Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Kent Hovind's doctoral thesis (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Kent Hovind's doctoral thesis
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently the doctoral thesis of Kent Hovind, one of the major creationist/ID supporters and promoters, has been revealed.

(I'm pretty sure such things are allowed to be viewed by the public.)

This is apparently the real deal. It starts thusly:

"Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time."

Keep in mind. Doctoral thesis. Starts as above. It gets better from there.

http://88.80.16.63/leak/kent-hovind-doctoral-dissertation.pdf

[ December 09, 2009, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ya know, I like the guy. I like his tone, it is approachable and has an honesty to it. I don't agree with him on some things, but he is clear about what sources he uses and thinks are authoritative (like the Bible). So, I don't mind his views and just wish he would let up with the "you not saved, you burn in hell" thing.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess. But for a doctoral thesis, I'd expect a bit more in the way of... well... citations, for starters.

As a quote: "(Zoroastrianism) believed that Satan and God were equally powerful, thereby, limiting God. This shows that they did not have the right view of God in their theology."

Yeah, it's honest. It's apparently heartfelt, and it's clarity is based in its simplicity, which has its own virtue. But... it's a doctoral thesis.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, come on. It's only Patriot University. It's not like he was going to an Ivy League school, or even clown college.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
but, he did use it to become "Doctor Hovind."

so, Omega has a point.

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
and, how many theses start with "hello."

I mean, there is a ... freshness/fun to it.

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. This is what he used to become Dr. Hovind.

Which means, if nothing else, anyone who decides to point out his doctorate has a right to see this. You know, for good or ill.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clark
Member
Member # 2727

 - posted      Profile for Clark   Email Clark   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe I should go get a doctorate from Patriot University. I've written things that are more scholarly, and more thoroughly referenced. The figure on page 80 seems to have been photocopied out of a text book and then cut and pasted in. (Not the fancy computer cut and paste, but the old fashioned scissors and Elmer's glue cut and paste.) This has already made it onto wikipedia (are we surprised) in the article about Patriot Bible University Patriot Bible University. (There, this post is now more thoroughly referenced than his "dissertation".)

It's interesting to see his arguments and all, but it clearly isn't anything even close to a scholarly work, and most of his arguments seem to have the underlying theme of "see, this is the way it is".

Posts: 420 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey, this was 1991, the year I got married. Back then, we thought we were lucky to HAVE a computer. I think we did scan and photocopy a lot of things in.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mariner
Member
Member # 1618

 - posted      Profile for Mariner   Email Mariner       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If he started his dissertation with "Hello, my name is", he could have at least ended it with "You killed my father. Prepare to die." It would have made it the best dissertation ever!
Posts: 538 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wait, Kent Hovind? Sticking the boot into him is kinda a pointless (if satisfying) act, since he's been in jail since 2006?

Not that I'm opposed to mocking diploma-mill doctorates in genera principle of course.

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Patriot Bible University... right across the street from Traitor Textbook College?

Crazy ****ing people...

P.S. Most of us are not nearly as sane as we might wish to believe... but then, most of us don't try and prove that dinosaurs and homo saps coexisted.

Part of believing one is more sane than not is avoiding doing outright crazy things, for so doing tends to erode the theory that one is more sane than not.

[ December 10, 2009, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rallan: Yeah, he's not, but I know people who still link me to his pages to prove to me that evolution is false, first of all, and second... I mean, come on, there's nothing wrong with showing such a thing for all to see.

It doesn't even prove that their arguments are false. But someone who claims himself a doctor, using something like this should have that made clear, don't you think?

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Michelle
Member
Member # 3237

 - posted      Profile for Michelle   Email Michelle       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clark:
Maybe I should go get a doctorate from Patriot University. I've written things that are more scholarly, and more thoroughly referenced.

That's an idea, Clark, but they might treat obvious intellect suspiciously. I'm leaning more towards us sending in kenmeer livermaile for the real test. [Wink]
Posts: 800 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I for one am reluctant to speak in Kent Hovind's defense because I do not agree with his stand about local government control over his property (building codes, etc.)--and I have told him so--and because his scientific arguments have not always been the best thought out. (And I have suggested to him some arguments he ought to drop and told him why.) However, say what you want about his scientific rigorousness, the fact still remains that many evolutionist apologists have become fearful of debating him in public because he is so good at debating the subject.

He is effective at persuading listeners to his side and putting his opponents on the defensive. He is good at thinking on his feet, and has command of a large repetoire of facts and arguments he can cite. He has been described by some evolutionist debaters as the "Hulk Hogan" of Creationist debaters.

