James von Brunn, Evolutionist

Wow... Way to twist a tragic and horrible event to suit your own ends.

Not to defend the white supremacist murderer, but simply talking about genetics and the reproductive exchange of genetic material doesn't mark someone as an evolutionist.
Plenty of Creation Scientists accept, and use, modern genetics as a means of developing and advancing their own theories. They certainly are not evolutionists.

Your feeble attempt to tie a a horrible event, bound to prompt strong emotional reactions, to your ludicrous cause is extremely petty, and sickening.
This should be an event that brings people together in sorrow and mourning, in solidarity against hate and needless violence. Not an event that is used by small minds to drive greater wedges between people.

So if Brunn believed in Jesus we'd label him a Christian? And where does evolution enter the equation? He's racist. Racism predates Darwin. So you can't pin racism on evolution.

James Von Brun was, unsurprisingly, an active Christian, who believed that he was doing God's work. To try now to distance yourself from him is perverse, and very definitely unChristian. You should be ashamed. He was acting as he believed Jesus wants, just as you are.

It is offensive to lump this guy together with evolution. This blog goes way beyond the pale. Its time for Beliefnet to end this blog.

David, this is really beneath you. It's like saying, "Dr. Baruch Goldstein, Jew", and defending this by saying, "Well, he justified shooting up the Muslims at the Cave of the Patriarchs by his Jewish beliefs." This would, of course, be disingenuous, as such a statement would clearly imply that Jews or those who hold Jewish beliefs are ipso facto Muslim-haters and potential Muslim-killers. But, hey, if the twisted beliefs of one lone maniac are allowed to impugn evolution as a scientific concept, I guess the twisted beliefs of one lone maniac can impugn an entire religion by the same logic, huh?

For that matter, you might as well say, "James von Brunn, Gentile" (we all know the history Gentiles have of killing and oppressing Jews, and I'm sure he bought into some of this ideology) or "James von Brunn, of German extraction (Germans? 'Nuff said!) or "James von Brunn, gun owner" (because we all know what homicidal freaks most gun owners are, right?) or "James von Brunn, Christian, as commenter John would apparently like us to do (can't trust them Christians!). Heck, the Spaniards had the racist concept of limpieza de sangre ("purity of blood") which they used against even converted Jews long before Darwin or evolution or modern eugenics--why not blame them, while you're at it?

I like reading your stuff, David, because you write thoughtfully, interestingly, and movingly on many contemporary issues, especially those regarding the Jewish faith. It is sad that you are allowing your apparent hatred of evolution and those who support it to distort and taint your considerable talent. Stuff like this post is really far, far beyond the pale.

Quick clarification on evolution:

Racists and those promoting eugenics usually misrepresent Evolution in this same close minded fashion.

Inbreeding, interbreeding, and crossbreeding makes no difference in the grand scheme of Evolution. Whatever process works best in a particular environment, works. (Though, data does suggest the more varied the gene pool, the more adaptive and successful a species will be.)

Racists promote breeding in the same race because it fits their preexisting worldview.

It doesn't mean evolution will inevitably lead to his conclusion... It means racists will take evolution to this conclusion.

Would you not agree that similar thinking could warp religious philosophy to included genocide according to warped doctrine?

David Klinghoffer:

Holocaust Memorial Shooting: Don't Hyperventilate

....

But don't draw any dramatic conclusions from this.

David Klinghoffer:

No, he doesn't cite Darwin by name in the part of his book that's readable online -- the first 6 of 12 chapters. But do you get the general drift? And you want to tell me that ideas don't have consequences?

PZ Myers:

It's about time the US law enforcement agencies recognized that the real terrorist groups in this country aren't populated by people with funny arabic names: they're homegrown, and they've got European names like von Brunn and McVeigh and Roeder…and even Terry and O'Reilly.

The only sensible statement of the three is the first one, when David knew that ridiculous conclusions about "right-wingers" and "the religious" would soon be forthcoming.

Let's see, how firm a conclusion can one make with a set consisting of a single event? None. David knew that, until he realized he could make anti-evolutionistic propaganda out of this incident.

von Brunn on inbreeding:

the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation.

Darwin on inbreeding:

Darwin's verdict was clear: "Cross-fertilisation is generally beneficial, and self-fertilisation injurious." It was "as unmistakably plain that innumerable flowers are adapted for cross-fertilisation, as that the teeth and talons of a carnivorous animal are adapted for catching prey".

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/19/charles-darwin

Oh yeah, he was about as good a disciple of Darwin as Hitler was. And I like this source because it not only gives Darwin's view on inbreeding, but it's also essentially the modern view.

Which doesn't change the fact that both Hitler and von Brunn debauched a particular science (the fact that neither mentioned Darwin in their writings doesn't change that fact) to try to "justify" their unscientific claptrap.

As if that is a new tactic, or confined to "Darwinism."

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

let's be honest, almost certainly all 2000 or so "Gods" are make believe (even though Billions believe only 1999 are fake but 1 is real).
So relax and enjoy life,.... or hand quit trying to link this Brunn maniac to atheism. Want me to link the Tiller Killer to Christianity?

I can't believe you would have the audacity to link a right wing militant white supremacist with the belief of evolution. I take that back. I can believe you would have the audacity to do so, but it is idiotic. The man was vile and wretched.

As a Christian... and a fervent academic with a bachelor in religious studies, a masters and doctorate in theology... it makes me sick to my stomach that some of my fellow Christians are so entrenched in the ridiculous belief that evolution does not exist.

