"Expelled" Off-Shoot #1: Discussing the premise of the movie

[SIGN]The stuff on Darwin to Hitler was also nonsense, though I mentioned I haven’t read Weikert’s book yet. [/SIGN]
Phil P quote

Richard Weikart, in his book “From Darwin To Hitler”, explains the impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates (demonstrates) that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary “fitness” as the highest arbiter of morality. Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all of which were embraced by the Nazis.

Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones.

All this just from the dust jacket of “From Darwin to Hitler”.

Is it possible that Darwin has much to answer for in abortion that is taking place across the world? Fifty million dead in our country alone

bean << Richard Weikart, in his book “From Darwin To Hitler”, explains the impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. >>

Yes, I understand that is his view, and he probably presents a good amount of evidence and argument in the book.

Regardless, it would be an abuse and distortion of the science. Scientific data by itself is neutral. Scientifically the data and evidence points to macroevolution (i.e. “common descent”) via “natural selection” which has been directly observed in both field and laboratory (although on a “small scale” since you can’t observe millions of years in a lab).

As I pointed out in a previous post, Hitler himself was for something called “Positive Christianity” (in German: Positives Christentum). If we say “Darwinism” caused the Nazis, can we also say that “Christianity” caused the Nazis?

You know in the Gospels that Jesus had a lot of things to say about the Jews or at least the Pharisees (calling them poisonous snakes, hypocrites, blind guides, tombs, liars, and devils, “you are of your father, the devil”, cf. Matthew 23; John 8:44; etc). St. Paul says the Jews were directly responsible for killing Jesus (see 1 Thess 2:14-15). Maybe Hitler was inspired by this as well?

Therefore, “Christianity” caused Nazism. The same “logic” applies to “Darwinism.” But I will try to find or buy Weikhart’s book. At least one of his lectures is online at his home page. I will convert to MP3 and make available here:

From Darwin to Hitler (MP3 audio) click in an hour or so should be ready

Phil P

Darwinism and Nazis. All I can think is…:rotfl:

This is starting to sound like a Jack Chick tract.

I thought this was a good review by an opponent of ID … from the blog link I posted elsewhere. I don’t agree with all of it but I liked the sympathy he showed regarding religion. Especially this paragraph:

Myers takes something that the audience treasures as the most valuable element of their lives, the source of comfort in pain and tragedy, the source of the ethical and social systems they live by, and compares it to a trivial hobby (accompanied by ad by an old clip of an ugly, foolish-looking woman knitting). The very off-handedness of his comment reads as a powerful insult. The method by which one is dealing with the death of a child, the way in which one makes life-altering decisions, all a trivial hobby? That doesn’t come across so much as a put-down of religion as a dismissing of the pain, hopes, and lives of the people themselves.

It’s strange that I find the same attitude among some of the Catholics on this forum. They sympathize with atheists and will tip-toe around their anti-God rhetoric. But the same Catholics spit out venom against “fundies” (never missing a chance to ridicule) or even “fundie Catholics” – attacking them at every chance. There is none of the gentleness which is reserved for atheism, shown to “creationists” – instead, they are blamed at every opportunity (and atheism never even getting a mild criticism).


Extremely effective as propaganda.

I went to see the movie this weekend because I can’t expect to have any credibility in discussing it with my church friends if I haven’t seen it.

I’m comfortable with the context of witty debate, and, viewed as part of that context, Myers and Dawkins were clever and surprisingly mild-mannered.

I’m also familiar with the context of conservative Christian conversations about religion, and in that context, Myers and Dawkins look cold, callous, arrogant, and hateful.

Myers takes something that the audience treasures as the most valuable element of their lives, the source of comfort in pain and tragedy, the source of the ethical and social systems they live by, and compares it to a trivial hobby (accompanied by ad by an old clip of an ugly, foolish-looking woman knitting). The very off-handedness of his comment reads as a powerful insult. The method by which one is dealing with the death of a child, the way in which one makes life-altering decisions, all a trivial hobby? That doesn’t come across so much as a put-down of religion as a dismissing of the pain, hopes, and lives of the people themselves.

Dawkins’ face, with a sort of nose-in-the-air “I’m better-than-you” implication is used as a theme in the movie. The climax reveals Dawkins saying that intelligent design could have occurred, and left a sort of signature that can be recognized, if life had arrived here from outside, and Stein interprets this as “aliens” created the world (complete with a silly clip of an alien). The audience sees this as arrogant know-it-all evolution scientist believing in science fiction notions and, when pushed to admit the truth, acknowledging that Stein is right about claiming that Intelligent Design is a reasonable idea.

Stein repeatedly asks Dawkins about his belief in God (Do you believe in any of the Hindu gods?) and Dawkins responds with impatience and anger, apparently without reason, as for the audience this level of detail makes sense in trying to understand an atheist claim not to believe in God.

