Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fitna vs Expelled – Is Islamofascism similar to Darwinian fascism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Are there parallels between the effects of “Big Science” Darwinism severe job discrimination against non-Darwinists as shown in Expelled, and recent terrorism by Jihadists?

The very controversial film Fitna offers a view on radical Islam and the Qur’an by by Dutch politician Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV). It was just released today March 27th on the Internet, and already has over one million downloads each in English and Dutch. Wilders alternates verses from the Qur’an with terrorist events and statements by radical jihadists. Blogpulse of Fitna already lists 2110 messages or 0.1% of messages, compared to 1618 for Blogpulse Expelled Stein.

Compare prominent Darwinist PZ Myers Insisting:

“Don’t tell me to be dispassionate or less unreasonable about it all because because 65% of the American population think creationism should be taught alongside evolution,. . .
I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots. If you don’t care enough for the truth to fight for it, then get out of the way.”

Perspective, Pharyngula, Thursday, August 04, 2005

Similarly PZ Myers advocates:

“Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians”(objecting to a creationist high school biology teacher and the education commissioner seeking instruction in “intelligent design creationism”)

What differences are there between imposing the beliefs of believers in Darwinism on others, with imposing the beliefs of radical Islam on others? Is either compatible with constitutional guarantees of religious liberty and speech?

Do we need to describe and strongly oppose such tactics as Darwinian Fascism?

Describing September 11, 2001, Stephen Schwartz defined:

“Islamofascism refers to use of the faith of Islam as a cover for totalitarian ideology. This radical phenomenon is embodied among Sunni Muslims today by such fundamentalists as the Saudi-financed Wahhabis, the Pakistani jihadists known as Jama’atis, and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the ranks of Shia Muslims, it is exemplified by Hezbollah in Lebanon and the clique around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.”

See: What Is ‘Islamofascism’? A history of the word from the first Westerner to use it. The Daily Standard 08/17/2006. See: Islamofascism at Wikipedia.

What do we need to do to vigorously uphold our rights to religious expression and speech? See:

fn2 [ Annotations ]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Human Rights Day, Bill of Rights Day, and Human Rights Week, 2001

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

  • Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
  • Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, nonselfgoverning or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
  • Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

The film Fitna is available as follows (warning, disturbing themes and visuals):

