To All of Those We Mutilated, “Our Bad, But At Least We Weren’t Science Deniers”

_{Barry Arrington

May 19, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In 1921 the Second International Eugenics Congress was held in New York at the American Museum of Natural History. Leonard Darwin (Charles Darwin’s son) was the keynote speaker, and he used the opportunity to advocate aggressive eugenics programs for the “elimination of the unfit.” Eugenics had already made some headway in the United States, but after the Second Congress it really took off in the scientific community. Hundreds of universities instituted courses in the subject, and prestigious foundations like the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation began funding Eugenics research programs.

Public policy soon followed the scientific consensus of the time and eventually 36 states adopted eugenics laws of some kind. In 1927 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Supreme Court blessed the movement, famously declaring in Buck v. Bell that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” These laws were supported by the overwhelming scientific consensus of the day.

In the following decades nearly 60,000 people were legally mutilated in the United States.

If today’ terms of derision had been in use in 1928, anyone opposed to the eugenics movement would have been called a “science denier.”

Comments

F/N: New World Encyclopedia, on the history of eugenics. Note, the logo from the 2nd (and the 3rd too IIRC) as illustrated, defined eugenics as the self-direction of human evolution, showing by diagram that main roots include genetics, biology, psychology, anthropology, geology, medicine, statistics and more, religion being included. Plainly, as co-opted and "progressive" i/l/o what was then regarded as the scientifically informed consensus: _______________ http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Eugenics >> History Pre-Galton eugenics Selective breeding was suggested at least as far back as Plato, who believed human reproduction should be controlled by government. He recorded these ideals in The Republic: "The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior." Plato proposed that the process be concealed from the public via a form of lottery. Other ancient examples include the polis of Sparta's purported practice of infanticide. However, they would leave all babies outside for a length of time, and the survivors were considered stronger, while many "weaker" babies perished.[1] Galton's theory Sir Francis Galton initially developed the ideas of eugenics using social statistics. During the 1860s and 1870s, Sir Francis Galton systematized his ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of humans and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin. After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton noticed an interpretation of Darwin's work whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. Only by changing these social policies, Galton thought, could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity," a phrase that he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean."[2] According to Galton, society already encouraged dysgenic conditions, claiming that the less intelligent were out-reproducing the more intelligent. Galton did not propose any selection methods; rather, he hoped that a solution would be found if social mores changed in a way that encouraged people to see the importance of breeding. Galton first used the word eugenic in his 1883 Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, a book in which he meant "to touch on various topics more or less connected with that of the cultivation of race, or, as we might call it, with 'eugenic' questions." He included a footnote to the word "eugenic" which read: That is, with questions bearing on what is termed in Greek, eugenes namely, good in stock, hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. This, and the allied words, eugeneia, etc., are equally applicable to men, brutes, and plants. We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give to the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have had. The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalized one than viriculture which I once ventured to use.[3] Eugenics differed from what would later be known as Social Darwinism. This school of thought was developed independently of Darwin by such writers as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. Social Darwinism includes a range of political ideologies which are held to be compatible with the concept that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution of biological traits in a population by natural selection can also be applied to competition between human societies or groups within a society. It is based on ideas of the "survival of the fittest" (a term coined by Herbert Spencer) to human society, saying that those humans with superior genes would be better placed to succeed in society, as evidenced by wealth and status. Social Darwinism, like eugenics, fell out of favor as it become increasingly associated with racism. While both claimed intelligence was hereditary, eugenics asserted that new policies were needed to actively change the status quo towards a more "eugenic" state, while the Social Darwinists argued society itself would naturally "check" the problem of "dysgenics" if no welfare policies were in place (for example, the poor might reproduce more but would have higher mortality rates). 1890s–1945 A pedigree chart from The Kallikak Family, a 1912 book by the American psychologist and eugenicist Henry H. Goddard. The chart meant to show how one "illicit tryst" could lead to an entire generation of "imbeciles." The United States was home to a large eugenics movement in the 1890s. Beginning with Connecticut, in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile, or feeble-minded" from marrying. In 1898, Charles B. Davenport, a prominent American biologist, began as director of a biological research station based in Cold Spring Harbor, where he experimented with evolution in plants and animals. In 1904, Davenport received funds from the Carnegie Institution to found the Station for Experimental Evolution. The Eugenics Record Office opened in 1910, while Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin began to promote eugenics.[4] Though eugenics is today often associated with racism, it was not always so; both W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey supported eugenics or ideas resembling eugenics as a way to reduce African American suffering and improve their stature.[5] Many legal methods of eugenics include state laws against miscegenation or prohibitions of interracial marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned those state laws in 1967, and declared anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. During the twentieth century, researchers became interested in the idea that mental illness could run in families and conducted a number of studies to document the heritability of such illnesses as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and clinical depression. Their findings were used by the eugenics movement as proof for its cause. State laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the "passing on" of mental illness to the next generation. These laws were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927, and were not abolished until the mid-twentieth century. By 1945, over 45,000 mentally ill individuals in the United States had been forcibly sterilized. Anthropometry demonstrated in an exhibit from a 1921 eugenics conference. With the passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, eugenicists for the first time played a central role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from eastern and southern Europe. This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to 15 percent of previous years, to control the number of "unfit" individuals entering the country. The new act strengthened existing laws prohibiting race mixing in an attempt to maintain the gene pool.[6] Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the U.S. and were used to justify many antimiscegenation laws.[7] Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the twentieth century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.[8] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, by far the state with the most sterilizations, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.[9] Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was infamous for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a "pure" German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of "racial hygiene." Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the horrific experiments carried out by Josef Mengele for Otmar von Verschuer on twins in the concentration camps. