Please spare us your stupid reductionist bullshit. Your attempt to deny a Christian component to antisemitism is not only historically inaccurate, but a malicious form of revisionism. We know you're on the evangelical teat, but distorting history on their behalf is a bit much. Hitler didn't have to "phrase his argument" in Christian terms because Christianity was already an integral element of German culture. His innovation was combining it with eugenics and presenting it as a popular phenomenon.

FYI: 

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

(Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich, April 12, 1922; from Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, pp. 19-20.)

Click here for more quotes that destroy your specious argument.

The author conveniently overlooks the anti-Semetic writings of Martin Luther and over 1000 years of blood libel to promote his wacko, anti-science views. I guess he missed when Darwin wrote about the dangers of SOCIAL Darwinism.

Mr Klinghoffer, how do you explain Hitler's continual references throughout Mein Kampf to Providence, the "goddess of eternal justice", the "goddess of suffering", etc?

Did he just not know about Darwin then?

Look, the point here, it seems to me, is not that "Christianity is innocent and science is evil!" but that science and Darwin's works aren't completely disconnected from Hitler.

People try to say that Darwin had nothing to do with the holocaust, and, indeed, he personally didn't.  But Hitler wasn't the first or the last to take the principles outlined in evolution and apply them socially, then come to the conclusion that our species would be improved by removing non-desirable genetic material.  It's scientific - remove unwanted genes, improve the product.  Arguing that it isn't rooted in science is dishonest.

Science is supposed to be a neutral force, but that very neutrality can be a problem when people try to use it to define the 'oughts' and 'shoulds' of life.  Devoid of a proper moral and ethical background, science on its own is subject to human pathologies.  Many things are scientifically possible and even logical, and yet are also morally abhorrent.

You write:

Auto and computer technology are also proved reliable every day by our experience. But no one has ever reported seeing a species originate in the manner described in Darwin's Origin of Species - not now, not in the fossil record, not ever.

I'd like to recommend a book for your perusal.  It's Finding Darwin's God, by Dr. Kenneth R. Miller.

Illustrations of the formation of new species, in the way Darwin envisioned, can be found on pp. 45 and 46, and pp. 119-120. These are cases that are richly documented in the fossil record.  Miller also discusses ring species, which are one extinction event away from being split into multiple species.

People who make their living in biology can provide you with lots of other examples. 

key point being overlooked by darwin religion apologist: "Most important, the latter make no claims to answering ultimate
questions, like how life originated, from which ethical corollaries are
naturally drawn."

thats the crux of it...its not just the Holocaust who were inspired by
this. Try the Columbine killers, they were a tshirt that day that said
"natural selection" on it and their basement tapes were all about
darwin, their hero

"In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us. . . . With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience."

-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Darwin-doubting scientists on campuses around the country...

By this do you claim that there are scientists on university campuses who doubt the theory of evolution?

 Name one. 

there are several in the movie nitwhit, not to mention the others who were fired for questioning Darwinism.  the point of the movie, the scientific field is full of flat earthers who will not tolerate opposition.

Klinghoffer says that:

'there are obvious differences between Darwinian theory and auto and computer technology. Most important, the latter make no claims to answering ultimate questions, like how life originated, from which ethical corollaries are naturally drawn.'

 Uh.he's welcome to make any 'ethical corollaries' he wants, based on whatever metaphysical beliefs he has. It's like saying nuclear physics isn't true because we'd be able to build big bombs. 

He's a romanticist. And, like all shoddy thinkers, is unable to differentiate between what he WANTS to be true from what is ACTUALLY true. I suppose he still thinks the moon follows him when he drives in  his car.

If Klinghoffer were to read the document "Dabru Emet", he'd see there that 200 Jewish scholars and historians state, 'without Christian anti-semitism, the shoah could not have happened'...or, if he cared to read a bit of history, Chaim Raphael's book "The Road From Babylon" points out that Spanish Christians murdered about 1/3 of all Jews in Spain...before they expelled the remainder. And this was centuries before Darwin.

