A part-time biology teacher in Oregon was fired for referring to the bible.
Kris Helphinstine 27, also made links between evolution and Planned Parenthood and Nazi Germany. And I doubt it was links to show that evolution has very little to do with either. They were most likely the Fundy links that are all over the internet. You know:
Darwin's evolution is about survival of the fittest (which of course, is not what evolution is all about).
Hitler thought Aryans were the fittest and wanted a world full of only Aryans.
Hitler also thought that Jews were subhuman species and tried to murder as many as he could.
Therefore, evolution is evil.
It is kind of like blaming Newton and gravity for how bullets travel.
Newton's gravity explains why and how things fall to earth (simplified and localized).
Bullets have to go real fast so they don't fall to the earth fast in order to kill people.
Therefore, gravity is evil.
I'm really surprised that the kids were so aware of what he was doing, and even more surprised that some of the parents spoke up.
This is just great news.
Now for another mentally ill creationist on Hitler and evolution. Presenting Reverend Rickey:
H/T Internet Infidels Newswire for the teacher story
Oh that Rickey, up to his old antics again.
ReplyDeleteThere is a tendency to associate unrelated people and ideas to prove some spurious belief amongst those who fall into the category of moron.
ReplyDeleteThere is nowadays easy access to video cameras and the WWW so the morons make themselves more visible.
Anyone who is swayed or convinced by the arguments of a moron is obviously a fellow moron.
Pointing out the errors of fact in the arguments of morons is a huge if not impossible task, only because the morons outnumber intelligent people by a ratio of aproximately 100/1. Here I'm being quite conservative and the fact may be that morons outnumber intelligent people by up to 1000/1.
It would be hard to conduct a census to quantify the number of morons in our community but maybe a random sample of 100 blogs could serve as a yardstick. I would at random read 100 different blogs and then extrapolate from that what percentage of the blogs are written by morons. Unfortunately, I'm limited to English and would be unable to sample blogs in other languages. This is limiting in itself as I suspect that other nationalities and cultures might have a higher percentage of morons per population than the English speaking world. I have no facts to support this assumption but merely go on instinct. On the other hand, the truth could be quite the reverse and non-English speaking peoples could have a lower percentage of morons per population.
I'm not gunna watch the video of reverend dumbshit. It will only make my blood pressure go up.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite strange how they don't know the difference between natural selection which occurs without a human agenda, and something like eugenics which does.
Mind you, I don't think they want to know.
The teacher deserved to be fired. According to a local paper, the guy was definitely pimping creationism in his biology class.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, though, the eugenics movement did take its inspiration from Darwin, and Planned Parenthood was part of the eugenics movement when it was created. Darwin himself was a scientific racist of the worst kind. Progressives don't like to hear this, but this is historical fact.
Even today I hear progressives expressing dismay that the wrong people are having abortions, that stupid people are breeding, which has definite racist undertones.
What really burns my cookies is this. One can tell students Bush is Hitler in a geography class and barely get a slap on the wrist. The ACLU will even come to your defense! But putting Darwin in a historical context can get you fired.
Lex, many morons don't know how to turn on a computer. I find the blogger community to be fairly intelligent, though sometimes Fundies can't help showing off signs of mental illness.
ReplyDeleteBeep, the video is worth watching because much of it is the video maker refuting what Rickey says. And it also shows how limited Rickey's lies/arguments are.
Jason, eugenics as Beep points out is bastardization at best of evolution theory(since evolution is about natural selection). It also dates back much farther back than Darwin.
"Blue bloods," for example, were shunned or swayed not to marry commoners throughout history in many cultures, and a lot had to do with ideas of breeding.
I'm not sure that Bush is being called Hitler in many high school classes, and if he was, I could see the teacher getting fired for that too.
I don't say the wrong people are having abortions, but I do know that the stupidest people on the planet tend to have the most kids.
That is fact, whether it has racial overtones or not. But it has always been that way, and I argue that this fact leads to more children more susceptible to becoming religious. Throughout history, freethinkers have been either jailed, thrown out or murdered, and their genes are less likely to make it to the next generation.
I have to think that two smart people have more of a chance of producing a smart child than two dumb people. And I wouldn't need Darwin to tell me that. As Lex says, it is based on my intuition/instinct.