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically "unfit," an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted American eugenics advocates to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that "the Germans are beating us at our own game."[10] The Nazis went further, however, killing tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled through compulsory "euthanasia" programs.[11] They also implemented a number of "positive" eugenics policies, giving awards to "Aryan" women who had large numbers of children and encouraged a service in which "racially pure" single women were impregnated by SS officers (Lebensborn). Many of their concerns for eugenics and racial hygiene were also explicitly present in their systematic killing of millions of "undesirable" people including Jews, gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals during the Holocaust (much of the killing equipment and methods employed in the death camps were first developed in the euthanasia program). The scope and coercion involved in the German eugenics programs along with a strong use of the rhetoric of eugenics and so-called "racial science" throughout the regime created an indelible cultural association between eugenics and the Third Reich in the postwar years.[12] Stigmatization of eugenics in the post-Nazi years In the decades after World War II, eugenics became increasingly unpopular within academic science. Many organizations and journals that had their origins in the eugenics movement began to distance themselves from the philosophy, such as when Eugenics Quarterly became Social Biology in 1969. After the experience of Nazi Germany, many ideas about "racial hygiene" and "unfit" members of society were publicly renounced by politicians and members of the scientific community. The Nuremberg Trials against former Nazi leaders revealed to the world many of the regime's genocidal practices and resulted in formalized policies of medical ethics and the 1950 UNESCO statement on race. Many scientific societies released their own similar "race statements" over the years, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, developed in response to abuses during the Second World War, was adopted by the United Nations in 1948, and affirmed, "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."[13] In continuation, the 1978 UNESCO declaration on race and racial prejudice states that the fundamental equality of all human beings is the ideal toward which ethics and science should converge.[14] In reaction to Nazi abuses, eugenics became almost universally reviled in many of the nations where it had once been popular (however, some eugenics programs, including sterilization, continued quietly for decades). Many pre-war eugenicists engaged in what they later labeled "crypto-eugenics," purposefully taking their eugenic beliefs "underground" and becoming respected anthropologists, biologists, and geneticists in the postwar world (including Robert Yerkes in the U.S. and Otmar von Verschuer in Germany). Californian eugenicist Paul Popenoe founded marriage counseling during the 1950s, a career change which grew from his eugenic interests in promoting "healthy marriages" between "fit" couples.[15] High school and college textbooks from the 1920s through the 1940s often had chapters touting the scientific progress to be had from applying eugenic principles to the population. Many early scientific journals devoted to heredity in general were run by eugenicists and featured eugenics articles alongside studies of heredity in nonhuman organisms. After eugenics fell out of scientific favor, most references to eugenics were removed from textbooks and subsequent editions of relevant journals. Even the names of some journals changed to reflect new attitudes. For example, Eugenics Quarterly became Social Biology in 1969 (the journal still exists today, though it looks little like its predecessor). Notable members of the American Eugenics Society (1922–94) during the second half of the twentieth century included Joseph Fletcher, originator of Situational ethics; Dr. Clarence Gamble of the Procter & Gamble fortune; and Garrett Hardin, a population control advocate and author of The Tragedy of the Commons. Despite the changed postwar attitude towards eugenics in the U.S. and some European countries, a few nations, notably, Canada and Sweden, maintained large-scale eugenics programs, including forced sterilization of mentally handicapped individuals, as well as other practices, until the 1970s. In the United States, sterilizations capped off in the 1960s, though the eugenics movement had largely lost most popular and political support by the end of the 1930s.[16] >> _______________ One lesson here, is that Christian leaders and prominent Christians who allow the name of the Christian Faith to be lent to a morally questionable movement, will find that they open the door forever after for attempts to diffuse and deflect blame by diverting attention to the co-optation. Here, from Paul at Athens, is the authentic view of the Christian faith on races and the like:
Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[c] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;[d] as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’[e]
Coming back to focus, lesson 2 is that we should not ever allow ourselves to be misled by an appeal to consensus of today's experts on a morally freighted matter. We must be bold to stand for what is right regardless of who support what is wrong and whether they dress wrong up in the lab coat. G K Chesterton, in his stout stand against Eugenics, gives us a model: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25308 His preface to Eugenics and Other Evils:
I publish these essays at the present time for a particular reason connected with the present situation; a reason which I should like briefly to emphasise and make clear. Though most of the conclusions, especially towards the end, are conceived with reference to recent events, the actual bulk of preliminary notes about the science of Eugenics were written before the war. It was a time when this theme was the topic of the hour; when eugenic babies (not visibly very distinguishable from other babies) sprawled all over the illustrated papers; when the evolutionary fancy of Nietzsche was the new cry among the intellectuals; and when Mr. Bernard Shaw and others were considering the idea that to breed a man like a cart-horse was the true way to attain that higher civilisation, of intellectual magnanimity and sympathetic insight, which may be found in cart-horses. It may therefore appear that I took the opinion too controversially, and it seems to me that I sometimes took it too seriously. But the criticism of Eugenics soon expanded of itself into a more general criticism of a modern craze for scientific officialism and strict social organisation. And then the hour came when I felt, not without relief, that I might well fling all my notes into the fire. The fire was a very big one, and was burning up bigger things than such pedantic quackeries. And, anyhow, the issue itself was being settled in a very different style. Scientific officialism and organisation in the State which had specialised in them, had gone to war with the older culture of Christendom. Either Prussianism would win and the protest would be hopeless, or Prussianism would lose and the protest would be needless. As the war advanced from poison gas to piracy against neutrals, it grew more and more plain that the scientifically organised State was not increasing in popularity. Whatever happened, no Englishmen would ever again go nosing round the stinks of that low laboratory. So I thought all I had written irrelevant, and put it out of my mind. I am greatly grieved to say that it is not irrelevant. It has gradually grown apparent, to my astounded gaze, that the ruling classes in England are still proceeding on the assumption that Prussia is a pattern for the whole world. If parts of my book are nearly nine years old, most of their principles and proceedings are a great deal older. They can offer us nothing but the same stuffy science, the same bullying bureaucracy and the same terrorism by tenth-rate professors that have led the German Empire to its recent conspicuous triumph. For that reason, three years after the war with Prussia, I collect and publish these papers.
Note this is a witness by a public intellectual, at the time, in bold, lonely opposition. In particular, where moral and intellectual matters are concerned, we must insist on rejecting notions that undermine responsible freedom. Especially, "my genes MADE me do it (or, fail to do it)." KFkairosfocus_{May 23, 2015
May
05
May
23
23
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