{PS DLH added “radical” to Islam}

Comments
The site I posted, 30dayexperiment.blogspot.com, was one written by a devout Mennonite Christian living in a devout Islamic city. It wasn't written by a self-hating Christian, or a Muslim with an agenda. I'd expect the same level of academic honesty.mohammed.husain
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
I think Darwinists are big into moral relativism.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
DLH, None of the links you posted work. The one that did, leads me to a site in Arabic. Do you read Arabic? I sure don't. But this is what I mean, my friend, why don't you ever guide me to a website run by a mainstream Islamic scholar? The sites you've cited clearly have an agenda. "Islam Sword," come on man. This isn't honest, its not serious and using your own standards its not Christian.mohammed.husain
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PDT
Ekstasis, that was 5, not 7. DLH (7): You seem to believe that similar phrases express truly similar ideas. "Darwinian fascism" is just a weak metaphor and a smear. Now you invoke "social Darwinism" as a secondary attribute of fascism. So what?! I have known a great number of Darwinists, but I have never met a social Darwinist. Most intellectuals, including neo-Darwinists, regard social Darwinism as a weak metaphor taken literally by a dangerous few.
Darwinian Fascism/Totalitarianism was applied in both Fascist states like in Hitler’s Germany, and Totalitarian states like Stalin ’s USSR.
No, totalitarian states have integrated warped extensions of Darwinian thought into the ideologies they pushed on their citizens. The social Darwinism that fits well with fascism has absolutely no place in communist ideology. The upshot is that you are lumping together radically different distortions of Darwinism. Connecting social Darwinism, which is hugely different from Darwinism, with fascism in no way supports your claim that there literally exists a Darwinian fascist movement in the U.S. You have simply gone over the top with your rhetoric.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
mohammed.hussain at 15 Thanks for raising these issues. I want to keep this thread focused on the coercive features of Darwinsm. (Briefly on your other queries: “The definition you give for Islamofascism- whatever that is, exactly- is extremely poor.” See the quote from Stephen Schwartz who coined its current use after September 11, 2001. If you see otherwise, please add a section to the Wikipedia article to voice those objections and cite references supporting that. “If Islam really is so evil, then why so many adherents over centuries?” Perhaps you could examine the “abrogation” of the “peace” sura for the “sword” sura. Fr. Zakaria Botros appears to be an expert on classic Arabic, the Qu'ran and such issues. See numerous links to "Islam Sword". The Muslim Brotherhood appears both to have rejected violence and to have a reputation for it. Does it support Israel's right to exist and unalienable rights to religion and speech? You say
”As for Ahmadinejad, he might say some crazy things, but he’s certainly against war.”
What do you mean by "against war" or "peace"? Is this the freedom for all to freely worship according to their conscience? OR is it to impose Sharia law over everyone? See reports on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel and Nuclear program of Iran. There are many around the world who understood him to be seeking war, to destroy Israel, and to be building a nuclear weapons program to do so. If you could persuade Ahmadinejad to clearly seek true peace, uphold Israel's right to exist and provide actions to support that, we would all breath a big sigh of relief – while insisting on “Trust but verify”.) Back to the central issue for Intelligent Design: Can those who seek to pursue Intelligent Design do so with with “academic freedom” without fearing for their jobs, research funding and reputations, or whether atheistic Darwinism will continue to be coercively imposed on them.DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Even if ID is wrong. You are going to have to find something to replace nihilistic Darwinism. If you don't.. well I hope I won't be here.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
"While students and faculty at the institution did virtually nothing." This is because most people don't care. "generally elitist and authoritarian in the intellectual arena" HMM it's not only academics. You have to remember, everytime you see smutty shows on television, you can thank the fact that Darwinism pervades our culture.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Ekstasis (7): I'd characterize physicists, chemists, and biologists as generally elitist and authoritarian in the intellectual arena, but not in the socio-political arena. They're ostensibly open to divergent scientific thought, but in reality the maverick had best have either an established reputation or a very strong case when challenging conventional wisdom. ID advocates have often suffered because they insisted on pushing "crackpot" ideas prior to establishing themselves as legitimate scientists. I believe that crackpots contribute enormously to the intellectual ferment that should exist at institutions of higher learning. And every once in a while, their ideas turn out to be fantastic. But a rule every academician knows is that cracks should not appear before a pot has gained tenure and promotion. If various ID advocates had been a bit less enthralled with the notion that a "design revolution" is at hand, and had cautiously established themselves before emphasizing their interest in ID, most of them would be ensconced in academia today. What matters most to me is how institutions of higher learning treat professors who've established themselves in the intellectual mainstream and advocated (or seemed to advocate) ID. We've been hearing nothing about how Michael Behe "suffers" at Lehigh. To my knowledge, his institution has treated him well, though he is maligned by some of his colleagues. It's hugely ironic that Robert Marks II, who has much higher professional stature than Behe does, should have his web pages on evolutionary informatics deleted by a relatively conservative Baptist institution. I contend that the present-day conservatism in academia is a major problem for ID. Faculty members and students are too respectful of institutional authority. Much of academic freedom is rooted in past protests of scholars, and now that scholars rarely protest, university administrators get away with things like marking off small free-speech areas on their campuses. ID advocates should find it very distressing that I, an opponent of ID, actively opposed Baylor's treatment of Marks while students and faculty at the institution did virtually nothing.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
