WorldNetDaily: Hitler and Darwin Again

Buffoon Award

The Retard-o-tron™ really proved itself this morning. Its blaring sirens and flashing lights woke us up, and the blinking letters of its the wall display said WorldNetDaily.

As you know, WorldNetDaily (WND) is the flamingly creationist, absolutely execrable, moronic, and incurably crazed journalistic organ that believes in and enthusiastically promotes every conspiracy theory that ever existed. WND was an early winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award, thus that jolly logo displayed above this post.

The Retard-o-tron™ had conveniently locked our computer onto this WND headline: Evolution to blame for murder of millions?

Lordy, lordy. Could we possibly read and then respond to yet another article on that nonsensical subject? We’ve been through it many times before, and you’ve been there with us. We’ll remind you of only two of the posts we’ve written on what is probably the sickest of all creationist delusions — yet they never stop repeating it because lies and insanity are all they’ve got.

Our first post on the subject, which links to many others, is Hitler and Darwin. In addition, see Discovery Institute: Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, Part V, which links to several more. In other words, the creationist mantra that Darwin = Hitler is pure garbage, promoted by maniacs and believed in by idiots. Okay, now let’s look at a few excerpts from the WND article — with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:

[What] really explains the Nazi capacity for murder? How could “regular people” slaughter children? What possessed – pun intended – Hitler’s willing executioners to butcher women and old men?

I think Jerry Bergman has figured it out.

Who is Jerry Bergman? Wikipedia has an entry for a man with that name, but we doubt he’s the author who has thrilled WND. The Wikipedia article says Bergmnan won a Nobel Prize for the invention of transistor, but we can’t find any confirmation of that anywhere. The man is a mystery.

Anyway, WND’s Jerry Bergman wrote this book: Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian worldview (Amazon listing). WND tells us about it:

The overall premise of naturalism – that everything in the universe is random and purposeless – is a damning indictment of the worst elements of Darwinian philosophy. This mindset has created everything from schoolyard bullies to the Third Reich. Bergman’s offers a devastating critique of Darwinian philosophy, and frankly, his profiles of Hitler and his henchmen are so riveting, you won’t be able to look away. Even though you want to.

Yeah, Darwinian philosophy. WND’s book review — and presumably the book itself — is so incredibly asinine that we’re not going to excerpt much. This comes from near the end:

Bergman points out that Hitler understood quite a bit of detail related to Darwinian philosophy: “In formulating his racial ideas, Hitler relied heavily on Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Darwin’s German disciples such as Professors Fritz Lenz and Ernst Haeckel. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of racial inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory.”

That’s enough. That’s more than enough. The book is crazed, WND is crazed, and we’re outta here.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

19 responses to “WorldNetDaily: Hitler and Darwin Again

  1. Bergman: The Wikipedia article appears to be a corrupted version/incomplete plagiarization of the AIG bio of the man, which is Wiki’s sole reference for the article. Rather than claiming he won the Nobel for inventing the transistor, AIG more modestly states:

    He has also served as a consultant for CBS News, ABC News, Reader’s Digest, Amnesty International, several government agencies and for two Nobel Prize winners, including the inventor of the transistor.

    The AIG bio is here:

  2. Oh, and according to AIG, he’s listed in that doughty reference work Who’s Who in Science and Religion.

    What will they think of next> Who’s Who in Music and Cookery?

  3. At yet another excrudescence of the sempiternal Cretard ‘Hitler was a Darwinist’ canard, our weary Curmudgeon throws in the towel:

    That’s enough. That’s more than enough. The book is crazed, WND is crazed, and we’re outta here.

    Same here. Doesn’t matter how many times this pathetic mole has been whacked, the Cretards just keep popping up with the same old nonsense.

    Since evidence and reason have no effect, what’s left? One is loathe to descend to their level of idiocy, which would give us the facile (and equally fallacious)

    No Jesus, No Jonestown
    No Christ, No Crusades
    &c. &c. &c.

  4. Also from wikipedia regarding the transistor, no mentiion is made of Bergman:

  5. Hi DavidK

    As I indicated, the Wiki article has been clumsily plagiarized from an AIG original, which merely says he worked at some stage for the relevant Nobel laureates. (I’ve no idea whether that’s true or not.)

    I’ve edited the Wiki article on Bergman to get rid of the silly Nobel claim; who knows if my edit will stand.

  6. realthog says: “I’ve edited the Wiki article on Bergman to get rid of the silly Nobel claim; who knows if my edit will stand.”

    Excellent! Of all the phony credentials one might claim, a Nobel Prize is the most absurd, because it can be checked by anyone in mere seconds.

  7. Stephen Kennedy

    A number of creationist screeds by Bergman have appeared on the AIG website. He frequently complains that most colleges and universities persecute and exclude creationists from their faculty. He himself claims to be a victim of academic discrimination for his beliefs.

  8. It’s amusing when WND and the DI, who despise each other, trot out the same old PRATTs (points refuted 1000x). And even more amusing when, despite the many “where’s the evidence(s)”- based PRATTs they have in common (DI avoids the young-earth and explicit “kinds” arguments that it knows are nonsense), when they do agree, it’s increasingly about the “accepting evolution is the root of all evil” that is the last resort when they fear that even their target audience won’t by the “evidences” nonsense.