We can dig deep through the scripture, but nowhere does it out right deny the possibility of evolution. A simple understanding of cultural oral history and the difficulty of getting those stories to paper... and what is lost in translation... and what is just story telling... would go a long way in firmly establishing the message of scripture without getting bogged down by strict interpretation of the English version of the scripture (which in itself had been translated several times over hundreds of years before it was put into English).

Use your God given brain... and look at the adaptive ability of influenza. We come up with a vaccine every year to deal with different strains. Each year, a different strain spreads and grows. Animals are much the same and over thousands of years... animals have adjusted to their environments. To think otherwise... is foolish.

So, Mr. Klinghoffer, do you always take the self-justifying excuses of murdering bigots at face value?

And did it ever occur to you that, by using his self-justifyng excuses to support your agenda, you are, in effect, excusing his vile actions?

Recovering the wisdom of the Hebrew Bible: UR DOIN IT WRONG!

If the white Caucasian race would wake up they would see that God is in the process of punishing them for what they have not done over the last 3000 years. If modern day christiandumb would wake up and study the Scriptures(Old Testament) and test what the wolves in preachers clothing preach versus what the Scriptures plainly state they would come to an awakening that would change this planet overnight. God told our ancestors to not mix your seed with the seed of other races and he told them that He would definitely punish them if they did so. Search the Scriptures for the truth and you will discover that the "race of people" behind the perpetration of miscegination, debt and the like of what is going on in the world today are not the Israelites of the Scriptures. These were mainly prophesised in the Book of Hosea.

It is a sad commentary when we allow these NUTCASES to run loose when we have indisputable evidence of his intent to do harm to the many people he obviously hates. hen is our Gov't going to step up and lock these screwballs away where they cannot do harm to others... This old BUZZARD harbored these hateful thoughts throughout most of his life and gladly shared his view w/anyone that would listen to his SICK RHETORIC

Ladies & Gentlemen, I didn't link this guy with evolutionary thinking. He did that himself. I only quoted him. Should the media than scrupulously avoid noting what the suspect himself said about his motivations in hating Jews and others? Also, while many scientists see Darwinian theory as merely descriptive, not prescriptive, some have indeed seen it as both and so clearly does the suspect in this case. This is real life not a seminar in the philosophy of science.

Ladies & Gentlemen, I didn't link this guy with evolutionary thinking. He did that himself. I only quoted him.

Um, did you write "Darwin's Tree of Death"? Is this supposed to be unrelated to junk sociology like that?

Von Brunn also linked himself to Jefferson and to Napoleon in his writings. Why didn't you point out that linkage?

Btw, he didn't mention Darwin by name, but he did Galton. It does appear that he desired more to link to Galton and his eugenics, not Darwin who considered by did not advocate such a course.

He linked himself to Mendel by implication. Why not blame Mendel for the shooting?

Should the media than scrupulously avoid noting what the suspect himself said about his motivations in hating Jews and others?

Context. Look it up.

Report, indeed. Picking out your favorite science to hate and saying "ideas have consequences" seriously prejudices the issue, while shedding no real light upon his motives and influences.

Also, while many scientists see Darwinian theory as merely descriptive, not prescriptive, some have indeed seen it as both and so clearly does the suspect in this case.

And von Brunn only used twisted evolutionary notions as justification for what he counts as his real motives (reportedly, many of his sort do), the writings of the Elders of Zionism and other rot about the Illuminati. He's a conspiracy freak, which almost certainly counts for far more than his pathetic misunderstandings of evolution.

This is real life not a seminar in the philosophy of science.

No, this is neither. Real life in this case is a bizarre set of ideas, many flat-out wrong, running around the head of someone who has no capacity for evaluating ideas.

Is his misuse of history an indictment of teaching history, David? Should we learn nothing that has ever been twisted to "support" the idea of some lunatic or monster?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

David, you also didn't point out all the inaccuracies of this lunatics understanding of evolution. This guy does not have any grasp of the theory of evolution, he has his own twisted ideas on race and genetics, none of which is backed up by evidence.

What you have done is imply, by association with this idiot's ideas, that evolution is bad and evil and will cause the whole race to fall into a pit of degenerate sin. EXACTLY AS YOU INTENDED TO DO. And I'm calling you on it.

And I'm calling you a hypocrite. Ideas DO have consequences. Ideas like, 'abortion is murder.' Ask Dr. Tiller what the consequences of that idea are. Oh wait...you can't because some crazy believer in an invisible sky wizard killed him!

VonBrunn pretty much outright says that his views are in line with the Nazi distorted eugenics ideology. . .

"Our Founding Fathers were Aryans, men of good breeding who understood, empirically, the great differences existing between strains of horses; strains of live-stock; races of men; and between individuals: knowledge confirmed today by the natural sciences of Genetics, Eugenics, and Anthropology. Hitler, as American boobs are beginning to learn, was not all wrong."

But hey, why not try to twist what the maniac said to push your agenda, eh? Why not conflate eugenics to equal evolutionary theory?

Your article here is as much a distortion of VonBrunn's views, as eugenics is a distortion of evolution.

The Holocaust, Columbine, the Finnish school shooter, and now this. Overzealous Darwinists are easily the biggest threat to humanity.

It is so nice to know that Godwin's Law still holds sway.

No Klinghoffer, von Brunn is a Racist! He is a Terrorist! He is a Murderer! Calling him an Evolutionist is nothing but you bending over and kissing the feet of your Masters over at the Discovery Institute (DI) and using this tragedy as propaganda for your Intelligent Design marketing scheme.