The eugenics movement drew support from across the social and political spectrums, from atheists and believers, from scientists, politicians and religious leaders alike. It spread from the UK to the US and around the world, taking root in what we would now call right- and left-wing societies. Charles Darwin was a child of his times. Like most others he believed that the European cultures of the Victorian era were the most advanced that humanity had yet achieved. His theory of evolution through natural selection, however, said nothing about that. It offered an explanation if how life could have diversified and spread through natural processes. It certainly did not argue for the perfectibility of human 'stock' through selective breeding programs. If anything, the excesses of the eugenics movement are a salutary reminder that John Stuart Mill had a good point when he warned about "the tyranny of the majority", that being in a majority does not mean that you can trample on the rights of small and defenseless minorities. Scientists alone could not have spread the movement to so many countries, won popular support from both secular and religious groups to the extent that laws were passed by majorities which authorized the kind of programs we now find so abhorrent. One other point to consider is that the notion of the improvement and even perfectibility of the human race is based on a concept of human exceptionalism which has roots in the Christian belief that man is the pinnacle of God's creation, certainly not the Darwinian view that human beings are just another ape.Seversky_{May 22, 2015
May
05
May
22
22
2015
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

What atheistic evolutionists fail to grasp, when talking about this subject, is that if their beliefs about the universe are true, then eugenics isn't really wrong. And if some segment of society thinks it's wrong, that doesn't make it wrong, that just makes it wrong to that particular segment of society. The point being, if we are all evolved from apes, then evolution should continue in the future, and we do in fact need to get rid of the undesirable races and traits in humanity, whatever those are, if we want the human race to grow. The truth is that the moral outrage from Hitler's actions made eugenics an issue that no scientist could touch with a ten-foot pole. But if their theories are right, then Hitler really didn't do anything wrong, did he? He tried to get rid of humans that HE FELT were of a lesser "stock" than that of the Germanic race. But...we won't find any evolutionists applauding Hitler for his scientific experiments will we? Why not? After all, what he did was the logical conclusion of the work begun by Darwin. Why not use the theory of evolution to create a master race? It only makes sense, if you are an evolutionist. Unfortunately, evolutionists won't touch this with a ten foot pole now, although I suspect in the future, they will again....shader_{May 22, 2015
May
05
May
22
22
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

H, It is worth clipping what Egnor stated, by way of contrast with the picture being painted by objectors above:
Eugenic racism in 1925 was consensus science in the field of human evolution. By 1928 there were 376 university-level courses on eugenics, and there was widespread support from scientists and other academics at leading universities -- Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins, to name a few -- as well as enthusiastic support from media and government. Eugenic science was funded lavishly by the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Harriman Railroad foundation, and the wealthy businessman J.H. Kellogg. Many national and international conferences on eugenics and human evolution were hosted at leading research institutions, including the American Museum of Natural History, and eugenic science gained the imprimatur of leading scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. Wealthy donors created the Eugenic Records Office on Long Island, later to become the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. By the 1930s, thirty-one states in the U.S. would pass compulsory sterilization laws based on mainstream eugenic science and human evolution, and eugenics would receive the explicit endorsement of the Supreme Court in 1926. By the end of the first half of the 20th century, sixty thousand Americans had been sterilized involuntarily on the basis of consensus eugenic science. So what should Scopes have done in 1925? Racism and eugenics were the hallmarks of the theory of human evolution in the early 20th century, representing a clear consensus of evolutionary biologists as well as other scientists and leaders in higher education and government. There were a few dissenters, but such skeptics were disdained in mainstream scientific circles. Here's my question for Coyne: Should Scopes have taught his students only the scientific consensus on eugenics and human evolution in 1925, or should he have taught the controversy?
What grave errors or even outright lies and destructive agendas may be parading around today, dressed up in lab coats and trumpeted to us as how dare you challenge? Would it be of help to teach people key case studies, not only of triumphant scientific progress, but relevant cases of failure, including ethical and policy failure? KFkairosfocus_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

