Are Evolution-Deniers any Different from Holocaust-Deniers, Birthers, or Truthers?
Could Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who again reaffirmed his belief last week that the Holocaust was a myth, land his own show on Fox News? Going by Richard Dawkins' new book The Greatest Show on Earth, out now in the US and Canada, it may not be such a long shot.
In the first chapter of the book -- which aims to present the evidence for evolution in its totality -- Dawkins unapologetically lumps evolution-deniers and Holocaust-deniers together, and illustrates his point as follows:
"Imagine you are a teacher of recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers...Based on Dawkins' argument, people like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Jewish Ben Stein -- who made the anti-evolution documentary Expelled -- are in the same boat as those who say that the Holocaust, which like evolution is a historical reality with overwhelming evidence supporting it, should be treated as a debatable issue in a history class.Holocaust deniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.
Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to 'teach the controversy', and to give 'equal time' to the 'alternative theory' that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.
...Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally 'respected'."
It has been a busy time for deniers of history. Birthers who deny that Barack Obama is US-born, and truthers who insist that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, are getting louder. Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad is in New York this week for the UN General Assembly's annual meeting, amid protests against his most recent statements about the Holocaust.
And actor Kirk Cameron is ready for the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species on November 24. In a new YouTube video, Cameron announces his plan to distribute 50,000 free copies of Darwin's book to university students -- but with a catch. The books will have a 50 page introduction written by Ray Comfort, aka the "Banana Guy", who is famous for using a banana as an argument against evolution. In the introduction, Comfort writes about Hitler (who was, interestingly, a Christian) having an "undeniable" connection to the theory of evolution, claiming that Darwin's "racism" inspired him.
Also in the crossfire this year is Creation, the new film starring Paul Bettany as a young Charles Darwin who struggles with his faith following the death of his 10-year-old daughter. The movie has yet to find a distributor in the United States, due to the "controversy" surrounding the subject matter.
But if evolution is still a controversy with two legitimate sides to it, why isn't the Holocaust? In a way, Dawkins' assertion doesn't go far enough. While Holocaust deniers simply deny historical evidence, evolution deniers blind themselves to much more: between the disciplines of physics, archeology, paleontology, molecular genetics, botany, cosmology, and geology, there is a mountain of evidence -- more than there is for the Holocaust -- supporting evolution.
I wonder how Ben Stein would reconcile this. Would he hear out Ahmadinejad on the Holocaust the way Glenn Beck heard Stein out on his anti-evolution film? Fair and balanced, anyone?
Follow Ali A. Rizvi on Twitter: www.twitter.com/aliamjadrizvi
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Evolution is not a controversy. The controversy is that people feel that since they feel that science undermines part of their religious views, that they must remove it from their and everyone else's lives. Also, the is a controversy of these same people attempting to undermined the scientific endeavor by spreading misinformation.
To equate Evolution-Deniers to Holocaust-deniers is misrepresentation, but both contains ignorance toward the facts and evidence. The is some overlap between the two groups, but other a contradictory position where those who attempt to discredit evolution suggest that it cause the Holocaust. They does this by attempting to present evolution as psychological; if not a religions; belief. My view is that Holocaust-deniers have no valid opinion. However, evolution-deniers need education to show that their is no conflict between their religious view and science.
One day, in the far, far distant future, somoeone or something will benefit from our corporal temporality.
Or, possibly, our invention of the sticky note.
What always amuses me is the basis of argument in the bible and the belief in its infallibility or at least the infallibility of its creator, Yahweh. Particularly irksome is the selective "literal" interpretation.
So OK the bible says the earth was created in 7 days; whatever. I don't agree and there is plenty of science to prove you wrong; but Ok if that's what you choose to believe despite evidence to the contrary that is your choice. Strict, literal interpretation, I get it.
Now when we get to the 10 commandments and one of them is Thou shalt have no other gods before me, doesn't that presuppose the existence of other gods? I mean if you are going by a strict, literal interpretation I would think you would have to agree.
Oh, the meaning is false gods? So then why doesn't it say that? After all your god is infallible, could he not have forestalled this argument?
So in this instance it is metaphorical but not in the whole world in 7 days thing? So it seems that your strict literal interpretation is selective.
Well reasoned!
I never thought to argue that route!! Well done!
Here's what always gets me: a lot of Christians actually think God wrote the Bible "himself." That is, they're so literal, and so lacking in basic critical faculties, that "God's word," to them, means God is the AUTHOR OF THE BOOK, in some literal, direct sense.
If you ask around, among the Christians you know, or meet, about this point (though it takes a few minutes to come up with a way to ask that doesn't start angry arguments every time), you'll be shocked, and then frightened, by how many otherwise apparently sane and normal people believe this very strange and very childlike thing, about "God" actually writing a book. (The unevenness of style, the myriad glaring contradictions, and the simple boring unreadability of long stretches of the text, all add up to excellent evidence that "God" is not the author: why would an omnipotent omniscient Creator, be such a lousy and opaque prose stylist? But I don't think there's any way to start explaning this to religious grownups, without setting off temper tantrums and talk about Satan. It is, as I say, very, very frightenin
No Christian I know says that the Bible was written literally by God. It's accepted doctrine in the Christian and Jewish faiths that the scriptures were written by men such as Moses, Paul, Peter, and others, but were "inspired" by God when they wrote them. Thats what Christians mean when they say: written by God. It's by extention that they make that claim.