You fail to understand the Theory of Evolution -- which makes NO judgment about racial superiority or any other the other crap that drove von Brunn. Your failure is understandable, after all the DI is pulling your strings. But in reality you should be ashamed of yourself! I know you won't be, there is no shame for one such as you in spinning such comments like this, but you should be ashamed nonetheless.

Ted Herrlich
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

David, you are incorrect. What you are talking about is Social Darwinism. Now aside from the name, what is it's connection to Charles Darwin? His cousin was part of it. So what? Are oyu responsible for your relatives actions?

Yes, people have misapplied parts of evolutionary theory. But does that make them an Evolutionist? Maybe a Malthusist would be a better term.

Try something different and read "On Origin . . ." for comprehension rather than quote-mining. Darwin was not a racist and someone claiming the Theory of Evolution drove von Brunn is a propoganda at best, a lie at worst.

But this is only microevolution, which even creationists accept. Von Brunn doesn't mention anything about apes being related to humans, or transitional fossils.

Ideas do have consequences. Especially using superstitious beliefs to set people against each other. Not long ago witches were being burned in the US. While most of us have overcome that ridiculous belief, certain third world villages still have outbreaks of stupidity.

I also get the general drift that you are clumsily lining up for us. Trying to blame that racist crazy old man's actions (you pick which one I'm talking about) on Darwin or the theory of evolution doesn't hold true in any form. For the same reason why you can't hold religion %100 accountable for all the misery it has brought. It's the person and his or her actions that count. People can take the best of intentions and twist it all around like a politician or a attorney. It's a detestable human trait.

This is a quote from Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf:

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. Every thought and every idea, every doctrine and all knowledge, must serve this purpose. And everything must be examined from this point of view and used or rejected according to its utility."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

Yep. In Adolf Hitler's own words, the Holocaust was necessary "...so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe". Ouch!

Regarding Hitler on "the creator," Your Name might better have cited the famous sentence at the end of Vol. 1, Ch. 2, where Hitler invokes the "Almighty Creator...I am fighting for the work of the Lord." But read the *immediately preceding sentence* where he clearly identifies this "creator" with "Eternal Nature," not God in any recognizable sense.

Interesting, Thurgood. You're helping me make my point. Can you give me a link to a reliable news story on that?

I own a copy of Mein Kampf. I have read it many times. Most people don't get through it; it's turgid and confused and hateful.

Mein Kampf is available online in its entirety, here:

http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/

If Klinghoffer had really read it with any other purpose than trying to score points on Darwin, he would have noted the following passages:

...it was the hand of the goddess of eternal justice and inexorable retribution which caused Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the most mortal enemy of Austrian-Germanism, to fall by the bullets which he himself had helped to mold....

How thankful I am today to the Providence which sent me to that school! In it I could no longer sabotage the subjects I did not like. It educated me quickly and thoroughly.

...what then seemed to be the harshness of Fate, I praise today as wisdom and Providence. While the Goddess of Suffering took me in her arms, often threatening to crush me, my will to resistance grew, and in the end this will was victorious....

...For when a people is not willing or able to fight for its existence- Providence in its eternal justice has decreed that people's end.

This is just the first three chapters. He is always going on about Goddess of this, Providence that, Jesus Christ t'other.

Sounds just like Richard Dawkins, doesn't it?

"Pagan" or maybe "Deist" might be a word you could use to describe what passed in Hitler for religion, but "any stick to beat Jews with" is a better description. But he explicitly references a Creator God who shares his nutty and racist beliefs, and never references Charles Darwin.

Of course Klinghoffer says it's not "the real God". Then why can't we say Hitler doesn't know anything about "the real Darwin"?

Klinghoffer seems quite bright; but the most charitable thing that could be said for this Darwin - Hitler nonsense is that Klinghoffer decieves others by first deceiving himself.

That such a mentality may be possible cannot be denied in a world where hundreds and thousands accept the principle of celibacy from their own choice, without being obliged or pledged to do so by anything except an ecclesiastical precept. Why should it not be possible to induce people to make this sacrifice if, instead of such a precept, they were simply told that they ought to put an end to this truly original sin of racial corruption which is steadily being passed on from one generation to another. And, further, they ought to be brought to realize that it is their bounden duty to give to the Almighty Creator beings such as He himself made to His own image.

Volume 2, Chapter 2

Klinghoffer, wither you have not read this book, or you have misrepresented its contents.

Klinghoffer, you are simply asserting that what Hitler means by "God" isn't what normal people mean by "God". That's just special pleading. You offer no evidence. Thomas Jefferson and Voltaire used the word in a similar way.

Secondly, Hitler says "the tiger is always a tiger". He also says that species can only change their characteristics by degrees. That is an explicit denial of Darwinian evolution.

If you don't know that, then you know less about Darwinism than Hitler did.

Hitler also said Man is created in God's image. How can you just wave that away?

Hitler thinks Providence made man and other animals after their own kind. They can improve themselves, or degrade themselves, but one cannot become another.

Darwinian evolution says that any pair of species are descended from a common ancestral species, not the same as either. Do you really not know that? If so, you are not qualified to say who is and is not a Darwinist. If you really do know that, then you are trying to deceive people.

Gabriel, how about this. Let's both read Richard Weikart's new book when it comes out next month and get back to each other then: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Ethic-Pursuit-Evolutionary-Progress/dp/0230618073/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3
Also here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/reexamining_the_darwinhitler_l.html
Weikart is the expert on Darwin-Hitler.

Let's try another tack here--assume, for the sake of argument, that Hitler really did read and understand Origin of Species and fully believed in evolution by natural selection.