It's too much to hope that science haters like Klinghoffer and Stein would know history...or science...before trying to revise the former and destroy the latter. But Klinghoffer, like Stein, is simply a liar. And we can leave it at that.

One of the 'anonymous' posters says science is 'supposed' to be a neutral force.

Fine. I'm a scientist. When I mix an acid and a base, tell me how I can measure the 'ethical' components of the solution.

Science is nature...period. Ethics and morals are not measurable, or defineable in terms that science can deal with. Not everything is science. Klinghoffer, Stein and others who oppose science simply are living in 14th century metaphysics, where 'purpose' was everywhere.

They neither understand science, nor desire to understand it. They just wish to destroy it because it stands outside of their view of God.

A number of Jewish bigots on this site. Keep working on them, Mr. Klinghoffer.

I'm sure that there is not a word in the Tanakh which could possibly be construed as Jewish hostility towards any other race or religion.

Ok, so Hitler read Darwin's theory, and afterwards did bad things.

What does that have to do with whether the theory is valid or not?

You can use it to do good things, or to do evil things.

Science is also a way of looking at the world. You can use that way of looking at the world to justify, or excuse, any action, good or evil.

To argue Mr. Klinghoffers case for him  - in a "natural" world there is no action which is prohibited. There are no "Thou shalt nots". Why should not the strong kill the weak, if religion is false and if evolutionary theory is the the sum of human nature? In fact, NOT killing the inferior and the weak can be said to be subverting the law of nature. And this was said, by many people in the early 20th century.

Saying "Evolution is valid" does not address that problem. From the standpoint of the theory of evolution, there IS no problem.If you want some rule of human behavior which does not boil down to "the strong survive and the weak go to the wall", THEN there is a problem. It need not be solved by scrapping the theory of evolution, but the problem is there and ought to be addressed.

I don't think anyone is denying that evolution, in the form of species adapting to their environment, occurs.  The question is how the universe might have begun, how intelligence developed, etc.  I don't think science has any real answer for that.  I think the movie's point is that when you start untethering science from science and start applying it in unscientific areas, be it social theory or the origin of the universe (which almost syllogistically cannot be determined scientifically), problems can arise.  

As far as I can tell, the movie is noting that people can use the idea of "science" in a theological manner, burning the heretics (as it were) who dare to disagree with the prevailing scientific consensus.  When such things are allowed you risk having your science taken over by demagogues (and that's darn hard to prevent anyway).  Scientists should not have an emotional investment in a result at the risk of investing that result with more weight than it deserves.  And in some areas it can seem like they do.

I think that's an unremarkable observation.  But it seems to be the point of the film.

...and neither does evolution.

If the theory of evolution really said that "weak" animals get killed off by "strong" animals--which it does not--it would merely be descriptive.

 Fire will, as a matter of physical fact, burn down most houses.  That does not mean that physics endorses arson.

 Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed.  They have nothing to do with how people SHOULD behave.  You cannot repeal the law of gravitation, or disobey, and it contains no ethical content.

Mr Klinghoffer still has not addressed Hitler's public and copious statements demonstrating his belief in God and Christianity.

Darwinism contains no ethical prescriptions, and it is not a religion, or synonymous with atheism.

The atheist Soviet Union rejected Darwinism, after all, as well as radical Muslims.

Christians and Jews seem to have no trouble accepting a round earth orbiting a star, despite the Bible's plain words to the contrary.  I don't know why there should be such a fuss made over evolution.

The Bible, along with its accurate description of the state of Bronze Age science, conatins much valuable information about the world to come.

I would not want my doctor or my car mechanic looking in the Bible for answers to the questions I bring them, and neither I nor Richard Dawkins would expect me to write him about my ethical questions.

