Skip to main content

Ben Stein, a Jew, lets Hitler off the hook entirely with his Christian rationalization of the Holocaust. Instead, he blames "Darwinism".

Ben is obviously playing the hits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...O7Qfdxxw&feature=sub

Not only that, but Paladin's shirt is Uber cool.

Stein's "Expelled" has been refuted, effectively, eight ways from Sunday, by all objective sources. The film is an embarrassment of fundamentalist, anti-evolutionist propagandists.

DF
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I admit I have not seen Stein's movie Expelled. He seems way over the top lately every time I see him interviewed. He's also been called out for his really bad financial predictions over the last couple of years.

On the plus side he had the best game show ever when Jimmy Kimmel was his sideman, cool Visine commercials and Bueller?...Bueller?
tig,


Here's a link to the YouTube serialization of the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4


I advise you to be skeptical and not take the film at face value. Search YouTube or Google for critiques of the film, which utterly destroy it.

This film is a work of profound dishonesty, which is what we've come to expect from Creationists. Personally, I believe Stein is in it for the money, which he made.


DF
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Ben Stein, a Jew, lets Hitler off the hook entirely with his Christian rationalization of the Holocaust. Instead, he blames "Darwinism".

Ben is obviously playing the hits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...O7Qfdxxw&feature=sub

Not only that, but Paladin's shirt is Uber cool.

Stein's "Expelled" has been refuted, effectively, eight ways from Sunday, by all objective sources. The film is an embarrassment of fundamentalist, anti-evolutionist propagandists.

DF


Howdy Deep, It's been a while.
Now I don't want to bust your bubble, and i haven't seen ole Ben's little movie, but I do know that ole Prescott Bush and others formulated something called Eugenics in America at the turn of the last century. They exported this religion to Germany where Hitler made it the basis of the Third Richt. The Entire Nazi philosophy was based on the religion of Eugenics, which is based on Evolution.

One only need Google "Eugenics"
Ex!

Good to see you again!

OK, eugenics was a clumsy reaction to natural selection, but the aim was to weed out congenital deformities.

That's what the March of Dimes does.

Sarah Palin had a child she knew would be afflicted with Down's Syndrome. OK. Her choice. She is responsible for the child, and will likely live long enough to make good on her responsibility.

I know some Down's kids. Would I have them normal or Down's, given the choice? I would have them normal. Nonetheless, they deserve human kindness and care.

Hitler was a monster who tried to purify the human race by taking deviants out of the gene pool. This is an abhorrent policy, we can all agree.

But, there is nothing about trying to prevent the sadness of profound abnormality that is evil.

Would you not try to prevent spina bifida, given the chance? How about the tendency toward asthma?

The progress we are making in genetics will eventually predict, given certain tests, that a given couple will have an X percent chance of producing a child with spina bifida or asthma.

If the zygote produces such signs of these diseases, or other debilitating, painful diseases, is it so horrible that the zygote be terminated, and the couple try again to create a healthy baby?

This is where we are in modern science and medicine. We may no longer leave it up to god, he is perfectly happy to produce babies with congenital conditions.

Is this eugenics? Perhaps. Is it evil? No.

Who would deliberately let a child suffer through spina bifida, with all the surgeries required to correct it?

We're a long way from testing every pregnant woman for the genetic health of her baby. We take those babies as they are born, now. Must we always?

What if we could genetically alter babies in the womb, while they are young and pliable, to correct genetic deficiencies? It's not outside the realm of imagination.

Ex, we are quickly approaching the point, and have met some points, where the health and viability of embryos is predictable. Soon, we will have options, whether fixing them in the uterus or giving up on them.

Please don't bother me with stories of Einstein being dyslectic or Jackie Joyner Kerstin having asthma. I'm not talking about weeding out such people, but fixing them when their intrauterine development is plastic.

Or, if the case is irreparable deformity, to the point of a certain, soon, painful death after birth, we might have prevented such suffering.

It's a complicated situation, neither you nor I have all the answers.


DF
Deep,
Good post, but off the subject. Eugenics wasn't about curing spina bifida. Eugenics was about using the concept of evolution, and preventing people with supposed bad genetics from breeding. Then controlling the breeding of the better gene pool to speed up the process of evolution to produce a perfect genetic or "super man". Hitlers concept of producing a race of "super men" from the arian race was completely founded in Eugenics, a philosophy he learned from the American Darwinians from the turn of the last century. The evidence is overwhelming.


Eugenics is a philosophy based on racial purity. This is why Hitlers looked to white people with blond hair and blue eyes as the distinguishing marks of this racial purity. All inferior raced were banned from breeding early on, and then systematically killed. Laws in Germany prevented racially pure Germans from maryying inferior races.