Still wouldn't make him a Nazi. Darwinism, like all science, is descriptive, not normative.

I'm in physics, right? So in my dictatorship everyone has to obey the laws of gravitation and thermodynamics or the penalty is death.

That's silly. You can't DISOBEY a natural laws even if you want to.

That's the difference between eugenics and Darwinism. If Darwinism really fits its "survival of the fittest" caricature, eugenicists don't have a leg to stand on. Their concern is that "unfit" people are outbreeding the "fit" people. But according to Darwinism, the people successfully breeding are the fittest BY DEFINITION.

It would be like trying to say that cave fish are unfit because they have no eyes. Their environment FAVORED eyelessness, so they lost their eyes. It takes energy to make eyes, which they could better use for something else, so they would be LESS FIT if they weren't blind.

Eugenicists like Hitler don't use the Darwinian version of fitness. They have their own standard that they made up and they want to breed people to it.

That's not science, that's policy. This is why Richard Dawkins is Darwinist AND a tiresome polemicist for the welfare state. This is why he said, in "The Extended Phenotype", that even if you could prove that some people are genetically stupider than others, to treat them as less equal under the law would be "illogical and wicked".

It's the difference between NATURAL law and NORMATIVE law.

So even if I did agree that Hitler was familiar with Darwin and agreed with what he had to say, you could blame Hitler on Darwin.

You might as well say that quantum physicists are to blame for Kim Jong Il. Just because we figured out that people could build nuclear weapons doesn't mean we think they should, or that we necessarily encourage them to do so.

David, the research should be easy. Adkisson's vile deed was all over the news about 10 months ago. Unless of course your reading is limited. Richard Weikart must be the expert on Darwin-Hitler, because he is the only scholar who spends time making up that connection! Evolution is the theory underlying biology and that's settled science. It doesn't show a pretty world but then we didn't need Darwin to show us that. The fear of not having enough to eat, and the fear of being eaten is something we begin to see in most animal life around us pretty early in life.
Interesting, so you too think that this right-wing nuttery is dangerous?

David Klinghoffer
You are one pathetic creationist. You really drag down your own religion with your insane, illogical anti-science drivel. I would feel sorry for you but I can't because you consciously know what you're doing by discrediting people and disgracing those whom you pretend to speak for. Pathetic indeed you are.
DK

thurgood: David, remember the man who shot dead two congregants at Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville? The police found the following books at his home when they searched it...
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage; Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by Sean Hannity; The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life by Bill O'Reilly. Ideas do have consequences...

David: Interesting, Thurgood. You're helping me make my point. Can you give me a link to a reliable news story on that?

Here and here is documentation on the shooting.

I think perhaps you're missing thurgood's point, David. Yes, ideas have consequences--all three of us agree on that. The issue is causation (does an idea cause a particular consequence, or is it merely correlated with it?) and necessity (does idea X by its nature entail consequence Y, or is Y merely one of many consequences that may or may not derive from X?).

For example: Is anti-Semitism correlated with Christianity? Of course, sadly. Is it caused by Christianity? Even more sadly, it has been so in the past, and for some fringe groups still is today. Now for the kicker: Is anti-Semitism an intrinsic and necessary outcome of Christianity? Another way of putting it: Is anti-Semitism intrinsic to Christianity? Yet another way to ask it: Must Christianity always entail anti-Semitism? No matter how you phrase it, I think the answer is emphatically no. If I thought anti-Semitism was intrinsic to Christianity, I wouldn't be a Christian, since I would see that as invalidating the faith as anything a civilized person could believe in. On the other hand, if I denied the history of anti-Semitism in Christianity, I'd be a liar.

Now some do appear to think, based on statements they've made in the past (Daniel Goldhagen and Leon Wieseltier come to mind) that anti-Semitism in some sense is intrinsic to Christianity. I understand that you, David, do not share this belief, on which I commend you.

Now, the analogy. The church shooter obviously considered himself conservative and (in his own twisted mind, at least) saw the statements of Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly as supporting his views. This much is not in doubt. There is a correlation here, no doubt. But does anyone think that these books (which I do believe to be hate-filled tripe, honestly) caused Adkisson to do what he did? Even if one were to answer this question "yes", is it then fair to impugn the entire conservative movement based on the acts of one sick man and the writings of a few people who may not be representative of conservatism in general? Do you, as a conservative yourself, feel that this man's actions invalidate your conservatism? Does the anti-Semitism of some Christians invalidate Christianity?

So why does the action of a lone freako and beliefs that some scientists over the years may have espoused invalidate evolution? Why is evolution in the broad picture any more at fault here than conservatism in the broad picture is for the Tennessee shooting? Why can you absolve Christianity in general for anti-Semitism, but cannot do the same for evolution vis-à-vis this nut von Brunn?

Jung: High five! ;)

The press has given this Brunn affair more coverage than they did the mass murder of 1,300 civilians in the Gaza Strip. One might wonder why this is so. Hmmmm.

I am an atheist, and I accept evolution as true. I find it comforting to realise that there is less genetic difference between a blue-eyed blond Swede and a curly haired dark skinned Papuan-New Guinean highlander (separated by perhaps 40,000 years and 20,000 kilometres) than between two common chimpanzees living a few hundred kilometres apart (the external difference between two humans depends on very few genes). Differences in economic success of nations depends more on location and the resources of the countries than on the innate qualities of the populations.