..because they are tired of addressing the same arguments over and over from people who have no interest in and little knowledge of what they've spent their careers studying.

I sympathize because my field is physics and we are always being accused, by the "free energy" community, of the very crimes that creationists accuse Darwinists of (well, not the Holocaust).

 Why should I and my colleagues have to take time away from our work to debunk crackpot notions that haven't changed in five hundred years?

 If people believe that conservation of energy, or Darwinism, are bad science, fine, let them start their own science.

 If your science is better, soon you will be producing all sorts of inventions and discoveries that the deluded Darwinists will be unable to touch.  Their refusal to listen will be their undoing; their failure to match your stupendous achievements will speak for itself, and young scientists will flock to Oral Roberts University.

When confronted by free energy types, I tell them--build and market your inventions.  Their success will speak for the superiority of your science.

 Let the ID community do the same.  They have well-heeled sympathizers.  Funding should be no trouble after the first one or two earth-shattering discoveries you will undoubtedly make with your superior theory.

"Christians and Jews seem to have no trouble accepting a round earth orbiting a star, despite the Bible's plain words to the contrary." 

I'm relived that you see Christains and Jews on such an equal plane, in spite of Hitler and all. What does the Talmud have to say about non-Jews? I don't see anyone quoting excerpts here.

It's spelled "nitwit", nitwit.

Your use of "flat-earther" is endearing. I say again: Name one actual university scientist who doesn't accept the theory of evolution. Scientist, mind you.

David Klinghoffer, you explained yourself brilliantly.

And in regards to one of the scientist's comments on this page, I think the problem with many of these scientists is that they are actually not willing to expand their mind. They are so caught inside of formulas that they are afraid to question anything otherwise.

 In no way did your comments show you to be so rigid and unaccepting of any science theory. However, in a scientist's rage, maybe all he has to fight with is to say either you (or any Christian) is either for science or against it.

"the latter make no claims to answering ultimate questions, like how life originated, from which ethical corollaries are naturally drawn."

Darwinian theory does not really address how life *originated*.  It attempts to explain how life, having originated somehow or other, separated into different species.  These are different.  (And what does "naturally" mean in this case?  Should scientists avoid answering "ultimate" questions lest some scumbag misappropriate them?)

"Yet when Hitler successfully sold his ideology of hate to the German people in his bestselling tract Mein Kampf, he phrased his argument not in Christian terms but in biological, Darwinian ones."

This is silly.  Darwin's theory is about *natural* selection--the sort of selection that goes on without the deliberate intervention of thinking human beings.  Hitler, by contrast, was engaging in *artificial* selection, in which humans have been engaging since forever.  If you want to link Hitler's policies to someone, go find a prehistoric dog breeder or the guy who started teosinte on its transformation into corn. 

These are simple points--they draw on utterly basic facts about evolutionary theory.  The author's apparent ignorance of them does him no credit indeed. 

Re:  "In a curious irony, the modern paperback edition of Mein Kampf, available in any Barnes & Noble, includes an Introduction by - guess who? None other than the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman. Did he, I wonder, even read the book?"

One wonders... Did Klinghoffer bother to read Foxman's introduction. If he did, he might have a better understanding why Foxman, a respected leader in the fight against anti-Semitism, was asked to do so.

It's a mistake to base one's ethics or morality on any form of science, because science changes. Today's scientific discoveries, particularly in quantum theory, may indeed support the idea that behind matter lies something very like spirit, but what about tomorrow's discoveries? If you base your ideas of right and wrong on science, and the science changes, you'll have to change your idea of right and wrong.