RE: "In all honesty, though, the eugenics movement did take its inspiration from Darwin."
ReplyDeleteSaying that a "eugenic movement" takes its inspiration from Darwin is like saying the nuclear weapons industry takes its inspiration from volcanos.
One is the observation of natural phenomena, the other is man using that observation for a specifically human agenda.
The obvious point is that it doesn't matter how much or how little evolution theory Hitler used. Evolution is fact, and how people deal with it doesn't take away from the fact.
ReplyDeleteFundies bring up the Hitler connection to try to cloud the issue.
Regardless of how bad or good a fact is, it is still a fact.
BEAJ:
ReplyDeleteOff topic. As a matter of interest, that Bart Simpson chalkboard you used earlier, how did you import it into blogger? I can't even seem to save the image for some reason. Very annoying...
As regards that connection between Darwin, evolution, the Nazis and eugenics, the Nazi bastards pulled everything out of context, including Nietsche and their "ideology" was completely made-up fantasy. It would have been comical and operatic if it hadn't been so tragic. You know they went to Tibet to try and find their master-race, don't you?
The Rev. Rickey is an idiot if I've ever seen one.
Gert, they were also contemplating a theory that the Aryan earth came from the middle of the earth.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the chalkboard goes, I did it the way I know how to:
Print screen
Go to Paint. Press Ctrl V. Save.
Go to My Photo Center, click image.
Crop image. Save image as a jpeg.
Then when I post, I click the Add Image Icon, Add image from computer and then find it and press Upload image.
I'm sure there is an easier way, but I'm not into learning the new way.
Thanks bud.
ReplyDeleteJason:
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, though, the eugenics movement did take its inspiration from Darwin, and Planned Parenthood was part of the eugenics movement when it was created. Darwin himself was a scientific racist of the worst kind. Progressives don't like to hear this, but this is historical fact.
The Eugenics movement actually began in earnest in California, in the 1900's.
http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
We should blame CD for his wacked-out cousin Galton?
As for that ridiculous 'Darwin was a racist' meme, read this.
I'd clobber it w/my own facts, but I get tired of re-inventing the wheel every time.
Thanks for this BEAJ - you just made my day. There's hope for us yet!
ReplyDeleteKA--
ReplyDeleteOne, memetics is bullshit.
Second, I'm sick of people turning evolution into a religion and trying to make St. Darwin their own personal Jesus Christ, a gentle turn the other cheeker, with good will toward all. Darwin thought the human was race was ignorant to let its worst animals to breed, and in Volume II of the Descent of Man, Darwin writes approvingly of Galton.
"On the other hand, Mr. Galton had remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to strive higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more fitted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted."
Margaret Sanger agreed.
"Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism."
Progressives at their best. And Margaret Sanger, keep in mind, was a member of the American Eugenic Society through the 1960s. Sanger's magazine featured articles written by people like Lothrop Stoddard, a Nazi enthusiast and author of the book The Rising Tide of Color Against White Supremacy.
It is not my fault this stuff sounds like Mein Kampf. One, progressives should rethink their theory that fascism is extremism of the right-- fascism is progressive extremism. Secondly, human altruism, while it doesn't refute the theory of evolution, does show that the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't true, for humans act in ways contrary to the fierce struggle to survive that the theory predicts. Biology would be much better off without such stupid Malthusianism.
Darwin is not a God, he was just the first person to makes waves with observation of fact and an explanation of what happened and happens to living organisms over time.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, human altruism, while it doesn't refute the theory of evolution, does show that the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't true, for humans act in ways contrary to the fierce struggle to survive that the theory predicts.
*************************
A fierce struggle doesn't predict how the mind reacts to the world (though it influences it). A fierce struggle is not even predicted once an animal adapts to an environment. It is only when the environment changes that new adaption will likely take.
Altruism is in fact in line with predictions of evolution. If animals ate each other and didn't take care of defenseless young in many cases, extinction would occur.
Those who showed more altruistic characteristics in social animals at least, are most likely to adapt, find food, get shelter, and breed so that successful procreation can occur.
RE: "Secondly, human altruism, while it doesn't refute the theory of evolution, does show that the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't true, for humans act in ways contrary to the fierce struggle to survive that the theory predicts."
ReplyDeleteWhat does "altruism" mean?
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism
ALTRUISM:
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Zoology Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
"Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species."