mohammed.husain : "If Islam really is so evil, then why so many adherents over centuries?" Easy. Forced conversions, high birth rates (more kids = more Muslims), fear of rape and slaughter upon conversion to Christianity or anything else, discrimination against every other religion in Muslim countries (be Muslim or better to leave), religious justifications for beating ones wife (wives), the right to have as many women as can be purchased (just marry them all).... the list is long. Islam is anything but a religion of peace, social justice and love. Anyone who dislikes Jews or Christians finds ample justification to persecute them in the Quran.Borne
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
DeepDesign, thank you for the extension of friendship. I agree, I think anyone who knows Islam and Christianity well, knows they have a great deal in common. Yes, of course we would like to see Darwinism crumble, we would also like to have better relationships with our Christian brethren whom we have a great deal of respect for. For those of you interested in what its really like to live in a Muslim country, say, what many believe to be the axis of evil, Iran, take a look at the following website: http://30dayexperiment.blogspot.com/ Its a weblog of a Mennonite couple that spent some time studying in the Iranian city of Qum (student exchange program), which is probably the most conservative city and has been historically a city of Islamic scholarship. I think, her experience should be valuable to many of you. She's a devout Christian and her experience is one you'd never hear about in the press. As for dialogue, here is an article written by a mentor of mine with respect to the ongoing dialogue he has been engaged in with Christians: http://ahmadsamantho.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/christians-and-muslims-seeking-peace/mohammed.husain
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
I don't understand why everyone is avoiding the theme of this thread. Here is the relevant half with regard to Islam: Islamic law mandates second-class status for Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims in Islamic societies. These laws have never been abrogated or revised in any way by Islamic authroties.StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
mohammed.husain, How can I say this correctly, without sounding uneducated. You and I (I'm a Christian), as people of the Book, have an enormous amount in common. I'm sure many followers of Islam would like to see Darwinism crumble, as much as we do. Let's be friends.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
mohammed.hussain at 16 Thank you for differentiating between mainstream vs radical Islam. Gallup's survey of 50,000 Moslems found that: Most Muslims 'desire democracy' The movie Fitna publicizes the efforts of the 7% who coercively seek to impose radical Islam on the rest of the world. I will edit my posts above to better differentiate "radical Islam". For all who desire the benefits of "democracy", it is important to recognize that its benefits are only truly obtained in a democratic "REPUBLIC" that is a government under the rule of law where each person's unalienable rights granted by the Creator are upheld.DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
I, for one, look forward to the day when ID is the reigning paradigm in the biological sciences and all the Darwinian fascists are forced off into some academic backwater like a department of natural appreciation.poachy
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT
The heart of this issue on worldview is whether Lex Rex The Law is over the King, OR Rex Lex - The King's Law See Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex Are the unalienable rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech upheld? OR Can a Darwinian oligarchy impose its worldview over all others? For a detailed discussion on Worldview issues see: Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth 2005 ISBN-10: 1581347464DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Also, why do many of you turn to films such as fitna for your understanding of Islam, a film clearly made to induce hatred, rather than the films and writings of mainstream Muslims? Isn't this being a bit dishonest? Wouldn't you advise a person interested in Christianity to learn about Christianity from one of its mainstream adherents?mohammed.husain
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
The definition you give for Islamofascism- whatever that is, exactly- is extremely poor. What exactly do all of those groups you mentioned have in common, besides being Muslim? And how exactly does fascism which was a European phenomenon of the 20th have anything to do with Islam? It seems to me that this term, Islamofascism, was coined to induce the gut reaction that we as Westerners have towards fascism when we hear of it. Using such a term only adds to the heavy sensationalism already pervasive in our media, and does little to foster any understanding. The Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt does not use violence for their political ends, so how exactly are they totalitarian? They are political party among others in Egypts. As for Ahmadinejad, he might say some crazy things, but he's certainly against war. It seems like this post exemplifies Islamophobia, more than anything else. I highly doubt anyone on this list serve could really tell me the nuances of any of these groups besides expressing A question for many of you: why are you content with such absurd understandings of a religion which has more than a billion adherents amongst cultures as disparate as the Malay and African people? Where is Jesus' imperative to be charitable, not only with one's money but also in one's judgment of others? If Islam really is so evil, then why so many adherents over centuries? It seems to me that if you believe that Islam is evil, then you will have to explain why these millions of people have been deluded, are just stupid or perhaps evil. The argument you'd be making would sound a lot like the argument Dawkins makes with respect to Christianity and all religions. If you all are true followers of Jesus, than I'd imagine you would heed his call for peace and for the rejection of violence. This requires dialogue, not only among our particular faith group, but also with the other with whom we may disagree.mohammed.husain
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
-----DLH: "At Darwinism’s foundation: Random Mutation + Natural Selection = Rule of the Jungle or Might makes right." Exactly right. The formula for liberation was established long ago. God confers dignity; dignity commands freedom; freedom leads to self government. Islam and Darwinism will have none of that.StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
StephenB Good point - Fascism, Totalitarianism and Darwinism are all outworkings of this underlying defference in worldview. Key issue is how to maintain the freedoms foundational to the Judeo/Christian ethic while upholding that freedom of worship and expression to the Islamicist and Darwinists?DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Only the Judeo/Christian ethic provides a rational justification for the "inherent dignity of the human person." That is why Darwinism and Islam always lead to centralized tyranny. I don't know why everyone is fussing over the word fascism and ignoring the main point.StephenB
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
DeepDesign
It is important to have the freedom to debate these ideas.
That is a critical issue at stake. Darwinism in practice coercively expells all other worldviews. At Darwinism's foundation: Random Mutation + Natural Selection = Rule of the Jungle or Might makes right. Practioners then believe that since neo-Darwinian evolution is the ONLY "scientific" theory (in practice the only one allowed), it must be "right", and all others are "wrong." Therefore, as a "moral obligation" Darwinists must enforce it. Consequently PZ Myers committing to refuse tenure to anyone who does not toe his Darwinian line. Thus a key message of Expelled is to uphold foundational freedom of religion and freedom of speech. On your *8 - better to be "silly" and free than "proper" and in "prison"DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
It is important to have the freedom to debate these ideas. You shouldn't be labeled a weirdo for invoking a designer.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
Upon further thought, one might conclude that, if one lived entirely logically in accordance with one's belief system: A Moslem would murder infidels to cleanse the land. A Materialist/Darwinist would murder when it is convenient and pragmatic, or fits within one's created fictional life purpose. A Christian would not murder since Christ set an example by going to the Cross without resisting, and even rebuking Peter for one swift slice of the sword, with the comment that those who live by the sword die by the sword. But then, as we are painfully aware every time we peer into the mirror, people are not entirely rational and do not behave in total accordance with their stated beliefs. For some, this is a good thing, for others, a bad thing.Ekstasis
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
I just hope ID is right. Won't we look silly.DeepDesign
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
Turner Coates et al. I am posing the question of whether there parallels. I agree that Darwinism exhibits extreme intolerance, as well as coercion. If you see Darwinism closer to Totalitarianism, by all means make the case. Consider some Characteristics of Darwinian Fascism/Totalitarianism *Requires dogmatic adherence to atelic evolution with extreme intolerance for other worldviews. It is enforced by financial, social and physical coercion: * Expelling scientists and teachers from their jobs. * Denying funding for research. * Preventing publication in journals. * Public abuse and peer pressure. * Organizations dedicated to identify and expose non-adherents. e.g. the effort by the National Center for Science Education to force Richard Sternberg out of the Smithsonian Institute. * "Applying" (Imposing) Darwinism through Eugenics * Imprisoning or killing objectors. (e.g. in the USSR under Stalin for not complying with Lysenkoism) Compare: Fascism
(fsh´zm) (KEY) , totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. . . .
A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2007 Columbia University Press. (Emphasis added) Totalitarianism
(ttl´´târ´nzm) (KEY) , a modern autocratic government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society. The citizen’s duty to the state becomes the primary concern of the community, and the goal of the state is the replacement of existing society with a perfect society.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2007 Columbia University Press. Darwinian Fascism/Totalitarianism was applied in both Fascist states like in Hitler's Germany, and Totalitarian states like Stalin 's USSR. See examples of PZ Myers etc committing to Deny tenure, or refuse to hire non-Darwinists etc. See discrimination by Darwinism in education etc. Perhaps the parallels will become clearer after you see Expelled. Let the debate continue - forcefully express your opinions- but let all do so freely. {DLH Changed "Darwinian Lysenkoism" to "Lysenkoism" per comments below}DLH