Moran: "What does this have to do with Intelligent Design? Is it an argument in favor of ID?" Kaz: I would say that it shows (a) that a scientific consensus can be wrong (this is rather obvious, but the anti-ID lobby seems to have forgotten this) and (b) that we should reject a scientific consensus when there are good reasons for doing so. To bow to a consensus despite good counter evidence is to raise authority above reason, and that approach is likely to result unhappy situations.Kaz_{May 21, 2015
May
05
May
21
21
2015
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Humans are animals. Animals are machines. Machines are not alive. Kill the machines. Hurry. Before they can make copies of themselves. Before they can kill us. Before they can become alive. Kill the machines. It's the biological imperative.Mung_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
08:53 PM
8
08
53
PM
PDT}

REC @ 26:
Eugenics was a terrible misuse of science, religion and law.
Where is the misuse of modern science? Eugenics is merely the self direction of human evolution. In the Darwinian view of humans as animals, what would cause us to stop practicing animal husbandry within our own species? Reduce the meaning of "human" to "just another animal", and eugenics is fair game. Scientific data is well supported in animal husbandry. Even Darwin stated, “hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed”. Eugenics is only abhorrent to those who recognize that there is something transcendently special about humans. I would say that eugenics is the proper use of science regarding Darwinian evolution unless you can explain why it is not...Heartlander_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

As Michael Egnor once asked regarding Hunter’s Civic Biology textbook: Should Scopes have taught his students only the scientific consensus on eugenics and human evolution in 1925, or should he have taught the controversy?Heartlander_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Just to add about counting heads. Evolutionists alwasys say SCIENTISTS, SCIENCE COMMUNITY , etc agree with evolution. Yet its only those who study/get paid as scientists that would matter. yet the whole crowd is used when wanted . to give great intellectual authority. Likewise in this Eugenics stuff. It was the leadership of science thinkers on these matters that said okay to eugenics. they were dominant. The bigger point is that educated people ,. a smaller number then, accepted this leadership. In Europe and a little here AUTHORITY from science leaders on this subject was pro eugenic. Then the rest said AMEN . Whose counting the heads? it wasa from science authority that eugenics came. Not from the street of the churches. If some churches agreed it was just because, as today, they accepted the science authority. Dembski recently on Discovery pod broadcast said hje could only get a job with conservative Church universities because liberal Christians accept evolution . Anyways the fingerprints are all on evolutiondom and the upper educated classes. It was all based on evolution ideas. Thats the equation. Just like today with evolution and global warmingism. Same dumb crowd.Robert Byers_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Mung says in response to REC's claim that churches had eugenicists as an official position of power: "REC’s argument is imminently plausible. Christians had to be on board with it for the laws to pass in 36 states. Makes me wonder which laws I might be supporting that I ought not." This is a good example of why it is important for Christians not to read the current in vogue scientific theory into the Bible as if it fits with biblical teaching. I don't know much about the role religion played in the eugenics movement, but whatever it was, is regrettable and could have been avoided had people been secure in the truth of what the Bible teaches versus the ever changing claims of science. Evolutionary teaching also played a role in the slavery problem because it allowed Christians to view Africans as less than human. It does not excuse their actions, but it shows how evolutionary thinking can have a negative influence on society. Now racism is viewed as anathema, but there is no inherent reason to view it as wrong if there is no God and we all just evolved by accident. There is also no reason to reject eugenics. As has been often pointed out, you can't get "ought" from "is" because nothing, not even eugenics or slavery is inherently wrong or absolutely wrong. There can be no moral absolutes in an evolutionary worldview.tjguy_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Let us not forget the horrors of Eugenics in India..... http://www.maryscullyreports.com/sterilization-and-eugenics-in-india/Andre_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT}

What is willful blindness on your part, aside from the fact that morality is subjective in naturalism in the first place, is for you to equate the level of evil 'colonialism' prior to Darwin with the exponential increase in evil genocide after Darwin. For instance, in the first part of this following video, German Christian Missionaries, in their letters home, are quoted as being shocked in the change in racial attitude of 'ordinary' Germans towards the Africans after Darwin's theory gained influence over them:
The holocaust before the holocaust – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa2_1Xb5A7M The Nazi Holocaust is seen by many as a gruesome but aberrant event in history. But 60 years earlier the Darwinian idea that some humans are not fully human resulted in horrifying brutality perpetrated upon the Herero people in South-West Africa.
Moreover, Christians never denied that man was inherently sinful and in need of redemption. Indeed that is the central teaching of Christianity!
2 Corinthians 5:21 God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Being aware of that inherent weakness in us has, in Heine’s words, 'subdued' that tendency towards evil. But for you to compare the almost unimaginable horror visited on man by the 'scientifically justified' genocide of Darwinism, with the evil that was brought on, in part, by the greed of colonialism and such as that, prior to Darwin, is not even in the same league of evil and is just plain intellectually dishonest on your part. Remember, Atheistic dictators such as Stalin, who lost his faith after reading Darwin by the way,,,
In his book, Stalin and the Shaping of the Soviet Union, the Oxford University historian Alex de Jonge shows Darwin's vital role in shaping Stalin's youthful outlook. According to Jonge, he was "a theological student who had lost his faith; Stalin would always maintain that it was Darwin who was responsible for that loss."28 http://darwinistdictators.com/articles/stalin.html
,,,killed more of their OWN PEOPLE in their own country than they lost in all of World War II !
4) 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
The comparison of levels of evil is not even close! Only a dogmatist would even try to defend such a obviously wrong position as you are trying to do.bornagain77_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT}