In America, Eugenics followed the similar path, only it didn't have the totalian power that Hitler did. There were laws passed all over the country, and some people were force sterilized.

In America the Early pioneers of Eugenics believed in white supremacy. Today Eugenics still follows this basic principal. As we know Darwin formulated his evolutionary theory for the purpose of having a philosophy that justified the white subjugation of "inferior races" in Australia, Africa, India, and the Far Pacific. Evolution was the theory based on race and white dominance of the world, Eugenics is the religion born out of Evolution, so we shouldn't be suprised that it is racist too.
Last edited by Extra260
Fundamentalists proclaim that Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" does an excellent job of showing there are many prominent scientists who question Darwin's theory of evolution.

Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." Ben Stein--lawyer, speechwriter, actor, comedian, game show host, movie producer, and propagandist--has shown that you can fool all of the people who want to be fooled all of the time. Stein has been able to convince creationists that when it comes to evolution, he and they are right and all the top scientists in the world are wrong.
Ex,

What you describe is simple breeding toward an end, the same as we breed cattle and dogs.

It has little to do with evolution, if anything.

Evolution is the natural diversification of life, through genetic mutation, to better adapt to a given environment. It is natural selection.

What you've described is artificial selection. It is selection toward a predescribed goal. Evolution does not do that.

Nice try, no cookie.


DF
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
Ex,

What you describe is simple breeding toward an end, the same as we breed cattle and dogs.

It has little to do with evolution, if anything.

Evolution is the natural diversification of life, through genetic mutation, to better adapt to a given environment. It is natural selection.

What you've described is artificial selection. It is selection toward a predescribed goal. Evolution does not do that.

Nice try, no cookie.


DF


Deep, If you believe in random selection as the basis of evolution, then what happens to it when you interject intelligence into the process the speed up and control the outcomes. Eugenics is the next logical step in the thought process of evolutionists. The only difference is that without a standard of morals, and ethics, and with a low contempt for the value of human life, you get nazi eugenics.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Deep,
Good post, but off the subject. Eugenics wasn't about curing spina bifida. Eugenics was about using the concept of evolution, and preventing people with supposed bad genetics from breeding.


Extra,

The US gummint used the concept of Einstein's E=MC2 to kill tens of thousands of Japanese civilians with nuclear bomb yet I ahv eenver heard you speak out against nuclear energy.

Murderers use the concept of equal parts saltpeter, charcoal and sulfur to propel a lead object through the forehead of a victim yet I have not seen you vilify the gun industry.

I would imagine that every scientific principal could be used as a tool for evil but that does not mean the scientific principals are not accurate. The mechanisms for evolution can certainly be used for evil just as you demonstrate. But the thorough understanding of the FACT of evolutionary theory has also given us modern medicine.

Deny it all you want but you deny reality.
quote:
Eugenics is the next logical step in the thought process of evolutionists.

Ex,

Who are you to speak for "evolutionists"? You are not one.

Shall I speak for the Ainu people of Japan? How about for the Democrats, one of which I am not?

You're blowing smoke, and I'm calling you on it. You don't know what you're talking about.

DF
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
As we know Darwin formulated his evolutionary theory for the purpose of having a philosophy that justified the white subjugation of "inferior races" in Australia, Africa, India, and the Far Pacific. Evolution was the theory based on race and white dominance of the world, Eugenics is the religion born out of Evolution, so we shouldn't be suprised that it is racist too.


Really?
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
quote:
Eugenics is the next logical step in the thought process of evolutionists.

Ex,

Who are you to speak for "evolutionists"? You are not one.

Shall I speak for the Ainu people of Japan? How about for the Democrats, one of which I am not?

You're blowing smoke, and I'm calling you on it. You don't know what you're talking about.

DF


Gheez Deep, You better than that.

http://www.answers.com/topic/eugenics

From Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics



quote:
Eugenics is the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."[2] Prominent in the late 19th century and the Progressive Era, eugenics became a core tenet of some of the policies behind Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime.




http://www.eugenics.net/papers/gw002.html

Un-natural Selection
How did dysgenics come about? Simple. By a process that might well be called "un-natural selection," because it is a reversal of natural selection resulting from society's corrupting influence. In a nutshell:

(1) Modern societies quite understandably take care of sickly people who previously would have died, but then these people go on to have children with a high incidence of the same illnesses, and

(2) although contraception is available to everyone, it's more consistently and effectively used by all of the "best" and the most admirable people, i.e., the smartest, most responsible, hard-working people who make a positive contribution to the larger society.

A high percentage of the "worst" and least-admirable people either don't know, or don't care, that unprotected sex brings babies into the world, so they have sex with little or no thought of contraception. They include: psychopaths; sociopaths; criminals; psychologically disturbed people of all varieties; alcoholics; drug addicts; irresponsible, short-sighted, and selfish people; the mentally retarded; just-plain-dumb people; and people who are too lazy to take a trip to the corner drugstore. Because of their negligence, they contribute a disproportionate share of their least- admirable genes to future generations.