I have listened to most of his video series, and I do not recall him being put on the defensive for long by anyone. I do not believe all his arguments were sound, but many of them were. For example, it is easy to score valid points against evolution simply by pointing out the immense complexity of the DNA molecule, and the utter irrationality of supposing that any natural processes acting on the basis of random selection by any means, could produce the vastly increased complexity needed to transform one basic species into another totally different basic species. There is nothing wrong with this argument whatsoever, however futilely evolutionists try to counter it, and Hovind has made this argument many times.

He has the heart of a Christian Evangelist and a burden for souls, and that is something I honor. I was very sad to learn of his legal travails, and regard it as evidence of Satan's attempt to lead Hovind to sabotage himself--which is one of Satan's favorite tactics with people who become especially troublesome to him.

I know that when I have presented evidence and arguments in support of Intelligent Design and Creationism, and which contradict Evolutionism and Geologic Gradualism, the number one argument I have gotten is something to this effect: "Oh no, scientists are too honest and honorable, they would never cook the data or suppress it. Stories about them sabotaging the careers of other scientists who question Evolution must be exaggerations or misrepresentations. Scientists would never behave that way."

I would request that those who have felt this was a valid argument should take a long and close look at the CRU Climategate revelations, and think again. And look again at Ben Stein's fairly recent documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. See if it is still possible to explain it away as just "exaggerations or misrepresentations."

[ December 11, 2009, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
I guess. But for a doctoral thesis, I'd expect a bit more in the way of... well... citations, for starters.

As a quote: "(Zoroastrianism) believed that Satan and God were equally powerful, thereby, limiting God. This shows that they did not have the right view of God in their theology."

Yeah, it's honest. It's apparently heartfelt, and it's clarity is based in its simplicity, which has its own virtue. But... it's a doctoral thesis.

Dude, it's a Doctoral dissertation in "Christian Education." What sources would you expect?

[after some browsing] OK, his statements about Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, etc, need sourcing, and he only uses a source to source his most obvious and well-known statements about Taoism, rather than the more questionable allegations.

He thinks Taoism helped the spread of commumism in China, in comparison to Christian countries? Does the guy think that Russia was Buddhist?

OTOH, he's got a good point about the role of evolution-extrapolations in developing supremacist thinking.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah. Lots of races and countries thought they were empirically better as a people than another group of people. That was one of the early purposes of religion, in fact.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Early purpose is pretty arrogant, Tom. There's at least as much evidence to say that it was one of the "early purposes" of evolutionary biology.

Also, cultural superiority =/= racial supremacy.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think many cultures made much of a distinction, back then. Or even necessarily now.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that cultures with less racism are in general better than cultures with more racism. Therefore my anti-racism by necessity makes me a cultural supremacist. I can't have the former without the latter.

In general you can't believe in the goodness or vileness of *any* idea, without by necessity believing that cultures supporting or opposing that idea are better/worse than the cultures doing differently. Gender equality, anti-racism, democracy, gay rights, secularism. Pick and choose: you either believe it's good for a culture to have these, or not.

There's a big leap from such to bashing another culture's language, or music, or foodstuff, or mode of dress, or favorite architecture, of course. Attacking such shibboleths ends up in practice indistinguishable to racism.

[ December 12, 2009, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you accept the tenets of evolution theory, then you have no logical alternative but to conclude that some human races must be more advanced or evolved, and other human races must be primitive. The next step then is how do we determine which race is superior? It is by competition, and the "survival of the fittest." So if our race kills off other races, that makes our race the superior one, and proves that the others were less favored, by Darwin's reasoning. This would necessarily make a virtue out of genocide.

Remember the original title of the first edition of Darwin's seminal book on evolution: On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Anyone could reasonably take away from that the idea that some human races must be more advanced than others, and some must be more primitive and animal-like. You may wish this were not so, and you may shout till Doomsday that this is not the right conclusion to be drawn, but it is the conclusion that is most logically consistent with the premises.

Only Biblical Creationism logically leads to the conclusion that all men of all "races" are brothers.

[ December 12, 2009, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
If you accept the tenets of evolution theory, then you have no logical alternative but to conclude that some human races must be more advanced or evolved, and other human races must be primitive. The next step then is how do we determine which race is superior? It is by competition, and the "survival of the fittest." So if our race kills off other races, that makes our race the superior one, and proves that the others were less favored, by Darwin's reasoning. This would necessarily make a virtue out of genocide.

Remember the original title of the first edition of Darwin's seminal book on evolution: On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Anyone could reasonably take away from that the idea that some human races must be more advanced than others, and some must be more primitive and animal-like. You may wish this were not so, and you may shout till Doomsday that this is not the right conclusion to be drawn, but it is the conclusion that is most logically consistent with the premises.

Only Biblical Creationism logically leads to the conclusion that all men of all "races" are brothers.

No, I think it's pretty clear that all homo sapiens have a common ancestor, Ron. Either way. Evolved or created. Creationism is not a bypass to the problem you're saying results from accepting evolution theory.