For those who wonder whether R. Grant Steen is an ID advocate: No. See http://medicalcommunicationsconsultants.com/Steen_CV.pdfBarry Arrington_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT}

REC:
I dispute that eugenics ever was “consensus science”
R. Grant Steen in DNA and Destiny: Nature and Nurture in Human Behavior:
The great majority of scientists at the turn of the century believed in eugenics. In 1916, all five scientists who founded the American journal Genetics were advocates of eugenics, even though each was an established scientist of great reputation. If most practicing scientists adhere to a certain world view, that viewpoint is, by definition, mainstream science.”
Barry Arrington_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

REC, we are identifying chief factors behind trends and we are saying, we must learn by facing hard hard truth and we must never ever forget and we must determine that such must not happen again. Unfortunately, the results of forgetting or refusing or neglecting relevant lessons are increasingly evident all around us. And, don't you dare think I do not have in mind both the what, 57 million slaughtered unborn in the USA (and hundreds of millions more around the world) and signs of ruthless aggression on the rise with feckless democracies willfully blind again. Yet another is how scholarship, science, media, organs of influence, leading classes and institutions can be seduced into evil. And I see BA77 has already cited Heinie's prophecy 100 years before the Nazis, which was already being cited in warning against Prussianism in 1914 . . . as in we should have learned by 1914 but refused to, which opened the way for what would follow. Nations can and do go disastrously wrong by perverting scholarship, science, government, culture, religion, education and more. So, we must learn. And one of the things to learn from is Eugenics, which indisputably was a self-consciously scientific movement with roots in Darwinist soil and was the dominant trend and consensus across science and the educated classes to the point where the textbook at the pivot of the Scopes trial put it in matter of fact science terms: heredity AND eugenics -- as in, and joins equals. Another is the way physics and engineering provided the means that brought us to the threshold of wiping out life on earth during the Cold War era. And more. But we must not allow pointing here, there and everywhere to allow us to forget the particular lesson of the Eugenics movement -- a consensus that was yet echoing when I was a child -- and what it enabled. Where, the text shown is capital evidence that society was massively saturated in indoctrination in the false consensus, so that those who resisted were often fringe minorities, looked down as backward and in denial of scientifically grounded realities -- let me add, a clear subtext of the way the Scopes trial was spun. Which should give many serious pause today. KF PS: Projecting the false charge of pinning all the evils of society on Darwin etc is exactly one of the things that makes our concerns redouble. No, not all evils, but this one was indubitably rooted in Darwinist soil and is a textbook case of how things can be advanced under false colours of a seemingly well grounded scientific consensus. Please, read and respond to the excerpts from Hunter's Civic Biology. Notice the force of that name in light of this issue.kairosfocus_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

"Face it REC. You denied the complicity of science at all" That is a demonstrable lie. Read my comments, if they are allowed to remain. The first thing you cite of mine is "Academics were quite divided" I acknowledged the role of scientist in eugenics. I dispute that eugenics ever was "consensus science" and I especially dispute that it was inflicted on an unwilling society.REC_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

BA77, Was Heine's 1831 statement influenced by Darwin? Interestingly, in the ellipses in your second quote, Darwin cites Heine, not approvingly, but as a matter of fact, responding to the "European binge of imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime." The full quote is:"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Hermann Schaaffhausen|Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Still racist, but not affirming genocide as your selections make it seem. Again, pinning all the evils of history (even ones predating him) on Darwin oversimplifies.REC_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

REC:
I think attempts to excuse cultural factors in the holocaust and eugenics–including racism and religion are evil
Now you are compounding your lies with more lies. Where in the OP or in any of my comments did I "attempt to excuse cultural factors in the holocaust and eugenics–including racism and religion"? See what happens when you lie? You have to stack more lies on top of your previous lies.
Saying “Science did it”–eugenics was a thing inflicted on society denies the complexity of the situation.
And now you are in full spin-cycle damage control mode. I never said that science was alone responsible and you know that. I never said there were not other factors in play; in fact I said exactly the opposite. Face it REC. You denied that the scientific community was complicit at all, and that is evil. You got caught, and now you won't even own up to that. Grow some character dude. BTW, I note you did not answer SB. Got nothing? Thought so.Barry Arrington_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