And this attempt to slander Darwin with his use or misuse by Hitler is at bottom an ad hominem attack. Shall we reject out of hand the concept of a gold standard because of Ron Paul's apparent visiousness? Or the theory that the 17th Earl of Oxford wrote the Shakespeare plays because Joseph Sobran propounds it? Sheesh. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TGyZlXvz7I

There is no question that Hitler used Darwinian ideas to justify his atrocities.  There is also no question that he used Christian ideas to justify his atrocities.  He also used Malthusian ideas to justify his atrocities.  Hitler was, above all, a pragmatist - another philosophy that owes at least part of its reasoning to evolutionary philosophy.  Hitler said whatever he needed to say to accomplish his nefarious goals.  However, the Christian ideas that Hitler used are a demonstrable perversion of the ethical message of the New Testament particularly as enunciated in the Pauline Epistles.  Darwinian reasoning, on the other hand, makes no ethical judgement nor does it recognize any special category of "human".   According to evolutionary theory what we call "human" is nothing more than an arbitrary point on a continuum from "pre- human" to "post-human" - a continuum that includes all living matter. 

Any "ethic" I might have is a subjective preference that is as arbitrary as the definition of "human".  Is it right to kill and eat cattle (pre-human life) or should I kill people (post-bovine life) to save cattle?  Are some people more like cattle (pre-human) than others?  Are there some people that exemplify the next evolutionary stage (post-human) that are worthy of special consideration?  I think the implications are obvious...

Gabriel and Brotherhhood say, "Christians and Jews seem to have no trouble accepting a round earth orbiting a star, despite the Bible's plain words to the contrary." 

I say where? 

To the contrary, at least one Old Testament passage, obviously written before any telescope or space travel existed, describes the earth as a circle using a word that can be translated "sphere" or "ball."

Isaiah 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
      And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
      Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
      And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in."

Gee, how did the writer of that passage know that?

 Mmmmmmmmmmmm-guess that's a question I am not supposed to ask.  Probably materialistic Darwinism has an explanation. 

Now, to be fair, there are also passages that talk about the "four corners" of the earth.  But such verses, including the "circle of the earth" described above, could very well be employing metaphorical  or poetic langauge ("for corners" meaning North, South, East and West--all points, all places.  When Shakespeare writes "there are daggers in men's smiles" we don't say that Shakespeare taught that actual knives once protruded from European dentures.) 

I really doubt that there are any passages that can be fairly taken to mean the following:  As a matter of science, math or physics, the earth is flat, round, cubular, retangular or any other shape.

 The Bible is primarily a book of faith, morality and history--it was never intended to be a book of science (although what facts are there, are accurate and have been proven to be) . 

 Deal wi' dat--if you can.

Will Genesis do?

<i>6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.</i>

So the Earth and sky form a "bubble" in a universe of water.  The word "firmament" is translated from Hebrew <i>rakiah</i>,  a hemisphere above the earth.

 Mr Conservative's quote refers to a "circle", which of course is flat, and not a sphere.

 <i>14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. </i>

So there you have it--the moon up at night, and the sun in the daytime.  Yet 15 days out of the year you can see the moon in the daytime.  A deception of the devil, no doubt.

 From Chapter 8, after the flood:

<i>2: The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; </i>

The fountains of the deep let in the water from UNDER the flat earth, and the windows of heaven let in the water from OVER the sky, as referenced in Genesis 1.

 It's really quite clear, when you let the science of the Bible speak for itself?  How did the Earth's rotation stop for Joshua without destroying the planet?  Well, the Earth isn't a planet and it doesn't spin or go around the sun, so that's not an issue.  Where did the water for the Flood come from and where did it go?  Well, it came from outside the Earth, from underneath and over the sky, and went back to the same place.

 This cosmology is essentially the same as that the Babylonians had.

People who demand that science follow the Bible should perhaps learn it better.  Nonetheless the Bible doesn't always agree with itself.

In Genesis 1, first come plants and animals, then people, mail and female.  In Genesis 2, first plants, then Adam, then animals, then Eve.

the moon is visible in daytime 15 days out of the MONTH, not the YEAR.

the ancient Greeks calculated the size and shape of the Earth by watching the shadow the Earth casts on moon during lunar eclipses, and by measuring the height of the sun at noon on the same day in Egypt and in Greece.  Being seafarers, they knew the earth to be round because the masts of ships come over the horzion before the rest of the ship does.