If James von Brunn's reason for his killing of the guard is linked to evolution as the prime cause, then I submit people like David Klinghoffer are no different. They have a warped perspective of the world, they see it in their own image to the exclusion of all else. They filter out anything and everything that conflicts with their perspective and will do everything possible, even kill, to convey their message. This is no different than any other despotic person, e.g., Pol Pot, Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, et. al, who were not evolutionists in any way, shape or form (despite what people like Klinghoffer try to say), but instead each acted on their egotistical, childish image of self-importance and the need to shape the world around them to their own narrow image. Obviously Klinghoffer is oblivious to the fact that he's exhibiting the same reasoning that these despots do/did for the righteousness of their own "holy crusade" against everyone and everything that doesn't agree with THEIR world view. He just can't lift himself out of his own little mudpuddle to see the world beyond his blinders.

In response to some of the comments made about his foolish propaganda, Klinghoffer offers this 'explanation':

"Ladies & Gentlemen, I didn't link this guy with evolutionary thinking. He did that himself. I only quoted him. Should the media than scrupulously avoid noting what the suspect himself said about his motivations in hating Jews and others? Also, while many scientists see Darwinian theory as merely descriptive, not prescriptive, some have indeed seen it as both and so clearly does the suspect in this case. This is real life not a seminar in the philosophy of science."

No Klinghoffer, you did more than just quote him. You are the one claiming that he is an Evolutionist. You are the one who want people who read your foolish post that von Brunn is some sort of genius with a firm grasp of science and evolution. You are the one who want to make people think scientists are Nazi's in sheep's clothing. You are the one making these connections. Where the rest of us see a sick human being, a racist, a violent murderer and terrorist, you use his meandering words to justify your own agenda.

So according to Klinghoffer a racist supremacist with no understanding of evolutionary theory and who randomly and without comprehension uses a few words and concepts lifted from biology makes him an Evolutionist? No Klinghoffer, you did MUCH more than quote him, you put your own spin and label on his words. von Brunn didn't link himself to evolutionary thinking, it took your lack of intellectual honesty to try and make that connection.

David Klinghoffer is a meshuggeh Orthodox Jew who thinks Kwok is an ‘obsessed Darwin lover’ and thinks Hitler was ‘inspired’ by Darwin, when it’s well known that Hitler, himself, was really a Xian creationist (Unfortunately I have to acknowledge David as a fellow alumnus of Brown University. Incidentally, for some "enlightened" comments about our alma mater, then you should read here:

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

).

So who wants to bet that Scott Roeder, murderer of George Tiller, was a committed Christian and a creationist? Would that mean we can reject Christian creationism too?

Or, "I don't quite follow your logic, Cleric".

By the way, Hitler was a non-smoking teetotaler.

What? How does one make the leap from white supremecist eugenics to evolution or Darwinism? How does one make that leap logically?

"David Klinghoffer is a meshuggeh Orthodox Jew..."

John, Orthodox Judaism has nothing to do with Klinghoffer's shilling for anti-science Christian fundamentalists, and its an insult to Judaism to appear to be saying so. Scientific creationism is viewed with at least suspicion by most Orthodox Jews, if they know of it at all. He gets no respect at Yeshiva U with his distortions of biology.

As is typical of the non-scientists and non-historians who attempt to appear intelligent on matters totally outside their ken, a quick survey of Hitler's ideology demonstrates that his philosophy was quite in line with Creationist/ID thinking (for, as Kenneth Miller has succinctly demonstrated in "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", ID, like Creationism, cannot substantiate any of its claims, and all the Discovery Institute's "scientists" declined to appear at the Dover Trial. But, I digress). Here is a direct quotation from Hitler:

"Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." --Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf," Vol. II, Ch. 1.

Those last lines certainly sound like a committed evolutionist? Seems I've heard this tripe before -- usually in the mouths of marginally capable Christianists who didn't get a proper education in their homeschooling.

Or, take this original German statement from Hitler:
'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben."--Adolph Hitler, Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier, 25 February 1942

Since your German may be rusty, he stated:

"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." --Hitler's "Table Talk"

In short, you should note that you were incorrect in your equating of Hitler's notions with Darwinian theory. It isn't true, and you are spreading a falsehood (violating one of the 10 big ones, isn't it?). Oh, but then again, many Creationists do that routinely via quote mining and misrepresentation. Obviously, the Devil doesn't have a monopoly on fraud when it comes to Creationism, though.

Richard Weikart, funded by the Discovery Institute, is hardly a reliable source. Indeed, the book you've recommended is reviewed thusly:

"Unlike the claims regarding Haeckel’s embryology, Weikart’s claims regarding a lineage from Darwin to Hitler via Haeckel have been examined by historians of science and indeed have generally been found lacking. Numerous reviews have accused Weikart of selectively viewing his rich primary material, ignoring political, social, psychological, and economic factors that may have played key roles in the post-Darwinian development of Nazi eugenics and racism. Since there is no clear and unique line from Darwinian naturalism to Nazi atrocities, useful causal relationships are difficult to infer; thus, as Robert J. Richards observes, 'it can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis'."

"Does Science Education Need the History of Science". Isis. 2008, 99: 322–330. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/588690.

Alchemist, one of the DI's pet scientists did testify, Michael Behe, Biochemist Lehigh University and Senior Fellow at the DI. The problem is he did more for the plaintiffs than for the defense, even though he was called as a defense witness. He admitted that in order for ID to be considered science you would have to expand the definition of science to one that would apply equally to Astrology. He admitted that neither he, nor anyone he knew, was doing any scientifically viable work to support his idea of irreducible complexity. He admitted that he had not kept up on the literature for his supposed examples of irreducible complexity, and when faced with over 50 peer reviewed articles he said that it still wouldn't be enough.