"Some" theologians now believe that the book of Genesis was written by several sources, which were compiled later by a different set of writers. I say some, because the right wing religious fundamentalists refute this. However, this is the view expressed in most seminaries. Gen. Chapter 1 to 2.4a and from Chapter 2.4b on use different hebrew words to name God. The second creation story, starting at 2.4b, was written first, and the creation story found in Genesis 1 to 2.4a was written later. Check it out yourself! There are two completely different creation stories in the book of Genesis.
Also, the ancient Hebrew alphabet didn't have any vowels in it, only consonants. Yahweh was written as 'YHWH' by the ancient Hebrews. And, in addition to that, the original texts didn't have any spaces between words. You can imagine how difficult it was to translate to modern English!
Of course, according to Kirk Cameron, this is just evidence to him of a satanic plot to confuse the easily led faithful.
Perhaps their is a difference in the word "God" and "gods" -- notice that little capital snuck in there? Does that change the argument? I think it lends some more credence to the "false" (as clarification) god argument, no?
Evolution-deniers are even more ignorant than birthers. Only the flat-earthers and the geocentrists are worse.
The Geocentrists may only be a problem with things that leave Earth orbit. Because they believe that nothing leaves Earth orbit. Flat earthers are welcome to find the edge.
I hope there are no Calculus deniers.
Evolution deniers are people with an overly-rigid view of religion that forces them to deny logic. Most are pathetic, frightened, haunted victims of life; a few are intelligent people who have somehow forgotten that Jesus said the truth would make them free. A very few are malevolent liars who seek to use the fears and genuine piety of the first two groups to control them. In my book, it is this last group who are guilty of blasphemy.
Denying Evolution is like saying you don't believe in Electricity.
Try telling the survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima that Atomic Fission is "Just a Theory!"
If you've been waiting on a miracle, here it is;
There has to be some divine intervention here.
How else can well educated people be so stupid?
"Creationism" is just more pushing of Christian thought in schools. It's Christian misinterpretation of Torah - as usual.
What kills me is that many so called Christians use selected verses from the Old Testament to sanction their bigotry!
I call them Old Testament Christians, or occasionally, Leviticans.
Fundamentalist Christianity is the problem. It's worse now than it was in the 60's simply because fundamentalist Christianity swept this country between the 70's and today. To force yourself to "believe" in the Bible word for word is to actively teach yourself HOW to be ignorant, how to victoriously push away reality in favor of what you want to believe. It takes practice, hard work, and discipline. Now that they are allowed to program their children without interference from outside, this new science of Stupidology is becoming quite effective.
It takes indoctrination, and the willful dismissal of any facts and evidence that does not support the ideological viewpoint.
The Taliban and Jihadist are prime examples of this
Those school vouchers? How many went to Christian schools?
Faith-based Initiatives?
A guy I worked with in LA, born-again, says that when he gets a letter from the IRS he takes it straight to his pastor. No-one in his church pays taxes.
These people are as radically money-grubbing as they are wildly power-grabbing. There needs to be an investigation into the money - that will beat back the snake-fascinators to the woods they came from.
Our media let them molder, and now our media needs to chase the dime on these folk.
Sure, you can have god and evolution.
Since the Bible describes a god that is contrary to those characteristics, then the god that you can have with evolution isn't the god of the Bible. Same thing with the Koran. So your little intellectual game of "uh-uh, I can too!" doesn't get you what most people want: a reconciliation of modern knowledge with popular religious ideas.
Yes...I was saying that to Kirk Cameron.
I was explaining to my daughter how the Star Wars story was written for some children of the future...a
our future...
and brought back to us...
she understood.
I spent the entire fall and part of the winter working on the line between evolution and creation..
using Christianity as a basis...
I used to believe in both...
but hadn't connected them...
if God is a FORCE...
then he may have caused the big bang...
don't ask me...I'm just a firestar..
http://en.
I did do it, didn't I...I've proven that God can exist and still have had evolution?
Proven? No.
You offered a premise. No evidence, no corroborating theorem just a premise, and an X-Men reference.
I just started reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" this morning and thought Dawkins' analogy quite apt as far as it goes. Actually, one of the reasons I have (more or less) decided NOT to teach biology in the public schools and am, instead, tracking toward a degree that will allow me to do research is that I don't want to have just the frustration that Dawkins talks about. It would drive me to distraction to constantly have to stop and go back and recount the overwhelming mountains of evidence in favor of Darwinian theory just so we could do something as entirely simple as discuss "so in the course of, say, horse evolution.
For those that think "well, you could teach biology without teaching evolution" I'll relate the following: when I first went out to PSU to check out the biology department and talk to a couple of professors, one of them asked what area of biology I was interested in. When I responded evolutionary biology he said "Biology *is* the study of evolution". As Theodozius Dzobhansky once said "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in light of evolution". So there's no way to teach biology without also teaching evolution. I couldn't do the subject justice without it, nor would I be doing the students any favors by glossing over the subject.
Cheers
LF
My neighbor is a missionary and often travels to Brazil for his work. He doesn't consider himself of any denomination but the denomination of "Jesus died for all our sins".
Last week as we were talking he made the statement that there is proof that mens remains have been found inside a dinosaurs remains. I asked him where did he get that idea and he said a creationism museum in Minnesota.
Has anyone else heard of this?
Oh, and trust me, I don't believe it for a moment... but goes to show how "things" can be convoluted and distorted.
Yes. The creationist museum has dinosaurs with saddles.
How can anyone who views the Flintstones as history be taken seriously?
http://ima
With the saddles, did they have the cab & ropes that Fred used down at the quarry?
WIIIIILLLL
Well, there was the "human and dinosaur footprints together" exhibit . . . which was eventually taken down when somebody finally noticed that the "human" footprints had three toes. I mean, even Fred Flintstone had four. Not sure about any bones.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