 So it doesn't take a miracle to explain why someone living in ancient times would know the Earth is round.  The Greeks used their materialistic science to figure that out, as opposed to relying on Bronze Age traditions.

 "The Bible is primarily a book of faith, morality and history--it was never intended to be a book of science (although what facts are there, are accurate and have been proven to be) . "

Deuteronomy 14:7  sez a hare chews its cud, it doesn't

Deuteronomy 14:7  sez a bat is another kind of bird, it isn't

1 Kings 7:3  calculates pi at 3.00, and you're telling me this book accurate?

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/ProfsOffice/

J. Budzeczewski has just published an article that might be of interest to Gabriel Hanna, Mr. Conservative, and Interested Observer.

Office Hours: All Those Errors in the Bible, Part 1

by J. Budziszewski (04-10-08)

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/ProfsOffice/OfficeHours/A000000893.cfm

Taking into account translation errors and the impossibility of ever really translating anything while keeping any 'literalism' intact, there are still basic contradictions.   The genealogy in Matthew doesn't match the one in Chronicles. (What happened to Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah?)

But the point is taken, these are not very good reasons to consider the Bible total hogwash.  Just not something to be taken quite so literally as so many people would have us.

I don't think anyone is denying that Christian anti-semitism played a role in the holocaust. However, if the question is what motivated Hitler, it's obvious from Mein Kampf and other writings that darwinism played a major role in his world view. The name of the book itself suggests how central the concepts are to him. He saw all of history in terms of a struggle between strong and weak races. God's will, according to Hitler, was only that the "iron logic" of Nature take its course, i.e. the strong prevail and the weak are eliminated.

This "scientific" racism -- rather than the religious variety -- is what Hitler embraced. Call it non-scientific if you will, but the fact remains it was extremely popular among secular, educated people on both sides of the Atlantic in the 1920s and 30s.

Since when do people have visceral... even tribal reactions to something they interpret as not adulating science? John Derbyshire has absolutely lost it over at The Corner. I get it in relation to Ben Stein's quote saying that religion brings good and science brings evil. How does his continued incandenscence make any sense in relation to David's measured and apposite take? Thank you, Mr. Klinghoffer, for speaking against the real blood libel on this topic that endures blaming Nazism on Christianity. Love thy enemy... do good to those who hate you... turn the other cheek... the meek shall inheirit the earth - clearly not proto-Nazi beliefs. In an age of Christians raised to see Jewish history as a history they share, when beleivers of all stripes in countries of religious pluralism begin to see more in common with each other versus an intolerant secularism which seeks to drive religious expression out of the public square, when a man in my "fundamentalist" Christian church shared Matzah bread at a potluck and spoke of his enthusiasm for messianic Judaism after visiting Isreal, this is an important statement.

What is there in a materialistic Darwinist philosophy that says a grouping of self replicators should not seek more space and resources to propagate their DNA? It's not just "neutral" on morality... it abnegates it.

 You rise to the top of my long list of commentators to follow.

You dolts can't even structure an argument, let alone one create a valid one.

Is Evolution wrong? No. No one has ever provided incongruent evidence.

Is Evolution bad? No. It's a description of the world, like gravity and color. It has no value.

Now, aside from that, what is your bloody point? (Try the structure "if A, then B." Incoherent babbling is not an argument.)

The controversy is over whether a Darwinistic philosophy was a factor in the rise of Nazism. The point I made was that a specifically materialist Darwinist explanation of the nature of life is not just value neutral, it abnegates any belief in a transcendent moral code. If we are simply material beings - no different in our nature than a rock - then there is no such thing as a right or wrong action, any more than it could be "right" for a rock to roll left as opposed to right down a hill. It destroys morality and the "genocidal madness" of Hitler becomes only a perfectly routine matter of one grouping of self-replicators attempting to affect the propogation of their own DNA prejudicially.