The movie shows Stein arriving neat and dignified-looking straight from a taxi ride to talk with Dawkins, while we see Dawkins having make-up applied in preparation. There is no sense he is preparing to be filmed in a movie, just a feeling that this is what he does to get ready for a conversation with the honest Stein who seems to have made no effort to fake a better aappearance. Even with the make-up, Dawkins looks a little wild and unkempt, as the camera zooms in to pick up nose hairs and a little patch of hair sticking out over one ear.

The supposedly persecuted Sternberg and others appear at the beginning of the film as calm, pleasant, reasonable, and quite rightly bewildered at being denied the opportunity even to speak of a view that has scientific promise. Contrast that with Dawkins at the end appearing to agree that Intelligent Design is a legitimate idea, and the movie makes a powerful case for Intelligent Design to replace the “Darwinism” of callous, arrogant atheists whose ideas helped the Holocaust to happen.

As a Christian who is entirely comfortable with the scientific Theory of Evolution, I hope that very few of my fellow church members see this movie because I think its effect may be hard to counteract. I’m sorry to see today so much scienceblog discussion focused on money - for the fundamentalists, this is an investment in missions, not a source of income - and so much less focused on what a powerful tool this movie is for turning a religious person who has known and cared little about the evolution/ID struggle in public schools into a determined advocate for ID.

I find the only difference between the answers for Darwinism given here and on other chat groups is that here the atheists and skeptics are more polite. In other chat groups disagreeing with the atheists and skeptics would remind one of being attacked by pagan aborigines. The foulness of their language would far surpass anything even an aborigine would utter.

The attack is full of opinion with no substance. It’s as if just because they say so, that’s what it is.

One more point, it is not just one man that claims Darwinism led to Nazi brutality. Even the Germans of today believe this.
By the way, if you reread my message, I never said that Darwinism caused Naziism.

bean << By the way, if you reread my message, I never said that Darwinism caused Naziism. >>

You might not have, but that is the message of the Expelled movie. I think a few caveats were made by Berlinski or Weikart however.

Expelled can be accurately distilled down into a couple messages:

(1) all scientists are atheists, or at least all biologists are atheists, or at least the “ones in control” of the “scientific establishment” are all atheists, and all those atheists hate theists, hate God, and hate all religion

(2) the “ones in control” of the “scientific establishment” and virtually all the atheist professors in the atheist universities will not allow any concept of God or “intelligent design” to be mentioned, murmered, mumbled, hinted at or even thought about quietly in any science class, never ever never ever

(3) all the atheist scientists, atheist biologists, atheist geologists, and atheist “origin of life” (abiogenesis) researchers are so stupid to believe in their “theories” because there is really no scientific evidence for them at all; there are gigantic holes in evolutionary theory and “intelligent design” would patch up those holes if the atheist “scientific establishment” would just allow it; i.e. this is a matter of “freedom” in science

(4) Darwinism/Evolution caused the Nazi holocaust, and Darwinism/Evolution is directly responsible for the deliberate murder of billions of people.

That about sums up the movie correctly. OK I exaggerated a little bit. :rolleyes:

Phil P

Wildly exaggerated – in a way that just affirms the reasons why Expelled was created and why some audiences are appreciating that film.

“some who are a part of the scientific establishment will not allow any concept of God or “intelligent design” to be mentioned in any science class” …

The film did show that, and it was worthwhile for many who have never known that fact to be able to see it quite clearly played out on film.

That is an honest reply – thank you.

[quote=drpmjhess]bean << By the way, if you reread my message, I never said that Darwinism caused Naziism. >>

You might not have, but that is the message of the Expelled movie. I think a few caveats were made by Berlinski or Weikart however.

Expelled can be accurately distilled down into a couple messages:

(1) all scientists are atheists, or at least all biologists are atheists, or at least the “ones in control” of the “scientific establishment” are all atheists, and all those atheists hate theists, hate God, and hate all religion

  1. the “ones in control” of the “scientific establishment” and virtually all the atheist professors in the atheist universities will not allow any concept of God or “intelligent design” to be mentioned, murmered, mumbled, hinted at or even thought about quietly in any science class, never ever never ever

(3) all the atheist scientists, atheist biologists, atheist geologists, and atheist “origin of life” (abiogenesis) researchers are so stupid to believe in their “theories” because there is really no scientific evidence for them at all; there are gigantic holes in evolutionary theory and “intelligent design” would patch up those holes if the atheist “scientific establishment” would just allow it; i.e. this is a matter of “freedom” in science

(4) Darwinism/Evolution caused the Nazi holocaust, and Darwinism/Evolution is directly responsible for the deliberate murder of billions of people.

That about sums up the movie correctly. OK I exaggerated a little bit. :rolleyes:

Phil P
[/quote]

  1. No one ever said that everyone that is in the scientific establishment are all atheists. No one ever mentioned what they hated, if anything.

  2. This may very well be true. Probably not as isolated as people think it is.

  3. No one ever said that you have to be stupid to be an atheist. It’s obvious that you don’t have to be very smart either.
    There are huge holes in evolutionary theory. I agree with you on that one. Intelligent design hasn’t had the chance, as near as I can tell, to show whether there are holes in it or not.