What nature does blindly, slowly and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly, and kindly. As it lies within his power, so it becomes his duty to work in that direction.

Sir Francis Galton (1905)

Evolution is the development of the energy of the universe in such a way that it has an increasing ability to consciously control itself and the universe around it. It is a progressive change from the unconscious to the conscious. We are the universe trying to comprehend itself. Man is the corporeal manifestation of the universe trying to control its own destiny. Man is God in the process of coming into existence.

James Hart
Eugenic Manifesto

Man is gifted with pity and other kindly feelings; he has also the power of preventing many kinds of suffering. I conceive it to fall well within his province to replace Natural Selection by other processes that are more merciful and not less effective. This is precisely the aim of eugenics.

It has now become a serious necessity to better the breed of the human race. The average citizen is too base for the everyday work of a modern civilization. Civilized man has become possessed of vaster powers than in old times for good or ill, but has made no corresponding advance in wits and goodness to enable him to direct his conduct rightly.

[Man has] already furthered evolution very considerably, half unconsciously and for his own personal advantages, but he has not yet risen to the conviction that it is his religious duty to do so deliberately and systematically. . . . The chief result of these Inquiries has been to elicit the religious significance of the doctrine of evolution. It suggests an alteration in our mental attitude, and imposes a new moral duty. The new mental attitude is one of a greater sense of moral freedom, responsibility, and opportunity; the new duty which is supposed to be exercised concurrently with, and not in opposition to the old ones upon which the social fabric depends, is an endeavour to further evolution, especially that of the human race.

Those who enjoy a sense of communion with God can dwell on the undoubted fact that there exists a solidarity between themselves and what surrounds them, through the endless reaction of physical laws among which the hereditary influences are to be included. They know that they are descended from an endless past, that they have a brotherhood with all that is, and have each his own share of responsibility in parentage of an endless future.

Francis Galton (quoted in C.P. Blacker’s Eugenics: Galton and After
Deep, Crusty,
i can bury you under a barrage of info on the connection between Darwin and Eugenics.

Darwin himself was a racist, and believed evolution would justify the belief of the Anglo world's dominance over non-white races. This was the justification for Englands subjugation of the non-white world. i.e. India, Africa, Australia. and the far east.

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Darwin_racist1
Still more from Wiki

Eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Its advocates regarded it as a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of certain people and traits.[6]

Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[7] The "interventions" advocated and practised by eugenicists involved prominently the identification and classification of individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, "promiscuous" women, homosexuals and entire "racial" groups——such as the Roma and Jews——as "degenerate" or "unfit"; the segregation or institutionalisation of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and in the extreme case of Nazi Germany, their mass extermination.[8]

The practices engaged in by eugenicists involving violations of privacy, attacks on reputation, violations of the right to life, to found a family, to freedom from discrimination are all today classified as violations of human rights. The practice of negative racial aspects of eugenics, after World War II, fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[9]

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[10] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger,[11][12] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Prescott Bush, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling[13] and Sidney Webb.[14][15][16] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[17]
Hitler doesn't even mention Darwin in Mein Kampf and many of his statements are anything but Darwinian:

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

“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
quote:
Originally posted by davidnmiles:
Hitler doesn't even mention Darwin in Mein Kampf and many of his statements are anything but Darwinian:

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

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



David,
As usual, open mouth, insert foot.
The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[10] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger,[11][12] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Prescott Bush, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Winston Churchill, Linus Pauling[13] and Sidney Webb.[14][15][16] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was however Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf, and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[17]
quote:
i can bury you under a barrage of info on the connection between Darwin and Eugenics.

Darwin himself was a racist, and believed evolution would justify the belief of the Anglo world's dominance over non-white races. This was the justification for Englands subjugation of the non-white world. i.e. India, Africa, Australia. and the far east.


Extra,

I do not deny any of that. Racism was rampant in Darwin's era. Even worse than it was in my parent's generation just a few short years ago. I don't see anyone here denying that the principals outlined in Darwin's theory were misused with some horrible results.

That changes not the FACT that Darwin's theory is the best scientific explanation for how all life came to be.
quote:
That changes not the FACT that Darwin's theory is the best scientific explanation for how all life came to be.


Darwin,
There is no facts at all to Darwin's theory, that's why it is a theory. There are numerous legitimate scientists who do not believe in evolution. There is much science that is twisted into supporting evolution, it is still science, but evolution is still a theory.
quote:
Originally posted by Extra260:
Deep, If you believe in random selection as the basis of evolution, then what happens to it when you interject intelligence into the process the speed up and control the outcomes. Eugenics is the next logical step in the thought process of evolutionists. The only difference is that without a standard of morals, and ethics, and with a low contempt for the value of human life, you get nazi eugenics.