 The somewhat separate issue is whether evolution is a true theory. Klinghoffer argues that no new species has been observed arising through darwinistic processes. In fact, to my knowledge, there has been no observation of even an increase or creation of complexity or information. Birds beaks grow bigger or smaller, but this involves only a change in the number of genes affecting beak size and not the arise of those genes in the first place. It seems unusual to me to claim that having no evidence contradicting evolution is proof that it is true, although I do tend to beleive that it is true and a process ultimately directed by an Intelligence.

Gee, thanks for setting us all straight La Rama.  I am particualrly impressed by your "If A then B" structure.  Perhaps one day you will learn to use it yourself. 

I discovered some time ago that the modern definition of "rational" is "I don't believe in God."  It appears that some people think that almost anything is rational just so long as it doesn't reference any sort of deity, and conversly anything that references a deity is, by definition, irrational.  It's sort of like talking to a wall, you structure the most elegant arguments, provide evidence and references, only to be told, "Yea, but your irrational."  I find it is much easier to deal with if I ask "What evidence would you make you change your mind?" before engaging some individuals.  Usually the answer is "None!" 

An interesting thought from The Skeptic's Michael Shermer:

"When Stein interviewed me and asked my opinion on the
impact of Darwinism on culture, he seemed astonishingly ignorant of the
many other ways that Darwinism has been used and abused by political
and economic ideologues of all stripes. Because Stein is a well-known
economic conservative (and because I had just finished writing my book The Mind of the Market,
a chapter of which compares Adam Smith's "invisible hand" with Charles
Darwin's natural selection), I pointed out how the captains of industry
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries justified their beliefs in
laissez-faire capitalism through the social Darwinism of "survival of
the fittest corporations." And, more recently, I noted that Enron's
CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, said his favorite book in Harvard Business
School was Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene
(first published in 1976), a form of Darwinism that Skilling badly
misinterpreted. Scientific theorists cannot be held responsible for how
their ideas are employed in the service of nonscientific agendas."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-s...

If Christianity is so clearly the "root cause" of the Holocaust, why did not ALL the Christian countries of Europe engage in it equally? (some did not participate at all, like Protestant Denmark, Eastern Orthodox Bulgaria, and/or almost not at all Catholic Italy, in spite of being Germany's ally). What accounts for this extraordinary variation in Christian behavior, if, again...Christianity was the cause?

Were Germans MORE Christian than any other Christians?

 That "Its Christianity's fault" now seems routinely accepted by most jewish scholars strikes me as very strange (see the comments on the h-antisemitism  discussion list). It seems to me to raise more questions than it answers.

There is no question that Hitler and the Nazis exploited Christian anti-semitic traditions in their war against the Jews. But it is also clear that their private thinking was almost entirely non-Christian. Hitler (in private) sneered at Christianity as a religion for slaves; neither he nor any other senior Nazi even attended church, AFAIK.

Their intense drive to exterminate Jews, something quite unusual even in the Middle Ages, had a different root: a distorted version of Darwinism. In 1911, the Prussian general Von Bernhardi published a best-selling book, Germany and the Next War. He asserted that "war is a biological necessity", and that "the outcome of war is always biologically correct, because the stronger party prevails." The Darwinist influence here could hardly be more obvious.

Bernhardi was not particularly antisemitic, AFAIK. I mention him to show the prevalence of pseudo-Darwinism. Though certainly his ideas about war greatly influenced the Nazis. But in general the Nazis talked about race and blood in pseudo-biological terms, often drawing on Darwin and his followers.

The strongest evidence for pseudo-science and pseudo-Darwinism as the chief root of Nazi murder is the Nazi murder of at least 200,000 and possibly over a million Gypsies. There was no religious reason for this. The traditional hostility against Gypsies never came to this.