No wonder Bill Dembski chickened out of testifying. Where was Klinghoffer in all this? I guess he didn't want to try and make the Nazi connection under oath. Never saw someone laughed out of court before.

tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

Perhaps Klinghoffer is right that "ideas have consequences." In this case, the most that can be said is that violently deranged, cherry-picked, self-serving misunderstandings of otherwise serious and complex scientific issues CAN KILL!!

A bit like the nuclear-armed warmongers in "Dr. Strangelove." Did that film imply that nuclear physics does not provide an accurate description of the world, because some morons would use it to blow each other up?

What lessons can be learned from this? Um, well, maybe that violently deranged people are scary, but nothing more.

Mr. Klinghoffer, unfortunately your thesis is ridiculous. To continue pursuing this thesis may make you a bit ridiculous, too.

Very briefly

Carolus:

Hitler probably wasn't a Christian. He mocked Christianity in private, and in fact apparently planned to exterminate Christianity after he won WWII. See...

http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml for more details.

Not to mention that a lot of really bad people (Mao Tsetung, Stalin, etc.) semm to like Darwin. Hmmm.

------------------------

Ted Herrlich:

For Pete's sake! That's just plain false. See:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/michael_behe_speaks_in_kansas.html

And need I remind you, Judge Jones essentially copied his court ruling on the Dover case nearly 90% verbatim from a statement on ID by the ACLU? See:

http://www.discovery.org/a/4300

-----------------------

JYHUME

WTF!? Perhaps you should have listened to Darwin himself, who said, on the first page of his Descent of Man that:

"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct?"

"We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals."

----------------------

Neil Wronkoski

Nah, I'vce read dumber.

To whoever said Stalin liked Darwin: you sir, are wrong. Learn to use "the google".

@ Your Name,

Thanks for your comment.

In reply to David's self-indulgent exercise in self-adulation that was published in the January/February 2008 issue of the Brown Alumni Magazine, I was fortunate to have had this letter published in the following issue:

“In their book Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, philosopher of science Barbara Forrest and biologist Paul Gross expose the crypto-fascist agenda of David Klinghoffer’s Discovery Institute. Klinghoffer’s inane rant on his own political evolution is just another example of Discovery Institute propaganda.”

“The Discovery Institute zealously embraces fascist practices against its critics, ranging from promoting lies, omissions, and gross distortions of scientific research to ad hominem attacks on such prominent critics as Brown biology professor Ken Miller to, finally, even censorship.”

“If there is any redeeming virtue in Klinghoffer’s essay, it is his concluding observation, emphasizing the value of a good education like Brown’s that is ‘grounded in independent thought.’ It is an observation that his Discovery Institute peers would reject, as they most likely view Brown as yet another bastion of secular-humanist liberalism. It’s also an observation that Klinghoffer himself doesn’t follow, judging from the title of his forthcoming book, How Would God Vote? Why the Bible Commands You to be a Conservative. Religiously devout scientists like eminent ecologist Mike Rosenzweig and, of course, Ken Miller, demonstrate the philosophical and religious fallacies that comprise Klinghoffer’s inane thinking through their commitment to separating their superb scientific research from their devout religious faith. Did Klinghoffer truly learn the value of a Brown education? Judging by his essay, the answer, regrettably, must be no.”

P. S. You can read Klinghoffer's original essay here:

http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/january/february_2008/how_brown_turned_me_into_a_right_wing_religious_conservative_._._._1893.html

"He's obsessed with "genetics."

Why the scare quotes around the word genetics, like it's a quack science?

Whenever you're ready to join the 21st century, we'll be happy to have you. Personally I am more alarmed by you and your rejection of science than von Brunn's grasp of the obvious and what is the best available science.

Jewish people, who comprise a race (J, J2, J3 haplogroups, to be very specific) strongly discourage "intermarriage", which is to say "polluting" the Jew gene pool, and nobody has a problem with that. Black actors and athletes are strongly "encouraged" by black activists to "keep it in the family" and not date or marry white women, and nobody has a problem with that. Remember, Obama's father's parents famously sent a letter to his mother's parents saying they did not want their bloodlines, and I quote, "sullied" by a white woman, nobody freaked out over that.

So what is the problem with von Brunn's beliefs on this matter, which are the exact same as currently practiced by blacks, Jews, and probably every other group? Why single whites out for something every other group does?

The question is rhetorical. You do it to be politically correct and that is reprehensible. Paradoxically, you are holding whites to a far, far higher standard than other groups, judging whites by one impossibly high set of rules while using a laxer set of rules for other, presumably lesser, groups, which is, well, white supremacist. Fact: you are a white supremacist, David Klinghoffer.

It takes some doing to come off as a bigger jerk and idiot than von Brunn, fella, but against all odds you somehow managed, congratulations.

This is not surprising to me. I have had many debates with people who were very prejudiced against some other race, and they invariably have claimed their own races was somehow better than the race they were speaking against, and in every single case credited Evolution as the reason for this.

Remember, it was Galton, Darwin's cousin, who promoted the idea of Eugenics, the 'science' that spread around the world and caused the murder or steralization of millions of people in the name of 'improving' humanity. It was not until the world saw the horror of Nazi Germany during and following WWII that Eugenics fell out of favor. It did not go away, of course, it simply was not discussed under that name in polite society any longer. Margaret Sanger took the ideas of Eugenics and started Planned Parenthood with the purpose of decreasing the population of non-white races and the poor here in the united states.

