Poor Adolf; nobody wants to be his friend. An organization called Coral Ridge Ministries is pushing a "documentary" pinning the Holocaust as "Darwin's Deadly Legacy". I haven't seen the movie, but if it tries to blame the all-too-human tendency to kill people who are different than yourself on a book written in the middle of the nineteenth century, I can think of better things to spend an afternoon on. From the other side of the isle is self-proclaimed "godless liberal" PZ Myers, claiming that Hitler "was quite the vocal Catholic". To support this, he provides a long list of quotes of the kind that you find on atheist websites peddling the "Hitler was a Catholic" meme: Without any context, and with no attempt to take a critical look at the sincerity of the speaker. I find it funny that even though PZ is always raving about how "Republican scum" are lying to the public, he thinks that Hitler is on the level. "Sure, politicians often say things just to satisfy their voters, but if Hitler said that God made him do it, who am I to doubt it?"

In fact, as the Office of Strategic Services established during the Nüremberg trials, Christian churches were persecuted by the Nazis:

Throughout the period of National Socialist rule, religious liberties in Germany were seriously impaired. The various Christian Churches were systematically cut off from effective communication with the people. They were confined as far as possible to the performance of narrowly religous funcitions, and even within this narrow sphere were subjected to as many hinderances as the Nazis dared to impose. These results were accomplished partly by legal and partly by illegal and terroristic means.

Of course, PZ puts a statement at the very bottom of his post, indicating that he thinks that Hitler was just a cynical manipulator. But then what's the point of all those quotes? And then where is the justification for the claim that Hitler was a Catholic?

This claim, as we've just seen, is a chestnut. Here is another one: The many blogs describing themselves as "pro-science" are run by objective defenders of the truth, ready to criticize misleading statements, no matter who makes them. We've seen many "pro-science" blogs ripping into Coral Ridge Ministries for blaming the Holocaust on Darwin. Are we also going to see them criticizing this sloppy chestnut of Hitler being a Catholic? Don't hold your breath.

The universe at various magnifications, from the Milky Way, through an oak tree in Tallahassee, Florida, to the quarks in the nucleus of a carbon atom. HT: Creationism and Baraminology Research News.

Update: Since I've placed this under "Humor", some readers thought that there was going to be some sort of punchline at the end, like Liza Minnelli or a zombie screaming at them (don't ask). Well, there isn't. It's the kind of "amusing little waste of time" humor, not the "OMG, I'm laughing so hard that my stomach hurts and blood is coming out of my nose" humor. Incidentally, I also placed it under "Science", but if some of you are expecting that there'll be a list of peer-reviewed articles at the end, prepare to be disappointed.

It has been noted here at TT Francis Collins was wrongly condemned by PZ Myers over on his popular blog the other day for granting an interview that is being used in Coral Ridge's Darwin's Deadly Legacy television show to be aired this weekend, linking Darwinism and the eugenics movement it spawned to Hitler's atrocities.

First, my disclaimer [because I think I'm gonna need one]: 1. I do not have television, but if I did I wouldn't watch televangelists unless for pure entertainment (Pat Robertson can be a hoot if I catch him while staying at a motel on occasion). I've never seen Kennedy. 2. Linking Darwinism to Eugenics to Hitler is such a simple walk-back that I don't know why anyone complains about it. History is history even if you don't like it. 3. The following is just a rehash of the simple walk-back. I do not plan to watch this TV show, and don't care much for the howling about it on either side. It's just noise.

Okay. Now that's done, there's a short, rather funny thread over on Pharyngula about PZ being mentioned in a WND Article about the upcoming Coral Ridge program, and PZ's thread critical of Collins (and for which PZ since apologized). The comments from PZ's fan club are priceless. If you can stand some liberal uses of profanity, check 'em out.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here is an interview with philospher of science Del Ratzsch. He is one of the few people who writes on design issues that generally gets praise from both sides of the debate. There's a lot of good stuff in the interview, with topics ranging from the high level of emotional involvement in the debate to "gaps" to methodological naturalism. I particularly liked his thoughts on some of the possible payoffs of design theory and also the distinction he made between causal histories and intentional histories.

Feel free to talk about what you agree/disagree with in the comments.

Today Karen Armstrong had another article published in the op-ed section of The Guardian newspaper, entitled The Power of Forgetting, in which she talks about how to get through a long intercontinental flight without liquids to drink or books, laptops, iPods, or computer games to occupy one's mind.

Some of you will recall the little flap a few weeks ago (and a total of four blogs here about it), when in Armstrong's last article for The Guardian she put someone else's pilfered quote into Paul Nelson's mouth. She has not apologized, retracted or explained this error, and The Guardian has not issued a correction. Perhaps we should "forget," which Armstrong tells us in this new article is necessary in order to accept life in a world controlled by Islamic terrorists.

This time Armstrong talks about the Daoist principle of wu wei (doing nothing) as an approach to living with the restrictions and fears of a terrorist-controlled world. Silence our minds and listen to what our enemies have to say, so we can change ourselves -

At this terrifying juncture of history, we have to be ready to "forget" - to start from scratch and experience the frightening void of unknowing.

…If we are to break the deadly cycle of escalating violence - of strike and counter-strike, atrocity and enraged reaction - we must listen intently to what everybody, even our enemy, is saying, and be sincerely ready to let it change us: to get beyond the rhetoric, decode the imagery, and hear the subtext of rage, grief, fear, pain, hatred and despair.

Read the rest of this entry »

Science magazine has published a small blurb about Dario Ringach's decision to abandon his research. There is really nothing new in it except that it confirms the reasoning behind Ringach's decision:

But when the FBI told him the explosive could have blown up a house, Ringach decided to remove his family from the line of fire. "It was his responsibility to do whatever it took to protect them," Chesselet says.

Also consider:

Some of Ringach's colleagues have expressed surprise at his decision to abandon his monkey research. "Everyone is concerned that his gesture will empower the activists," says Chesselet. "Of course it will. But he shouldn't be blamed for that."

I agree on both counts. You can't blame Ringach for choosing his family's safety over research. But his decision nevertheless will empower the "activists." Ringach was able to tolerate a public smear campaign and nasty demonstrations at his own home. What tipped him was the attempted assassination of another scientist.

As one activist crowed:

"While we do not know at this time whether Ringach made his decision after examining his conscience and deciding to do the right thing because it's the right thing, or whether he made the decision out of concern for his own safety and that of his family. The animals who will be spared his abuse don't care why he stopped his atrocities, only that he has stopped," Vlasak said.