It was after Darwinism and paleontology put the ideas of "evolutionary progress" and species extinction into the popular imagination that schemes of extermination became thinkable.

However - it's one thing to recognize this link and insist that it be acknowledged. It's quite another to go about attacking evolutionary theory as false. There are mountains of genetic and fossil evidence for the evolutionary "Origin of Species". Denying it is stupid.

Even the advocates of Intelligent Design don't deny evolution. They only suggest that at some points it must have been assisted.

One of the "Anonymous" crew says: "Darwin's theory is about *natural* selection--the sort of selection
that goes on without the deliberate intervention of thinking human
beings. Hitler, by contrast, was engaging in *artificial* selection,
in which humans have been engaging since forever..."

But Human intelligence and activity is part of the Darwinian universe, just as much as the activities of all other species. Even if that activity specifically seeks to change the characteristics of, or even eliminate, another species, or members of it's own species.

Brutal as it may seem, Hitler's argument might be "if they survive they are fit to survive (in Darwin's circular argument), if not then ..."

La Rana says: "Is Evolution wrong? No. No one has ever provided incongruent evidence."

Doesn't make it right or plausible though I'm afraid. I'm an atheist, but would find it very difficult to provide incongruent evidence of Intelligent Design; that doesn't mean for a second that I have to believe in it.

There is far too much confusion concerning this topic and David Klinghoffer has done a good job trying to sort out the issues.

Concerning the point that Hitler owed quite a debt to Darwin is plain from the record and the belief that Darwinism is purely science without a tinge of morality attached to it is wrong precisely because Hitler, to name only one example, employed Darwinian precepts to fuel his theory of the inferiority of Jews and the necessity to improve the social order by murdering Jews en masse.  Since Darwinism suggests that material causes explain all material things, even beginnings--this is not science but is instead philosophy with a pointed line of attack.  This is the point of view criticized in the movie that David Klinghoffer addresses.  If someone really wants to argue that there is no philosophical element to the Darwinian party line--please go ahead and explain.  It seems to me that it is almost entirely philosophical. 

Regarding the sidebar about "evolution" this cries out for specific definitions and I believe the main dividing line concerns the alleged creative capacities of natural selection.  No one could ever deny an "evolution" of life--this is what is described in Torah.  The source of the power to create--this is the issue and the ultimate issue.  For the Jew, the power rests with Hashem and nothing else.  For the scientist, it was historically a search for Hashem's creation and how it happened.  Today, Darwinism insists that there is no creator as a beginning non negotiable assumption so the question is always--how did natural processes create?  The answer is always--"we don't know"--at least that is the honest answer.  The conjecture that comes with all kinds of crazed evolutionary theories are fantasies and not at all scientific.

All sensible people want science to search for the truth--the trouble comes, as Klinghoffer and Ben Stein suggest--when assumptions prejudice a full search. 

 Concerning the scattered comments attacking the Torah's view of reality--most of these are completely baseless and the Torah gave us Pi to three decimal places hundreds of years before some Greek guy supposedly invented it.  Much of this line of attack  is a side bar and not on the topic but can be addressed if people are sincere in wanting to know what is said in Torah and what is not.

David G has a good point concerning the mindset of so many people in defense of the indefensible all-purpose Darwinian assumptions. 

"Darwinism insists that there is no creator as a beginning non negotiable assumption". Actually Darwinism says nothing at all about the existence or otherwise of a creator. It is a theory about how organisms and species change over time. As such it is not designed (forgive me!)  to address two major issues:

1) the creation of, and changes in, the non-organic universe

2) the origin of life itself

I personally don't believe in a creator but it would be perfectly consistent to believe in one and still be a Darwinist. 