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Speaking of fascism I assume y'all have read Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. Nevertheless you're right, the term is so over used it's practically meaningless---ever since Stalin ordered the term be directed at his materialist rivals it's been hurled at conservatives and traditionalists every time they open their mouths. So read the book and see Jonah Goldberg set the record straight. All grand ideologies with the power and the will to stifle dissent are dangerous. There seems to be a hunger out there for ideological peace---"can't we all just get along!"---but isn't it precisely the survival of dissenting parties that assures our safety? Today the diversity police mandate the celebration of every genre of cultural and moral depravity---real ideological dissent they squelch.Rude
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
Turner Coates: Good point, Darwinian/Materialist Idealogy certainly does not fit the traditional definition. However, perhaps it would fit the definition of Totalitarianism better -- the seeking of total power and control, without permitting any alternative viewpoints to be aired. In a word, total intolerance. Of course, you are right, the term FASCIST does much more to conjure up web hits as well as emotional responses. While it seems alarmist to call names and apply terms such as Fascist, it may in retrospect seem naive and living in a state of stupor and denial not to recognize the threat to our freedom. After several generations, the Darwinists/Materialists are frustrated that their domination of academia, education, and the media has not done the job brainwashing (whoops, I mean convincing) the populace of their beliefs. Consequently, they are hopping mad, feeling a heightened level of frustration. And when one feels frustrated, one is overcome by a compulsion to fix the problem through coercion and force. The commonality between the Materialists and the Islamofascists is the obsession that the entire world believe and behave as they do. The differences are both what they believe, and their style/modus operandi. Islamofascists are out of power in most places, so use violence to gain attention and influence. The Materialists are already in power, but strongly desire to stamp out any resistance by extinguishing the ability of others to communicate alternative ideas. The more accurate parallel is found in the old U.S.S.R., Communist Russia, in the 1920s/1930s. The leadership simply could not seem to stamp out the hideous practice of private ownership of small farms, primarily in the Ukraine. So what did these scheming megalomaniacs do? They choked off all means of transportation in the region, and millions died from starvation. Our Materialist bosses remember how effective such practices were. So, they are starving ID, choking off communication and dialogue. Plato is very disappointed, to say the least!!Ekstasis
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
I agree with leo and turner. This thread is just over-the-top and unnecessary. Stop being so cavalier about words like facsism. If you are given the honor and responsibility of starting new threads on this blog, then start taking responsibility and give some thought to the things you post. This blog has already had to "take down" certain threads on "second thought" Alittle thought up front would eliminate that need. I'm not sure what you were thinking, DLH, but there is no reason for this kind of over-the-top posting.TomRiddle
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
You've seen fit to invoke Wikipedia, so consider that fascism
is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
The connection of Islamofascism to fascism is eminently clear, but I see no connection whatsoever of the socio-political radicalism of P. Z. Myers to fascism. Would you please explain in clear terms how the behavior of Myers and the few who are like him satisfies the definition of fascism? It appears to me that all you have done is to latch onto metaphoric language Myers used, and to attempt to get all the mileage you can from how "fascist- sounding" it is. You invoke the term "Darwinian fascism," show us that Google yields a whopping 50 hits for the term (evidently in a sad attempt to legitimize it), and then juxtapose the term with a form of fascism much hated by Christians. I despise the rant of radical atheists like Myers and Dawkins. But I also despise the utterly base rhetoric you've engaged in here. And I also despise the stupidity of it. The notion that Myers literally IS a fascist because of the sound of his language is abominably stupid. If you can't step through the definition of fascism and clearly demonstrate that the so-called Darwinian fascists literally embrace fascism, you need to admit that you stepped way over the line with your invocation of Islamofacism. I enjoy the ID debate -- both sides of it, when articulated well -- but this is an ugly episode.Turner Coates
March 28, 2008
March
03
Mar
28
28
2008
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Are there parallels between the effects of “Big Science” Darwinism severe job discrimination against non-Darwinists as shown in Expelled, and recent terrorism by Jihadists?
Not yet. The zealots from our training camps have yet to graduate (the selection regime is rather severe). But when they do, you'll see waves of suicide bombings, hijackings and aerial assaults on centres of ignorance like churches, temples and warehouses of Chiquita Brands International. We were planning to target ISCID, but we can't find it.Bob O'H
March 27, 2008
March
03
Mar
27
27
2008
11:40 PM
11
11
40
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply