, Floyd’s qualitative method fails because he didn’t recognize two recognizable patterns. The top two strings contained only slightly less CSI than the English one because of the extra added to make the strings the same length but that’s no excuse because if I added a small random strings before and after the English string Floyd would still have recognized the pattern. The problem here is that Floyd didn’t recognize human language patterns using his qualitative method, so what makes him thing his method is any good for detecting patterns supposedly created by a non-human designer?

FL said:

So Eric says,

How do you know there is SC in there? Tell us your qualitative method if you can’t do it quantitatively.

Ummm, I did, remember? First I gave you the everyday SC example of your sentences and mine.

That’s merely an assertion, you aren’t explaining anything by citing something as an “example” of SC. Describe the thinking process you went though to come to that conclusion. Then, use the same qualitative thinking process to assess the SC-ness of the seven strings I and Diogenes gave to you. No math, no quantification needed: since you keep claiming you can do this qualitatively, do it qualitatively on our examples.

Then, with that in mind, I showed you how (via Trevors and Abel’s own words)

Yes, I am aware that you are very good at copying and pasting other peoples’ answers to publicly available test questions. That does not show that you know what you’re doing. Show your work on on questions for which there is no handy cut-and-paste response, or I call bulls**t.

He [Mike Elzinga] seems far more comfortable talking about “tornado-in-a-junkyard”, which is not what I gave you from Trevor/Abel.

The paper criticizes some assumptions that I presume some biologists make (I presume they aren’t just strawmanning, but its not my area).

But you still have the false dichotomy problem. Saying evolution doesn’t yet explain some phenomenon does not imply design must be the answer, because there could be many things we haven’th thought of yet. Again, think Newton’s mechanics, the orbit of Mercury, and whether this was proof of design or angels. It wasn’t.

DS said:

Well, according to subjectively specified complexity, they are obviously both designed, or not. Wait, what was the answer that will disprove evolution again?

Disproof is probably an unscientific request. However doing this…

1. Getting all 9 strings (Phhhts 2 + my 5 + Diogenes 2) right.

2. Describing a reproducible methodology that gets them right AND implies some biological things were designed.

…would certainly support the notion that there is some such trait that would interest both creationists and mainstream scientists, and that would be reasonably objectively determined.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on February 6, 2013 6:53 PM.

SCOTUSBlog symposium on gene patenting case was the previous entry in this blog.

Basics of evolution at BioLogos 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 4.381

Site Meter