The 1831 'prophecy' of Heinrich Heine:
"Christianity — and that is its greatest merit — has somewhat mitigated that brutal German love of war, but it could not destroy it. Should that subduing talisman, the cross, be shattered the frenzied madness of the ancient warriors, that insane Berserk rage of which Nordic bards have spoken and sung so often, will once more burst into flame. … The old stone gods will then rise from long ruins and rub the dust of a thousand years from their eyes, and Thor will leap to life with his giant hammer and smash the Gothic cathedrals. … … Do not smile at my advice — the advice of a dreamer who warns you against Kantians, Fichteans, and philosophers of nature. Do not smile at the visionary who anticipates the same revolution in the realm of the visible as has taken place in the spiritual. Thought precedes action as lightning precedes thunder. German thunder … comes rolling somewhat slowly, but … its crash … will be unlike anything before in the history of the world. … At that uproar the eagles of the air will drop dead, and lions in farthest Africa will draw in their tails and slink away. … A play will be performed in Germany which will make the French Revolution look like an innocent idyll." - Heinrich Heine - Religion and Philosophy in Germany, 1831
The 1871 'prophecy' of Charles Darwin:
At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla” - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man pg. 201, published in 1871:
bornagain77_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

I think attempts to excuse cultural factors in the holocaust and eugenics--including racism and religion are evil. Saying "Science did it"--eugenics was a thing inflicted on society denies the complexity of the situation.REC_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

KF @ 31:
We must face history fair and square, painful though it be, and learn from it. Learn, lessons bought with blood and tears. That, is our duty.
And that is exactly why REC is not merely mistaken. His comments are affirmatively evil; he is trying to shirk that duty. If his view prevails, the lesson learned with the blood of 60,000 victims will be for naught.Barry Arrington_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

Barry:
REC, to this day there are those who deny there were death camps in Poland.
REC:
And I am not one of them. Can we get past this point? Can you stop this slur?
I did not say you are. I said you are like them. I would think this is obvious, but since you seem to be having trouble with it, let me spell it out for you. A great evil occurred (the death camps). Some people deny the great evil occurred (the death camps). A great evil occurred (the American scientific community was complicit in the eugenics movement that led to the mutilation of 60,000 people). Some people deny the great evil occurred (the American scientific community was complicit in the eugenics movement that led to the mutilation of 60,000 people). Do you see the parallel now? For goodness sake man, over a dozen Nobel Laureates supported the Eugenics movement. Also, as SB points out, the support was widespread in the field of genetics itself. Do you have any answer to SB's comment at 35?Barry Arrington_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT}

kairofocus @32, Thanks for that link!! That will be an excellent resource for me, but much more than I will be able to absorb in the near future. Yet it is far better to have more information to look through than not enough. ;o) What I have found to be an excellent summary of the lessons to be learned from the Nazi experiment in state-sanctioned killing of innocent humanity as a matter of social policy, is William Brennan's little book, The Abortion Holocaust - Today's Final Solution. From Canon Lawyer Edward Peters' review of the book:
In the course of his landmark Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, (Human Life Review, Spring 1983) Ronald Reagan called upon "another William Brennen—not the Justice" to underscore the dangers to a nation which tolerates intentional destruction of innocent human life. Reagan chose well: There is probably no other American scholar so well informed of the medical, legal, and social forces which were brought to bear in the Nazi war on innocents, and who has drawn with more chilling acuity their near-exact repetition by American abortionists, than William Brennen of the St. Louis University School of Social Service.
You wrote "Read, weep, and swear before Almighty God, NEVER AGAIN!" I did that after reading Brennan's book. It has, side by side, photographs of piles of dead bodies found by the troops who liberated the concentration camps and photographs of the mangled bodies of unborn children that the mainstream media resolutely keeps hidden from the public. I would sum up the main lesson to be learned this way: The deification of the state always turns into a lethal assault on innocent humanity made in the image of God, and this assault is always maintained by horrific lies. This provides us with a clue as to who is behind it all. We have it on good authority he is the "Father of lies" and a "murderer from the start."harry_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

REC
I only object to the claim that some scientific consensus was forced on society. Many prominent geneticists opposed eugenics, while society, including many churches embraced it. That is all. This is not a radical claim. This is not equivalent to holocaust denial.
The point at issue is the prevailing scientific world view in the early 20th century. It is a sociological question about trends. We have plenty of evidence to show that most scientists bought into this lie and that dissenters were in the minority. DNA and Destiny: Nature and Nurture in Human Behavior Grant Sheen -----“The great majority of scientists at the turn of the century believed in eugenics. In 1916, all five scientists who founded the American journal Genetics were advocates of eugenics, even though each was an established scientist of great reputation. If most practicing scientists adhere to a certain world view, that viewpoint is, by definition, mainstream science.” Eugenics was accepted because it was peddled as science by a majority of scientific professionals. That is why textbooks of that era on genetics promoted eugenics. A few dissenters here and there does not change the point. What is it about the word "trend" that you do not understand? Do you have any counter evidence, or are you just trying to give everyone a hard timeStephenB_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

REC, cf 31 above, on what was actually taught, how, in Hunter's Civic Biology. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

"REC, to this day there are those who deny there were death camps in Poland." And I am not one of them. Can we get past this point? Can you stop this slur? Eugenics was a crime against humanity. It was dressed up in the trappings of science, and scientists helped it along. I only object to the claim that some scientific consensus was forced on society. Many prominent geneticists opposed eugenics, while society, including many churches embraced it. That is all. This is not a radical claim. This is not equivalent to holocaust denial.REC_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