Ex, good to see you, I hope all is well.

I remember having this conversation not too long ago.

To deny evolution, in spite of the mountains of evidence, or to take one insane man's vision of a superior race and world domination and attempt to tie it to Darwin's observations is quite misguided.

If we're going to use that, we should use this too:

Hitler's Christianity

"To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.

By using historical evidence of Hitler's and his henchmen's own words, this section aims to show how mixing religion with politics can cause conflicts, not only against religion but against government and its people. This site, in no way, condones Nazism, Neo-Nazism, fascist governments, or anti-Semitism, but instead, warns against them."

by Jim Walker

Nazi Artifacts (Mementoes, Badges, Paintings, etc.)

Gott Mit Uns means/translated "God With Us"

Hitler was clearly a Christian and Nazism clearly was born out of Christianity, right?

Using your logic, should we have to deduce that Nazism was the next step?

We have tons and tons of evidence.


Gott Mit Uns (God With Us) Nazi Buckle

I'm sure I could bury someone in it.

Regards
I'm sorry and I mean no offense, but to say that Hitler was inspired by Christianity is not only historically false, but an insult to all those he murdered.

Christ was a Jew. The Last Supper was passover. Jesus quoted the Tora, or Old Testament often. One cannot have such hatred for Jews and claim to be a Christian as well since Christianity stems from Judaism. If Hitler was a Christian that means he was knowingly following the teachings of a Jew who quoted Jewish texts and who's life was recorded by former Jews.

Besides, nothing Hitler did resembled anything Christ taught. There is nothing Christian about the Nazi regime. The belt buckle may use the word God, but you have to understand the Nazi concept of God. It's not the God of Abraham that Christians and Jews acknowledge, it's the aryan race itself. Hitler saw himself as some sort of God descended from a mythical race of people.

Again, I don't mean this as an insult, but to the claim that Nazis were influenced by Christianity is a cheap attack on Christians that is completely unsupported by facts.
quote:
Again, I don't mean this as an insult, but to the claim that Nazis were influenced by Christianity is a cheap attack on Christians that is completely unsupported by facts.


From the time that Christianity became the official and required religion of the Roman Empire, persecution of Jews by Christian has been rampant. Jews were given the choice of converting to Christianity, leaving Roman territory or being murdered and their property taken.

Jew were accused by Christians of causing the Plague and slaughtered for their sins.

Jews were a major target of Christians during the Inquisition.

Jews were victimized by Catholic-reared Hitler and suffered in Russian pograms.

Anti-semitism is still very active in the Christian world. Ever hear the Christian expression "Christ Killers," aka ****s?

Christ was intolerant of anyone who didn't accept him as their lord and savior. Isn't it ironical that his followers tend to be intolerant of those not subscribing to Christianity, including Jews. Christ was a failure at teaching anything worthwhile, but he sure was able to spread his message of intolerance.
quote:
Originally posted by davidnmiles:
quote:
Again, I don't mean this as an insult, but to the claim that Nazis were influenced by Christianity is a cheap attack on Christians that is completely unsupported by facts.


From the time that Christianity became the official and required religion of the Roman Empire, persecution of Jews by Christian has been rampant. Jews were given the choice of converting to Christianity, leaving Roman territory or being murdered and their property taken.

Jew were accused by Christians of causing the Plague and slaughtered for their sins.

Jews were a major target of Christians during the Inquisition.

Jews were victimized by Catholic-reared Hitler and suffered in Russian pograms.

Anti-semitism is still very active in the Christian world. Ever hear the Christian expression "Christ Killers," aka ****s?

Christ was intolerant of anyone who didn't accept him as their lord and savior. Isn't it ironical that his followers tend to be intolerant of those not subscribing to Christianity, including Jews. Christ was a failure at teaching anything worthwhile, but he sure was able to spread his message of intolerance.


Thanks for proving my point perfectly.
Hitler could have gotten it from the Bible, we all know that the artificial selection that became eugenics was all based on the Bible, don't we? Specifically:

Genesis 30:31-43 (New International Version)

31 "What shall I give you?" he asked. "Don't give me anything," Jacob replied. "But if you will do this one thing for me, I will go on tending your flocks and watching over them: 32 Let me go through all your flocks today and remove from them every speckled or spotted sheep, every dark-colored lamb and every spotted or speckled goat. They will be my wages. 33 And my honesty will testify for me in the future, whenever you check on the wages you have paid me. Any goat in my possession that is not speckled or spotted, or any lamb that is not dark-colored, will be considered stolen."

34 "Agreed," said Laban. "Let it be as you have said." 35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban's flocks.

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×