The actual escape from that problem is twofold:

A) Reject bogus racial classifications that have been used historically.

B) Putting any genetic differences between different groups of humans (if they are objectively shown to exist) in perspective; putting ethics and human rights well ahead of reasoning such as "if we kill them it'll prove we're superior".

"Survival of the fittest" doesn't obviate moral reasoning, you see.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
then you have no logical alternative but to conclude that some human races must be more advanced or evolved, and other human races must be primitive
Not if you actually know anything about genetics, or for that matter know the meaninglessness of the word "race" in this context.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If you accept the tenets of evolution theory, then you have no logical alternative but to conclude that some human races must be more advanced or evolved, and other human races must be primitive. The next step then is how do we determine which race is superior? It is by competition, and the "survival of the fittest." So if our race kills off other races, that makes our race the superior one, and proves that the others were less favored, by Darwin's reasoning. This would necessarily make a virtue out of genocide."

Evolution and natural selection =/= "more advanced," nor does "other human races must be primitive" follow from this.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
scifibum, you said: "Survival of the fittest" doesn't obviate moral reasoning, you see."

For you it may not. But then you are subordinating scientific reasoning to moral reasoning, because scientific reasoning is contrary to your moral reasoning, if your "scientific" reasoning is evolution-based.

TommySana, Evolutionists have frequently claimed that relatively minor changes in the form of a species, like a change in color of certain kinds of moths, or changes in sizes and skeletel shape of certain animals, constituted a new species. These minor changes were pointed to as being "evolutionary" changes, and the morphing from one kind of finch to another constituted evolution and speciation. Anyone who thinks this way cannot also claim that there are not also different race of man, because of the many outward differences between African blacks and European whites, which are no less profound than those between the various species of finches with different shapes of beaks, or moths with white wings or black wings, or whatever evolutionists are fond of citing as examples of evolution.

You may be able to demonstrate that many scientists today do not call a white-winged gypsy moth a different evolutionary species from a black-winged gypsy moth, but there are probably many even among scientists who still do, or will talk this way when trying to provide examples of evolution. And even if some do not, it was not long ago when most of them did.

The reason why many evolutionists now refrain from calling the black-winged and white-winged moths different evolutionary species, is because they were stung by the very pointed criticism of Creationists on this point, which they grudgingly had to admit was valid. So many of them changed their position, but of course do not acknowledge it was because Creationists gave them a valid criticism that was too obvious for them to ignore.

[ December 12, 2009, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you accept the tenets of evolution theory,
Unsurprisingly, you don't know anything about the tenets of evolution.

quote:
then you have no logical alternative but to conclude that some human races must be more advanced or evolved, and other human races must be primitive.
Wrong. In our current year 2009, all human races have exactly the same amount of evolution, as counted in years -- having evolved all the way up to the year 2009, and not a single year less.

If you want to find a more "primitive" race, you need go back a millenia -- the humans of that time would be a single millenium less evolved than current humans.

By definition of the words "primitive" and "evolved" you can't have a modern human (or indeed any other modern *animal*) that's more primitive or "evolved" than another modern animal.

quote:
The next step then is how do we determine which race is superior?
That's easy. The black race is superior for living in sunlit climates, because they can fight skin cancer better. On the other hand, Scandinavian types are superior for living in cold climates, because their long noses warm the cold air better.

quote:
This would necessarily make a virtue out of genocide
Because the theory of gravitation says that if I push you off a cliff, you'll fall and die, that makes it a virtue to push people off cliffs.

You're talking nonsense. A man can crush an ant underfoot -- the theory of evolution doesn't CARE about whether that's a good thing or an evil one, and it certainly can't be used to justify it either way.

Same as the theory of gravitation can't be used to justify me pushing you off a cliff.

The theory of evolution doesn't even claim that evolution is a morally good thing. Unlike the theory of God which does claim God to be a good thing.

I think therein lies the source of all your confusion. You think that evolutional theory claims evolution to be morally good.

No, it doesn't claim that at all.

quote:
You may be able to demonstrate that many scientists today do not call a white-winged gypsy moth a different evolutionary species from a black-winged gypsy moth, but there are probably many even among scientists who still do
Can these two species interbreed? If they can then they're the same species. If they can't they're not the same species.

African humans can interbreed with European humans, so we're the same species.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
TommySama, Evolutionists have frequently claimed that relatively minor changes in the form of a species, like a change in color of certain kinds of moths, or changes in sizes and skeletel shape of certain animals, constituted a new species.
This has nothing to do with what I said. I said that evolution and natural selection do not mean "more advanced." It just means different. AFAIK there is still no strong definition of species precisely because it is just a categorization of a fluid change in genes. There is no clear place you can say a species has evolved into another species. And again, even if they do attempt this, it does not indicate "more advanced," or even mean that it is really a new species.