Harry, many years ago now, on discovering the IIRC either 12 or 24-volume, blue bound set of the Nuremberg Trials of the Major war criminals in my Uni's Main Library, I thought it my duty to borrow and read some of it. It's all there, meticulously documented with pictures I have never seen elsewhere thereafter, I suspect many of them are too awful to publish. Horrible, horrible, horrible. KF PS: Found it, 42 vols: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/NT_major-war-criminals.html Read, weep, and swear before Almighty God, NEVER AGAIN!kairosfocus_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

F/N: Snippets from Hunter's Civic Biology: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39969/39969-h/39969-h.htm ______________ >> [Foreword to Teachers:] . . . This book shows boys and girls living in an urban community how they may best live within their own environment and how they may coöperate with the civic authorities for the betterment of their environment. A logical course is built up around the topics which appeal to the average normal boy or girl, topics given in a logical sequence so as to work out the solution of problems bearing on the ultimate problem of the entire course, that of preparation for citizenship in the largest sense . . . . In a course in biology the difficulty comes not so much in knowing what to teach as in knowing what not to teach. The author believes that he has made a selection of the topics most vital in a well-rounded course in elementary biology directed toward civic betterment. The physiological functions of plants and animals, the hygiene of the individual within the community, conservation and the betterment of existing plant and animal products, the big underlying biological concepts on which society is built, have all been used to the end that the pupil will become a better, stronger and more unselfish citizen. The "spiral" or cyclic method of treatment has been used throughout, the purpose being to ultimately build up a number of well-rounded concepts by constant repetition but with constantly varied viewpoint . . . . XVII. HEREDITY, VARIATION, PLANT AND ANIMAL BREEDING Problems.—To determine what makes the offspring of animals or plants tend to be like their parents. To determine what makes the offspring of animals and plants differ from their parents. To learn about some methods of plant and animal breeding. (a) By selection. (b) By hybridizing. (c) By other methods. To learn about some methods of improving the human race. (a) By eugenics. (b) By euthenics . . . . heredity and eugenics Heredity and what it Means.—As I look over the faces of the boys in my class I notice that each boy seems to be more or less like each other boy in the class; he has a head, body, arms, and legs, and even in minor ways he resembles each of the other boys in the room. Moreover, if I should ask him I have no doubt but that he would tell me that he resembled in many respects his mother or father. Likewise if I should ask his parents whom he resembled, they would say, "I can see his grandmother or his grandfather in him." This wonderful force which causes the likeness of the child to its parents and to their parents we call heredity . . . . It is needless to say that all the various domesticated animals have been tremendously changed in a similar manner since civilized man has come to live on the earth. When we realize the very great amount of money invested in domesticated animals; that there are over 60,000,000 each of sheep, cattle, and swine and over 20,000,000 horses owned in this country, then we may see how very important a part the domestic animals play in our lives. Improvement of Man.—If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. This improvement of the future race has a number of factors in which we as individuals may play a part. These are personal hygiene, selection of healthy mates, and the betterment of the environment. Personal Hygiene.—In the first place, good health is the one greatest asset in life. We may be born with a poor bodily machine, but if we learn to recognize its defects and care for it properly, we may make it do its required work effectively. If certain muscles are poorly developed, then by proper exercise we may make them stronger. If our eyes have some defect, we can have it remedied by wearing glasses. If certain drugs or alcohol lower the efficiency of the machine, we can avoid their use. With proper care a poorly developed body may be improved and do effective work. Eugenics.—When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, syphilis, that dread disease which cripples and kills hundreds of thousands of innocent children, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science of being well born is called eugenics . . . . The Jukes.—Studies have been made on a number of different families in this country, in which mental and moral defects were present in one or both of the original parents. The "Jukes" family is a notorious example. The first mother is known as "Margaret, the mother of criminals." In seventy-five years the progeny of the original generation has cost the state of New York over a million and a quarter of dollars, besides giving over to the care of prisons and asylums considerably over a hundred feeble-minded, alcoholic, immoral, or criminal persons. Another case recently studied is the "Kallikak" family.[35] This family has been traced back to the War of the Revolution, when a young soldier named Martin Kallikak seduced a feeble-minded girl. She had a feeble-minded son from whom there have been to the present time 480 descendants. Of these 33 were sexually immoral, 24 confirmed drunkards, 3 epileptics, and 143 feeble-minded. The man who started this terrible line of immorality and feeble-mindedness later married a normal Quaker girl. From this couple a line of 496 descendants have come, with no cases of feeble-mindedness. The evidence and the moral speak for themselves! Parasitism and its Cost to Society.—Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites. The Remedy.—If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country. Blood Tells.—Eugenics show us, on the other hand, in a study of the families in which are brilliant men and women, the fact that the descendants have received the good inheritance from their ancestors. The following, taken from Davenport's Heredity in Relation to Eugenics, illustrates how one family has been famous in American History. In 1667 Elizabeth Tuttle, "of strong will, and of extreme intellectual vigor, married Richard Edwards of Hartford, Conn., a man of high repute and great erudition. From their one son descended another son, Jonathan Edwards, a noted divine, and president of Princeton College. Of the descendants of Jonathan Edwards much has been written; a brief catalogue must suffice: Jonathan Edwards, Jr., president of Union College; Timothy Dwight, president of Yale; Sereno Edwards Dwight, president of Hamilton College; Theodore Dwight Woolsey, for twenty-five years president of Yale College; Sarah, wife of Tapping Reeve, founder of Litchfield Law School, herself no mean lawyer; Daniel Tyler, a general in the Civil War and founder of the iron industries of North Alabama; Timothy Dwight, second, president of Yale University from 1886 to 1898; Theodore William Dwight, founder and for thirty-three years warden of Columbia Law School; Henrietta Frances, wife of Eli Whitney, inventor of the cotton gin, who, burning the midnight oil by the side of her ingenious husband, helped him to his enduring fame; Merrill Edwards Gates, president of Amherst College; Catherine Maria Sedgwick of graceful pen; Charles Sedgwick Minot, authority on biology and embryology in the Harvard Medical School; Edith Kermit Carow, wife of Theodore Roosevelt; and Winston Churchill, the author of Coniston and other well-known novels." Of the daughters of Elizabeth Tuttle distinguished descendants also came. Robert Treat Paine, signer of the Declaration of Independence; Chief Justice of the United States Morrison R. Waite; Ulysses S. Grant and Grover Cleveland, presidents of the United States. These and many other prominent men and women can trace the characters which enabled them to occupy the positions of culture and learning they held back to Elizabeth Tuttle. Euthenics.—Euthenics, the betterment of the environment, is another important factor in the production of a stronger race. The strongest physical characteristics may be ruined if the surroundings are unwholesome and unsanitary. The slums of a city are "at once symptom, effect, and cause of evil." A city which allows foul tenements, narrow streets, and crowded slums to exist will spend too much for police protection, for charity, and for hospitals. Every improvement in surroundings means improvement of the chances of survival of the race. In the spring of 1913 the health department and street-cleaning department of the city of New York coöperated to bring about a "clean up" of all filth, dirt, and rubbish from the houses, streets, and vacant lots in that city. During the summer of 1913 the health department reported a smaller percentage of deaths of babies than ever before. We must draw our own conclusions. Clean streets and houses, clean milk and pure water, sanitary housing, and careful medical inspection all do their part in maintaining a low rate of illness and death, thus reacting upon the health of the citizens of the future. It will be the purpose of the following pages to show how we may best care for our own bodies and how we may better the environment in which we are placed. [34] For full directions for budding and grafting, see Goff and Mayne, First Principles of Agriculture, Chap. XIX, Mayne and Hatch, High School Agriculture, pp. 159-165, or Hodge, Nature Study and Life, pages 169-179. [35] The name Kallikak is fictitious . . . >> _________________ This is of course the Biology textbook at the focus of the Scopes Trial. Perhaps the most telling thing is the introduction that sets the tone then the way eugenics is directly coupled to heredity as settled science relevant to the duties of citizenship. This is NOT the way something that has not swept the world and become the generally accepted consensus is presented. And, its presentation is utterly deadly, as the comparison with inferior animals is given. Blend in a bit of ruthless stereotyping and dehumanisation of alleged inferiors and hey presto, forcible sterilisation and worse. Much worse. Such things did occur, they had widespread support, they were science and textbook consensus, they were law and policy. We must face history fair and square, painful though it be, and learn from it. Learn, lessons bought with blood and tears. That, is our duty. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