Come and discuss this, and ANY origins related issues, at Talk About Origins; www.tao.invisionzone.com

Adriana Lima wrote: Jewish people, who comprise a race (J, J2, J3 haplogroups, to be very specific) strongly discourage "intermarriage", which is to say "polluting" the Jew gene pool, and nobody has a problem with that.

Jews are not a race, any more than Italians are a race. The Jewish people, originally a part of the semetic group which includes Arabs, are defined more by religious affiliation than race. That the Jews are not a proselytizing religion now lends the idea that we are insular. But how do you square that away with Jews who look like Hindus, Ethiopians, and other 'racial' types. Intermarriage has always occurred. Conversion to other faiths has always been a factor, whether for marriage or for the faith alone.

Polluting the Jewish gene pool is patent nonsense, promoted by idiots, and believed by conspiracy theorists in need of laying blame away from their own doorstep for mixing with others.

Maybe white supremacists will start killing their own mixers to stop the mixing gene from their weaker-willed members from promulgating and spreading further.

Ah, the fantasy...

Gabriel, how about this. Let's both read Richard Weikart's new book when it comes out next month and get back to each other then: http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Ethic-Pursuit-Evolutionary-Progress/dp/0230618073/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_3
Also here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/02/reexamining_the_darwinhitler_l.html
Weikart is the expert on Darwin-Hitler.

So not only can you not defend your statement, but in support you try to use a book you haven't even read?

David has merely hoisted the Left on its own petard by using its own tactics and the way it always tries to shut down debate, but coming at that task from a different angle. And all you outraged commenters fell for it. Hilarious.

Darwinism is important to eugenics and the killing and exploitation that resulted from it. That is a fact. It doesn't change the science of Darwinism, but it is a result of how that science was used or aBUSED culturally, politically, and socially.

James Von Brunn was not an atheist or a scientist and his understanding of evolutionary theory would be laughable if it weren't for the tragic circumstances. I managed to pull his website and book from google cache before it was removed and have found that he viewed evolution in the rudimentary sense "survival of the fittest" manner that was used throughout the 18th and 19th centuries to justify racism and crime. In fact, his words could have come straight from Herbert Spencer's mouth. This is not how the science of evolution demonstrates our social or physical relationships. If you read his book, "tob shebbe goyim harog," you'll find he spends much more time discussing how jews and jesus hated each other and how the jews were not god's chosen but the real chosen were christians than he ever spoke of evolution [which he got totally wrong, anyway].

Jeffrey,

You have cherry picked a paragraph that perfectly demonstrates his ignorance of the actual science of evolution. You have also ignored pages of text where he attempts to prove Jesus wasn't a Jew. Here is an example --

"The word 'JEW' does NOT appear in any
early translations of the HOLY BIBLE (The Latin Vulgate,
Rheims/Douai, King James, et al). Therefore, because the
word 'JEW' was not used until 1775, it is WRONG to call
Biblical patriarchs JEWS. They were not. They were
HEBREWS. Jesus Christ WAS NOT A JEW. He was a rabbi
(teacher) who worshipped the Mosaic Law and despised the
Pharisaical Oral Law (Talmud)...
THE HOLY BIBLE informs us that Moses, a Hebrew
(or was he Egyptian?), climbed Mt. Sinai (c. 1300 B.C.) to
confer with Yahweh, who gave him THE LAW (The Ten
Commandments) which Moses wrote down on two stone
tablets (there was no Hebraic alphabet in those days so the
writing may have been cuneiform, hieroglyphic, Chinese, or
whatever). Traditionally, Moses also wrote the TORAH
(Pentateuch). Centuries later Pharisees claimed that God
orally interpreted THE LAW given Moses. The Pharisees
claimed that Yahweh’s oral interpretation was identical with
their oral interpretation. Thus, the PHARISEES' ORAL
LAW and THE TORAH are recognized as THE HOLY
WORD. The Pharisees' ORAL LAW, called Pharisaism,
which Jesus despised as the 'Synagogue of Satan,' was even-
tually written down and became the TALMUD (500 A.D.)”

“KILL THE BEST GENTILES!” or “Tob Shebbe Goyim Harog!”
James Von Brunn

The reality is that he was grasping at straws, any straws, be they secular or religious that would justify his hatred. It seems to me that you are trying to deface the science of evolution rather than explaining that his version of evolution is ridiculous and doesn't resemble the science, in any way.

Our social actions are dependent upon multiple factors that include genetics, environment and culture. Not to mention that evolution suggests diversity in genetics improves our fitness rather than Von Brunn's claims that they pollute our genetics.

As mentioned earlier, look up the history of social darwinism and then research modern evolution including social evolution.

I am not sure who wrote this comment, but I totally disagree with you.

"Ted Herrlich:

For Pete's sake! That's just plain false. See:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/michael_behe_speaks_in_kansas.html

And need I remind you, Judge Jones essentially copied his court ruling on the Dover case nearly 90% verbatim from a statement on ID by the ACLU? See:

http://www.discovery.org/a/4300"

Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit like this before? The Judge writing his decision based on the arguments of the winning side is a pretty typical activity. When you take a side, using their words is perfectly reasonable. All judges do it.

While you may disagree, I think he added plenty of his own words. He even predicted your pals over at the Discovery Institute reaction. While they claim he is an activist judge, he was most certainly not presiding over an activist court. His judgment, regardless of your whine about the source of the words he used, was dead on based on the merits of the case. Several of the defendants LIED under oath. Their expert witnesses did not support the contention that ID is science and belongs in the science classroom in any form.

I believe you can see the results of the Dover trail in subsequent changes to the tactics of the Discovery institute. Suddenly they 'appeared' to lose interest in bringing ID into the classroom and just try to teach the 'Strengths and Weaknesses' of Evolution as a back-door way to get it into the classroom. Look at all the 'help' they were in Texas this past year. Got news for them, even if they stumble across an actual weakness in evolution, it still doesn't make ID a scientific concept. Funny how DI mouthpiece Casey Luskin was applauding the selection of Judge Jones, a Conservative Republican, appointed by a Republican President. The defendants simply forgot to present a case.

Oh, by the way, I sign my name, my email, and even my own blog to my posts. Do you have a reason to hide?

ted
tedhohio@gmail.com

You can say what you want about his write-up, you certainly haven't addressed the substance. In other words you haven't presented your case either. So enjoy those semantic word games.

Brunn's ideas do have consequences: We don't pay any attention to irrational ramblings of idiots like James von Brunn.

It's certainly true that people pushing political agendas can latch onto certain ideas from their cultural milieu and create a pseudoscientific facade to make their beliefs seem more reasonable. Heck, a lot of Christians used the Bible to justify racism too.

Klinghoffer oozes:
"Evolution-based racism and eugenics were considered very mainstream science till people took note of the worst that applied Darwinism can do."

Tell us, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow - what do you suppose racism was based on before people started twisting Darwin's theory for their own purposes?

Surely, so gifted a scholar as yourself does not really believe that there was no racism prior to Darwin? I wonder what it was that, say, Southern Christians used to justify their owning of slaves prior to Darwin's book being published. Why, one neednly look at the KKK's website to see what it was - and still is (for they do not accept evolution).

Alchemist: Weak, and beside the point, if true, and contrary to your assertion. But back to the point: David was being satirical. So many in this thread threw conniptions. He nailed you all big time.

This is the stupidest thing I have seen in a long, long time.

S t u p i d.

It doesn't warrant a reply other than derision. Against stupidity even the gods struggle in vain.

The best thing about this post is the author's continued engagement through comment replies. Clearly an apologist for the intellectual bankruptcy called "intelligent design" (have you read the Kitzmiller opinion? Well, then, now you know--intelligent design is a ridiculous farce), he tries to extend his puff piece of idiocy, rife with category errors and rhetorical posturing, all the while projecting a sneeringly adolescent petulance that borders on the shrill.

Which brings to mind the research that shows self-identified conservatives general resistance to change, their acceptance of inequality, the tendency they have to feel victimized and jealous, an inability to accept nuance and ambiguity, etc.

I'm guessing you always wanted to be one of the cool kids, never were, never got over it, and have found refuge in a set of beliefs that protect you from your own inadequacies, which you likely assert are nonexistent whilst they continue to cause you shame and insecurity.

Well, sucks to be you, hombre.

A gold star . . . no comment.

Let's get back tot he subject at hand. I have read several bios that suggest Darwin might have been racist. Most pass it off as him being a man of his times. Many ideas of the day would seem quite racist against more modern times, but even then I think they leave out one of the driving factors of Darwin's work.

Here, look at this. It's a quote form the movie Expelled: where Ben Stein tries to connect Darwin to the Nazi's.

" With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Actually this would be be better described as a 'quote-mine'. What little Bennie did was select a few sentences and string them together to deliberately change the meaning of what Darwin was trying to get across. See for yourself, here is the original quote from Darwin:

" With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil."

Read the quote, the real quote in context, not Stein's quote-mined version. What you see is not racism, it is in fact the opposite.

I have also read James Moore and Adrian Desmond work which clearly shows that Darwin’s scientific work was partly motivated by the naturalist’s passionate opposition to racism.

Klinghoffer, Stein, and even Ken Ham (AIG and Creation Museum infamy) all have been trying to paint Darwin as a racist not because he was a racist, but because they want him to be. It makes it easier to attack a theory if you convince folks that it supports something as heinous as racism and eugenics. Yet have any of them pointed out which part of The Theory of Evolution are racist? No, of course not. They bring in Social Darwinism, which is not the Theory of Evolution. Or they attack Darwin personally. It's tough to defend yourself when you've been dead for a long time.

Let's draw an interesting parallel. Klinghoffer, and his contemporaries over at the Discovery institute, see design in nature because they wish to see design in nature. This is a very human bias (teleological bias) that many of us share. In 'seeing' design, they postulate an 'Intelligence' behind it. They try and get people to accept their message, but it is soundly rejected. So they change tactics. Among the tactics of 'Teach the Controversy', 'Academic Freedom', and 'Strengths and Weaknesses' is an very personal attack on Darwin. They see racism because they want to see racism. Yet it is their own words that betray them, especially when they have to twist Darwin's words to make it mean what they wish it to mean.

Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com

Nothing "liberal" about the creep, so I guess the right doesn't want to be associated with one of their own:

http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/2009/06/von-brunn-and-reagan-aide-todd-blodgett.html

- AC

The link I followed to this post described you as "odious".

Your opinion here seems to fit that description.

"And you want to tell me that ideas don't have consequences?"

when i read that i had to choke back the vomit... So let me understand this right...now you are the moral authority/thought police? that is the typical leftist subversive camp that brun is describing. Perhaps you've been a jewish agent for so long that it just comes naturaly? I guess promising you eternity if u stick your pooty hole up to the sky and further capitulate by carrying someone else's torch to your people detriment works. Quit humping your gutter religion and think for once.

The last two posts were awesome, each in its own unique way.