I regret that you are wrong and no good Darwinist would claim that they have a limited scientific tool--rather, nthey believe they have a complete philosophical understanding. This is why they must attack the Torah in such a nasty way. The beginning of so many textbooks that feature Darwin is contempt for the Biblical claim of a creator. This is why Dawkins so famously says that evolution is the means to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

I agree that at its best evolution should be understood in a specific and limited context. This is both reasonable and scientific. If this was the case, David Klinghoffer and Ben Stein would not be drop-kicked all over the place for raising sensible questions

Too many people are not willing to see what natural selection can explain and what it cannot--rather--they believe that it is a universal solution to all questions and explains almost everything. The boldness and recklessness of their accusations and philosophy is the question at hand and this is why David Klinghoffer and Ben Stein are speaking out.

Can we add you in support?

What I've heard is that over half of evolutionary biologists beleive in God so I think that makes it clear enough that the theory of evolution is not inextricably linked to materialism. The component of people like Dawkins who agressively conflate darwinism with atheism is very strong however. They use the theory as a philosophical trump card in their project of delegitimizing faith in God. Christian lore is replete with the image of the atheistic Darwinist professor or teacher agressively challenging the core beleifs of young and intimidated Christian students and I have recieved more than one mass email where a brave student stands up to the bully. I don't think there's any question that there is a conflict between "scientific" materialist Darwinism and Judeo-Christian culture that forms the essential framework of the culture war. This is why Stein would say something so eyepopping as religion brings good and science brings bad and this is why Intelligent Design, which I certainly respect but really cannot see as a true science, seeks a foothold in scientific circles.

Because science is already being used in the service of philosophy.

The question is not "Do they believe in God?" but "What sort of god do they believe in?"  If it is the clockwork god of deism then he (it) is either irrelevant or impotent.  If it is the God of the bible then He requires a response.  Here is an interesting article that later became the foundation for the book, "Moral Darwinism"

http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/cmds/benjamindwiker.html

Good point G-Dave ... I've noticed that while the number of people in my country Canada believing in God about 15 years ago was 90 percent, the number who believe in things like heaven and hell are far lower. Really a great article... I smiled when Epicurianism was described as a way of life in search of a universe to support it - a fine definition of what we call Liberalism these days and it does seem like they are essentially the same thing. We have the famous AIDS campaigner Stephen Lewis who gets mad at the Bush administration for promoting an abstinence culture as a way to combat AIDS. Since what I've heard of it is that the only success story in Africa in this regard has been Uganda - which has been on board with the Bush program - I find the opprobrius "forcing your morality" meme our modern Epicurians knee-jerk his way eye opening. It seems they are the ones interested in promoting a specific morality or lack of morality and it apparently doesn't matter to them which is more effective. In other words their morality is actually more important to them than "lack of pain" which Epicurians elevated to mean good.

 They are the ones hung up on sex. Why is that?

Hi Robbie

Small world (or small 'net) - Canada is my country also. 

Hitler certainly used ancient Christian anti-semitism. However, he stepped outside of Christianity, with his "goddesses". But a very big piece was the pre-Christian, Viking mentality. One could say Charlemagne did not quite succeed in Christianizing the Francs and Saxons, especially the Saxons, the ancestors of the Germans. They remained Norsemen deep down, with the disgusting Norse immorality of every kind. Science can be hijacked, rather easily, but it has no opinion, or should not have. As for Torah science, in Genesis, don't fret. That view is THE WAY IT LOOKS TO YOU. Because part of the message is: it is SHABBAT and science has gone home for the weekend. Now, we are talking about your LIFE EXPERIENCE, not objective facts. See you in the lab on Monday and we can try to describe G-d's creation accurately. But we are not picking up the phone till it gets dark Saturday night. Leave a message.

hey : ) God keep our land! I'm a prairie boy myself... only seen the ocean once.

 I would say to anon. there that Klinghoffer seems to make the same point about evolutionary theory - that it is, or at least has so far, been unobserved. The difference being that the mechanism is at least theoretically observable.