  4. I find it shocking that Darwinism is associated with the deaths of billions of people. The causality here is enough to stop Darwinism and take a much closer look at it.

I find it shocking that the invention of matches has resulted in the death of thousands of people from arson. The causality here is enough to stop manufacturing matches and take a much closer look at them.

I happen to be German but i never encountered this point of view.

Darwin’s work was not exactly popular during the nazi period:

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).
2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.
3. Pacifist literature.
4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).
5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).
**6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

**
7. Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn).

8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld).
9. The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of “Asphalt and Civilization” literati! (Graf, H. Mann, Stefan Zweig, Wassermann, Franz Blei). [transl. note: a derogatory term for writers dealing with upper middle class urban society].
10. Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field.
11. Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life’s goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.
12. Nationalistic and patriotic kitsch in literature (P.O. Höcker!).
[Source for German text: pp. 143-144 of Strothmann, Dietrich. Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik: ein Beitrag zur Publizistik im Dritten Reich. Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1968. Translation by Dr. Roland Richter. Bold added.]

pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/10/from-darwin-to-2.html

:rolleyes: Haven’t seen it yet,but it isn’t just about Intelligent Design. I think the point that they are trying to make,is modern academia doesn’t want to discuss alternate theories or anything that would distrube their little world.That you have to tow the offical party line or be branded a nut.
Not only in regards to the creation of life on earth,but in regards to certain inconvient facts and objects in history.
The History Channel did a show about Egyptian mummies
and how they have found cocaine in some of them.Well how did they get it? My answer is trade.
look at some of the enormus heads created by the Olmecs,some of which show definte nergo features,in otherwords they look like black men.
There are rune stones that have been found in North America,
the Mandan indians had been discribed in the past as having fair skin in some of them,and light colored eyes.like blue,etc.
Then there are the people in the Appalachias known as the Melugeons,who some believed to be desendents of portoguese and spanish sailors.There is all kinds of evidence out there both in North and South America that various cultures traded or visited there.However scientists ignore the evidence ,and refuse to recognize that man has to the Americas,not just by land bridge,but through other means.

HollyDolly, scientists eagerly look at new evidence, and evaluate the hypotheses and theories that attempt to explain that evidence. Do you have specific evidence to show that there is a general scientific cover-up regarding the peopling of the Americas?

Petrus

Do you have a specific case as an example?

Bean61, Who have you read on evolution? I can recommend some excellent books. One good place to start is Evolutionary and molecular biology: scientific perspectives on divine action edited by Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, and Francisco J. Ayala. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, 1998.

Petrus

Yes I do.
I questioned a Darwinian about the fact that there has never been an approved incidence when two differrent species combined to form one species.

It was then explained to me that this is not a proof of Darwinism. They then went into some long and convoluted explanation as this doesn’t really matter.

I don’t believe this guy knew what he was talking about. I don’t believe there is anything to explain.

Is this what you believe the theory of evolution to be about?

If you think evolution is two species combining to form one species, you are right. There is nothing to explain.

Peace

Tim

It’s funny that Dawkins says, as a possibility, that we may have come from aliens. There was a movie with that premise. Now, that was not a documentary, propaganda or a mocumentary but, as our priest said, religions usually teach by fictional stories. It scares me that windleafblower was comfortable with the kids seeing Golden Compass. I think it was Steve Wood, who, not being a right-winger as far as I can tell, said the long version of the prayer to St. Michael, written by Pope Leo 13, many times. It may have been before he endeavored to read the book. “One bad book can ruin a convent”, it was said by someone famous in the Church and Mr. Wood was wise to that.

I do think that more yammering atheists than we think know theology, even if they don’t believe. Satan knows theology and he believes in God and knows that the Church’s theology is true. He also is the Lord of Illusions. He can influence a village to see things in a dangerously misunderstood way and cause death and destruction. It takes someone or more who seem to know about what they are talking or they do know, but contort that in a cunning way for an agenda. .

I don’t know from where this positive Christianity Hitler is claimed to believe came, but it was my understanding that he was worshipping Norse gods but, ultimately, the German bloodline itself (which was in England as well. Now, maybe he didn’t have all his soldiers believing in pre-Christian Norse gods and goddesses as most Masons, Rotarians, etc. don’t know their leaders are into what they’re into. It’s all a boy’s club or planting trees to the people at the bottom. Now and again there’s a campaign against or for something, but it’s not what the people think. It may not be atheists, but neo-pagans calling the shots here, with atheism and Biblical historical criticism being the putting to sleep of the enemy. I don’t include Buddhists amongst the trouble-makers, though they may support the caring for nature line that naturalists will feed them as Al Gore got money from one Buddhist bunch when he ran for president (that’s not to say he is a neo-pagan, but that even many of those decent pagans not doing witchcraft or anything like that, yet not enlightened by knowing Christ, will inadvertently support evil)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.