Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist, and opposed to Darwinism

WANT:

Click here to get your safety bookmark or counter-misinformation pamphlets.

Bonus: The Kirk Cameron Action Kit

* Here’s why the whole “Ray Comfort is bananas” thing is being emphasized.

“I’m not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don’t think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate.”

So said Canada’s federal science minister, Gary Goodyear, a chiropractor from Ontario, when asked if he accepts that evolution has happened. Who but a creationist would construe a question about a scientific fact as a question about their religious views?

“I do believe that just because you can’t see it under a microscope doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It could mean we don’t have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I’m not fussy on this business that we already know everything. … I think we need to recognize that we don’t know.”

Asked to clarify if he was talking about the role of a creator, Mr. Goodyear said that the interview was getting off topic.

I am truly fearful for the future of science in Canada.

Read the story by Anne McIlroy in the Globe and Mail.

When you come across the terms “Darwinism” or “Darwinists”, take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for “evolution” and “biologists”, respectively. When evolution is described as a “blind, random, undirected process”, be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as “astonishingly complex molecular machines”, it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a “machine” requires an “engineer”. If an author wishes for “academic freedom”, it is usually ID code for “the acceptance of creationism”.

The usefulness of “Darwinism” as a linguistic marker of anti-evolutionism is another reason for biologists to drop it — that is, if we don’t use it and they also stop using it, we gain because we get a more accurate description of evolution, whereas if we don’t use it and they continue to, we gain because it identifies their anti-evolution agendas. (I already consider it in this manner, but have to make special accommodations for people like Coyne and Dawkins who insist on using it to mean “modern evolutionary biology”, or for historians who mean it specifically in terms of Darwin’s ideas).

Which arguments should definitely not be used?

• Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
• Moon-dust thickness proves a young moon.
• NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” and Hezekiah’s sundial movement of Joshua 10 and 2 Kings 20.
• The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand.
• If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?
• Women have one more rib than men.
• Archaeopteryx is a fraud.
• There are no beneficial mutations.
• No new species have been produced.
• Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
• Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species.
• Light was created in transit.

What arguments are doubtful, hence inadvisable to use?

• Natural selection as tautology.
• Evolution is just a theory.
• There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.
• The speed of light has decreased over time.
• There are no transitional forms.
• Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.