So scientists took new information to make their theory fit the facts. So what? If somebody uses the moths as evidence of evolution they are a moron. If they use it as evidence of natural selection they are on the right track.

Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Evolutionists have frequently claimed that relatively minor changes in the form of a species, like a change in color of certain kinds of moths, or changes in sizes and skeletel shape of certain animals, constituted a new species.
Perhaps you are unaware of the definition of "species." The quote above suggests that you are, or simply don't understand what the whole "colored moth" thing was meant to prove. (Note: not speciation.) Have you ever actually studied evolution, Ron?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well he's studied loads of creationist books saying why evolution is wrong. Surely reading strawman definitions is just as good as actually going out and finding out what evolutionary biology actually says [Smile]
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidB
Member
Member # 3016

 - posted      Profile for KidB   Email KidB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A much simpler rebuttal to Ron Lambert: "races" are not "species."

Furthermore, modern genetics reveals that what we traditionally consider to be "races"...actually aren't. There is as much genetic variation between Western Europe and Eastern Europe as there is between Western Europe and central Africa.

Posts: 1960 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
speciation. Anyone who thinks this way cannot also claim that there are not also different race of man, because of the many outward differences between African blacks and European whites, which are no less profound than those between the various species of finches with different shapes of beaks, or moths with white wings or black wings, or whatever evolutionists are fond of citing as examples of evolution.

Race is a human social construct; it has nothing to do with species.

You're talking about evidence of natural selection, a process that is key to evolution, but is not in and of itself evolution.

Cross species breeding produces, at the very best sterile mules or the equivalent- different species cannot productively breed with each other. Humans with different color skin are all close enough genetically that they there is no separation of species. Skin color is a minor change in the expression of shared gene sequences- it isn't the result of a structurally different genetic configuration. In fact, on average a person has roughly equal amounts of genetic variation when compared to any other member of the same race as they do to someone of a different race, it's just where the variation is distributed differently.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It would be a refreshing diversion if Ron would bother to learn the science that he disputes.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I referred to the definitions of "race" that evolutionists themselves have used in the past, and particularly at the time Charles Darwin wrote his seminal book on evolution. In point of historical fact, the theory of evolution has led to racism and genocide. Adolph Hitler said the theory of evolution was his justification for attempting genocide against the Jews. Dispute if you will whether he was right or not scientifically, this was his reasoning.

A more intelligent discussion of this topic is taking place in Hatrack, in the similar titled thread.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kuato
Member
Member # 6445

 - posted      Profile for Kuato   Email Kuato       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um. I don't think racism began with evolution or that the theory of evolution could possibly eclipse the effect that religion has historically had in inciting racism in order to assist one people to (by right of heaven) abuse another. The 1600 and 1700s were rife with white people enslaving others (in exchange for blessing them with Christianity, which would completely explain to them their fallen natures because of their clear descent from Cain) and that project of greed was well underway prior to the popularity of Darwin's writings.

And we be plenty intelligent over here, thank you, Ron.

[ December 13, 2009, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: Kuato ]

Posts: 1038 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In point of historical fact, the theory of evolution has led to racism and genocide. Adolph Hitler said the theory of evolution was his justification for attempting genocide against the Jews.
So, to clarify, you are taking Hitler's word for it?

It's also worth noting -- as someone who has read Mein Kampf and several of his other pieces on the subject -- that Hitler put forward several other justifications for a hatred of the Jews. It's not like he was saying, "Oh, dear! I'd really rather not kill the Jews, but science demands that we cull the unfit! I am helpless before the ruthless logic of Darwin!"

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
People have also used Christianity as a justification for racism and genocide (including Hitler). I take it that makes Christianity evil/wrong, right Ron?

[ December 13, 2009, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
In point of historical fact, the theory of evolution has led to racism and genocide. Adolph Hitler said the theory of evolution was his justification for attempting genocide against the Jews.
So, to clarify, you are taking Hitler's word for it?
I think you're confusing justification with motive, Tom [Big Grin] . Offering a justification is a speech act, Tom. There's nothing other than a word to take about it. Hitler did actually use evolution as his justification. No person that comprehends the english language meaning of "justification" could deny that after reading Hitler's writings and speeches.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
People have also used Christianity as a justification for racism and genocide (including Hitler). I take it that makes Christianity evil/wrong, right Ron?

Funny, I don't recall you stepping into the breach to argue that it didn't, in the dozens of arguments where Ornery's militant atheists have argued that it did.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hitler did actually use evolution as his justification.
Well, no. Hitler used a misunderstanding of evolution as one of many justifications. There's actually a fairly huge distinction, one that appears to be completely lost on, say, the sort of stupid people responsible for Expelled.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1