    But what just occurred to me is that, since the PRATTs are all refuted here, and have been for years, why do they keep repeating (& rephrasing) them, when it’s so much easier to link to the individual refutation, and challenge it? As activists they are surely aware of the refutations. The only other reason for the “amnesia” is an agenda to censor the refutations from their audience. But they would never do that intentionally…would they? 😉

  9. Both Hitler and Darwin lived, on this very same earth as a matter of fact. They were both of the homo sapiens species, both breathed air, drank water, and ate food. What more direct link could you ask for between the two of them?

  10. Jerry Bergman is one of the most dishonest and hypocritical creationists, which is really saying something. In the 1980’s Jerry Bergman wrote a letter to a KKK magazine promoting the racism that he now blames on Charles Darwin.

    Bergman is famous for Slaughter of the Dissidents, aka The Criterion, which was full of fake stories of creationists being persecuted a la Expelled. In Ronald Numbers’ history book The Creationists he spends several pages debunking Bergman’s falsehoods.

    The Rational Wiki page links to the court finding in the case where Bergman accused Bowling Green University of denying him tenure solely because of his religion (note that in Jerry Bergman’s letter to a racist magazine, he blamed his denial of tenure on discrimination solely on the fact that he was white, making no mention of religion.)

    The appeals court decision is quite a hoot– the professors at Bowling Green couldn’t verify his vita, which means he had a fake Ph.D. from a diploma mill and lied to pad his resume. From the appeals court:

    The faculty evaluation committee that plaintiff not be promoted to the rank of assistant professor and the chair agreed… The committee cited several inconsistencies in plaintiff’s vita submitted for promotion

    In noting that unresolved doubts about possible breaches of professional ethics may properly influence a tenure vote, the hearing board concluded that there were appropriate and serious concerns about plaintiff’s performance…

    [The district court] made the factual finding that the faculty members had based their decision on “concerns regarding [plaintiff’s] ethics, teaching, quality of publications and relevance of publications to his teaching are,”… and not on inappropriate considerations of plaintiff’s religion…

    In support of his contention that religious discrimination is overwhelmingly present in this case, plaintiff discusses at length in his appellate brief his belief that religious discrimination is rampant in America and the world. This, of course, does not prove that his particular tenure denial was based on such discrimination.

    Translation: Bergman’s only evidence that he was fired for being a Christian is his belief that America discriminates against Christians. Bergman’s a crank.

    Plaintiff also cites at length the comments of people whom he says should have been called as witnesses for the trial of this case. But we, of course, cannot review evidence not presented to the court… After winnowing out the irrelevant and the impermissible references in plaintiff’s brief, we have determined that the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous.

    The district court found that one concern of the tenured faculty was plaintiff’s ethics. For instance, Dr. Davidson testified that plaintiff’s misrepresentation of himself was the reason for the denial of tenure. He stated that Dr. Bergman said he was a psychologist when he had no psychological credentials. Dr. Wiersma indicated difficulty in documenting the actual existence of plaintiff’s books. Plaintiff argues that any such allegations of misconduct can be disproved by him. Nevertheless, the evidence reveals that the tenured faculty members were genuinely concerned about plaintiff’s ethics and that their confusion over his actual qualifications was premised on the difficulty in verifying his vita.

    The district court also found that the tenure denial was based [*19] on concerns regarding the quality and relevance of plaintiff’s work. Dr. Siefert [and four others] for example, all testified to their negative impressions of plaintiff’s work.

  11. BTW the page numbers in Ronald Numbers’ The Creationists where he debunks Bergman’s falsehoods about ‘persecuted creationists’ are pages 297-301.

    He’s also one of the many creationists with a fake Ph.D. from a diploma mill, in this case Columbia Pacific University.

  12. Diogenes says: “[Bergman is] one of the many creationists with a fake Ph.D. from a diploma mill, in this case Columbia Pacific University.”

    That was his big mistake. He should have bought it from Curmudgeon University.

  13. Bergman had an hilarious debate once with PZ Meyers, which is somewhere on YouTube. The astounding stupidity of Bergman’s arguments was what decided PZ never to debate a creationist again. Bergman held that a carbon atom is irreducibly complex, which disproves evolution, and that the periodic table was being deliberately censored in science classrooms so as to help indoctrinate students in the evolutionary “world view”.

    The man is a rare treasure.

  14. Garnetstar said:

    Bergman had an hilarious debate once with PZ Meyers, which is somewhere on YouTube.

    Yes, there are several available, but here’s one.

    Bergman held that a carbon atom is irreducibly complex

    As I understand it, he believes that each element consists of a certain number of protons, neutrons and electrons. If you change any of those, you change the element. Which is ridiculous. An element is defined simply by the number of protons it has. If you change the number of neutrons, you’ve made an isotope. If you change the number of electrons, you’ve made a ion. And it was actually Fred Hoyle himself who showed how to “jump the gap” from the lower elements to the higher ones, including carbon, through nuclear fusion.

  15. I’m watching the debate now, and Bergman introduces himself by talking about the religious affiliations of his parents. Who comes into a debate on science and says, “Hey, let me tell you about the religious proclivities of my parents!”?

  16. I am guessing he consulted for Shockley who was a flaming eugenicist towards the end of his life.

    I doubt whether it was *technical* consultation!

  17. I’m going to read some of the comments over at WND. If you don’t hear from me in a few hours, tell my wife I love her.