If altruism is part of natural selection, it occurs because even though it may be detrimental to the individual, it contribes to the survival of the species.
I watched the video. I am not even going to ask why he has a dunny seat over his head. His words explain that quite well.
ReplyDeleteTheir basic problem is that they don't understand what biological evolution is, what natural selection is, and the differences between those and a program of eugenics or selective breeding.
Jason:
ReplyDeleteOne, memetics is bullshit.
Hopefully, you can back that up w/more than a simple declaration.
Second, I'm sick of people turning evolution into a religion and trying to make St. Darwin their own personal Jesus Christ, a gentle turn the other cheeker, with good will toward all. Darwin thought the human was race was ignorant to let its worst animals to breed, and in Volume II of the Descent of Man, Darwin writes approvingly of Galton.
& I'm sick of people bringing up crap arguments about this, as if it fucking matters.
He wasn't a goddam saint of any sort, he was just a man. Did you read the link? I'm guessing not.
I like how you conveniently left off the following:
"Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."
I'd say that you're projecting your modern biases onto a 19th CE mentality: here's a little bit more for you to chew on.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
"Nor is the difference slight in moral disposition between a barbarian, such as the man described by the old navigator Byron, who dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a basket of sea-urchins, and a Howard or Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage who does not use any abstract terms, and a Newton or Shakspeare. Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations. Therefore it is possible that they might pass and be developed into each other."
& yes, he used the word 'savages'. Yeesh, he was a product of his environment, not a late 20th CE philosopher. He was still more liberal than most men of his day.
You just like to start fights w/us 'ebil libruls'.
I was about to come to Darwin's defence over the racism thing but when I googled Darwin and racist the info that came back didn't look that good so I decided not to bother. All that I have read up until now about Darwin showed that he was a top fellow able to socialize with all types of people.
ReplyDeleteI visited Down House and drank a beer in Darwin's local last time I was in England. The first time I returned to England as an adult I visited Darwin's resting place at Wesminster Abby and was appalled to see that someone had set up a trestle table on top of it. Darwin..not a god? Surely one of the mighties in the pantheon of legendary scientists and philosophers.
AA - did you click on the link I provided in the 24 March, 2007 19:02 post? Click on the this.
ReplyDeleteI get a little sick of the 'racist' meme (yes, that's EXACTLY what it is), because that's what approx. 99% of the Caucasians thought in the 19th CE.
Hell, it's what a large % of the US founders believed too. Doesn't qualify for a full bulldozing of the govt. Or for full membership in the KKK, for that matter.
So unless someone can prove that CD went around thrashing people of color, or burned crosses on folks' lawns, I'm gonna go w/the idea that he was a little better than the average English gentleman in that regard.
KA, yes I did check the link and it was good. To be fair on Jason I found it difficult to defend Darwin because he worded his criticism rather precisely :Darwin himself was a scientific racist of the worst kind. It was the scientific bit that threw me. But having a closer look now I can see the moonbats really are having a good go at claiming that Darwin inspired the Nazis and Stalin and other such nonsense.
ReplyDeleteMy reading reveals Darwin’s attitude to be remarkably ahead of its time regarding other races.
AA, the term Moonbats refers to far left wingers who don't blame individuals unless they are in the government making people go to war; the ones that cause Muslims to behave badly for example:), because it is not Al Qaedas fault that 9/11 happened as the West pushed the Muslims to do it....according to Moonbatology.
ReplyDeleteMoonbats tend to be more secular, and tend to accept evolution. Most moonbats accept evolution, but not all those who accept evolution are moonbats. So moonbats wouldn't be the ones dissing Darwin. That is the job of the Neo-con anti-evolutionists. Note: not all Neo-cons deny evolution either, but many do.
beaners, niggers and other low rents have the most kids.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say stupid people were at a disadvantage. Actually they have been at an advantage. They tend to be more religious, more likely to conform to whatever society they are in, and have a larger extended family that helps the hunter gatherer process and helps protect them from outsiders.
ReplyDeleteIf you trust IQ tests at all, there have been studies that show that the more intelligent people have less children, also Intelligent people tend to be more secular.
Oh yes moonbats, I knew that was wrong when I wrote it, I meant fundies, I must have been in a bit of a rush. Won't let it happen again, Sir!
ReplyDelete