Comments on: Creationism, evolution, and Nazis. Yes, Nazis.

By: Hammerhand

Hammerhand — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:08:42 +0000

Ok, if that one man’s name doesn’t convince you of the banality of the notion: “evolution leads to Nazis”, I’d like to present another: Stephen Hawking.

During the Third Reich those showing symptoms of what would later be called Lou Gherig’s disease were considered impure and unfit for life. I don’t think Steve would’ve made it very far.

The highest aspirations of the Third Reich were, of course, the good of the Reich. This was evidenced by the fact that possibly the most important invention 20th century scientific thought has produced, the electron microscope invented by Ernst Ruska in 1931, was not deemed to have value to the Reich and so the Reich wouldn’t provide Mr. Ruska with further funding once they came to power, ironic.

The highest aspirations of science in any form are: the good of the human race. The response to this statement from the creationist camp is a worthy one: Who is going to decide that? You, Hammer? I certainly am not ready to claim that distinction, and I hesitate to say that men like Al Einstein or Steve Hawking deserve it more than Jesus of Nazereth or Mohandas Ghandi. What I mean to say is; one day, say the year 10,000 AD, we will be able to look back over all of human history and tell with mathematical precision what was good for us and what was bad. I don’t presume to know really anything concrete about that reckoning, all I’m saying is I AM capable of making a pretty good guess. I see that in its inception Christianity had that mentality at it’s core, ie the core of Christ himself’s message. Be good to others and YOUR life will be better. Whether or not he was in fact the son of God, you can’t argue that that was the core of his message; and I challenge anyone to present a public figure, who had a message of peace, who pre-dates Jesus of Nazereth.

That right there is why I consider myself a Christian, not because I’d better do what the bible says or I’ll fail Saint Peter’s test and descend into eternal suffering, but because Jesus was the first preacher who preached the ethos I share; ie the good of all people is righteous, all else is heresy. This is why I frankly share Albert’s dejected feeling and think those who are saying that “scripture” (that being words written in one of the most slippery and tricky of all human inventions: language; 1200 years before the invention of the printing press, no less) trumps anything we actually find when we simply open our eyes and look around, are commiting the absolute worst kind of heresy. They are blaspheming God’s world directly. Can you smell the irony?

By: Hammerhand

Hammerhand — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:05:35 +0000

Furthermore I would like to add this: science and scientific thought are nothing more than taking a really good look at the world, the whole idea is to prove things to such an extent that it doesn’t matter if a human mind conceived it originally or not, the thing exists in and of itself. Now dont get me wrong hehe any paleantologist/biologist/anthropologist that says that evolution is proven fact or even well-supported theory is a liar and a braggart. Its a cookoo idea at best, the sorry inescapable fact is that it fits the facts so far. Another inescapable fact is that any way you slice it, the earth is very very old, the mountain of evidence that supports its 10-figure age is so high that if you postulate that it is false and off by 4299994000 years, as Stein and other creationists believe, then you are postulating either A: God himself has intentionally lied to and decieved his own people or B: Satan had a direct hand in the creation of the world.
Both of these postulations I reject utterly

By: Hammerhand

Hammerhand — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:51:37 +0000

There is just one man who pretty much throws out any notion that “evolution leads to nazis.” He was a patent clerk, a romantic, a pacifist, a Jew (in his youth), a philosopher, and oh yeah he dabbled in physics a little: he was Albert Einstein and I think he would be very insulted that a man who has a lot in common with him, at least etymologically, would suggest that the pursuits he devoted his life to, ie science, was evil and the work of the devil or what have you. If science was so evil, how did Noah know how to build a boat that floats? how did Adam and Eve know how to tan the hides they skinned to make clothes? how did Moses’ Jews know how to smelt gold into leaf form in order to coat the ark of the covenant w/ it? How did they know these things? the scientific method, which, ironically, had no higher purpose than REMOVING human thought from influence over a given sample.

By: Tips to Recognize the Presence of Hazardous Materials | Chemical Agents

Tips to Recognize the Presence of Hazardous Materials | Chemical Agents — Sat, 23 May 2009 18:38:13 +0000

[...] Creationism, evolution, and Nazis. Yes, Nazis. | Bad Astronomy … [...]

By: Thunderclees

Thunderclees — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:56:29 +0000

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

Adolf Hitler
Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944
(p 49-52)

By: Edward

Edward — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:14:04 +0000

Watch the movie. The Nazi parallel is made absolutely to counter the same argument that atheists level at religion. Any idea can be taken and twisted to fit evil purposes. The movie is simply showing that in this scenario, evolution (and science in general) is no better than religion. The core of the movie, however, was how academic freedom was being squashed. They interviewed a number of college professors who got canned because of intelligent design (ID) theory (not Creationism). What’s more, many of them were not teaching it, they simply mentioned it (one school was even open about firing someone for their ID theory musings). And to be fair about what is really happening, lets look at ID theory. Yes, it did spring out of a Creationist point of view, but ID theory itself only proposes that life was designed. It includes the possibility of alien design and the seeding of the Earth, something Richard Dawkins himself postulates at the end of the movie (at which point Ben Stein clarifies that yes, this would be in line with ID theory). The movie was obviously made for a certain crowd, and the other side isn’t going to like it. But the fact is is that there are many talented professional scientists out there who question the tenants of evolution (which is not fact, nor is it law, nor is it really a theory but rather a collection of theories, some supported, some not). That means that there is a debate in acedemia that is being suppressed by the zeitgeist movement within science. And one final point: The aim of science is to apply generalized theories. The more general the theory, the more applicable it is. If evolution is only applicable to animal biology and below, and not to human biology nor applicable to other physical and social sciences, than by any scientific standard it is not a very good theory. Natural selection (what they really mean by evolution) is either correct or it is not, and if it is correct, it is correct in every sense, not just the ones that scientists think fits the zeitgeist. This means that natural selection can be a cruel agent, whether we like it or not.

By: American Fascism « Profligate Digressions

American Fascism « Profligate Digressions — Sat, 17 May 2008 22:00:04 +0000

[...] common theme embraced by the political right in this country lately. The irony that the people who constantly draw analogies between their enemies and the Nazis of World War II regularly and unapologetically employ fascist [...]