... to this day there are those who deny there were death camps in Poland. -- Barry Arrington
Yes indeed. And they deny the Holocaust in spite of overwhelming evidence. An example of which is a document retrieved from the Wannsee Conference, which was a meeting of senior officials of Nazi Germany, held in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee on 20 January 1942. The purpose of the conference was to ensure the cooperation of administrative leaders of various government departments in the implementation of the final solution to the Jewish question, whereby most of the Jews of German-occupied Europe would be deported to Poland and murdered. Conference minutes were found by Robert Kempner, lead U.S. prosecutor before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, in files that had been seized from the German Foreign Office. Here is an excerpt:
Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)(emphasis mine)
The document is made available by Yale University's Avalon Project and can be read in its entirety here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/wannsee.asp For all the evidence one could ask for in one place, see Dr. Henry Friedlander's book, The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. He also notes the connection to Darwinism. It requires more close-minded denial than Holocaust deniers exhibit to deny that God is the Author of the Universe and the life within it. And if there is no God, in whose hands is the future of humanity? Godless social engineers assume for themselves that position and then wreak havoc upon humanity, as "scientific" eugenics did and as the population controllers and "family planners" do today.harry_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT}

REC, to this day there are those who deny there were death camps in Poland. You are like them. To this day there are people who write books who deny there were death camps in Poland. And if Oppenheim is attempting to whitewash the American scientific community for its role in eugenics, he is like them. 18,000,000 dead bodies attest to the existence of the death camps. 60,000 mutilated bodies -- every one of which was mutilated in the name of "the best science" -- speak to the evil of eugenics. Those mutilated bodies speak as one in condemning you and your damnable efforts to sweep the science community's role in their mutilation under the rug. You are beneath my contempt.Barry Arrington_{May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply