Creationist Wisdom #475: Hook, Line, & Sinker

Have you ever looked at the geyser of feculence that spews out of creationist filth factories and then wondered if there really were people mindless enough to accept their ravings as truth? Well, wonder no more. We’ve got one for you.

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Daily Herald of Columbia, Tennessee, which proudly declares itself the “Mule capital of the world,” where Mule Day is an annual celebration. The letter is titled Reader connects Hitler, Sanger and abortion.

Today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, so we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Ron. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Let’s start with a little history. In the 1930’s Adolph Hitler in Europe and Margaret Sanger in America headed up social revolutions. Hitler and Sanger were students of Charles Darwin and his teaching of evolution.

We know the contemporary source of those lies about Darwin’s influence, and we’ve debunked them many times. If you’re new here, see Hitler and Darwin, and then Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin.

After that spectacularly crazed beginning, Ron says:

Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species,” had a subtitle that appealed to Hitler and Sanger, “Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” Hitler and Sanger followed the teaching of eugenics.

Flaming moron! Let’s keep reading:

Eugenics teaches that life is built on survival of the fittest, including that of humans.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s not what eugenics is. Amazingly, then Ron gets it right:

Eugenics is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through reproductive practices, thus encouraging positive traits and preventing less desirable traits

Such compulsory practices are totally alien to Darwin’s writing, but that’s pretty much how the Spartans saw it. Ron continues:

The Nazis used eugenics to justify ridding Europe of undesirable races like the Gypsies, Slavs, and most memorable, the Jews.

No, moron! Eugenics was what they used to sterilize idiots like you. Nazi racial theories came from crackpots such as the one we wrote about here: Hey, Klinghoffer: How About Hitler & Gobineau?, and also from the writings of various holy men, like On the Jews and Their Lies, by Martin Luther.

The rest of Ron’s letter is about Sanger, abortion, and Planned Parenthood. We don’t care about that stuff, so this is where we’ll leave him — neck deep in his own drool.

Hey — mindless propaganda works! It’s tragic, but we need to be aware of it.

Copyright © 2014. 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

12 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #475: Hook, Line, & Sinker

  1. One of the few developed countries to actually practise eugenics was the USA.

  2. But, according to Bryan Fischer, the USA sells bacon and pork and is therefore a Christian nation.

  3. I don’t understand, truly I don’t understand, how people can present arguments against their own position thinking that it is a good argument.
    The case in point is when one points to the policy of those various social/political movements of the early 20th century, that purposeful intervention is needed to counteract the natural tendency of nature toward deterioration – and ascribes that to acceptance of the productivity of random variation and natural selection – not to something like “intelligent design is the only way to prevent the descent into entropy predicted by the second law of thermodynamics”.
    I have to say that i am not saying that today’s creationists bear any responsibility for people who misused that for justification.

  4. Ron’s better definition of eugenics is taken from Wikipedia, which says in its entry on eugenics, “It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).”

  5. Glenn Branch says: “Ron’s better definition of eugenics is taken from Wikipedia”

    I suspected it was too good to have come from Ron or his creationist sources.

  6. BTW, if one looks to a biological model, one that Hitler expressly used, there is the germ theory of disease. Hitler likened himself to Robert Koch, and thought of himself as healing the “Aryans” of a disease.
    Of course, no one is so confused (at least I hope) as to argue “without Koch, no Hitler”.
    I am not aware of anyone in those social/political movements appealing to a “second law of thermodynamics” or some such. (Not that I am widely informed about the vast topic.) “No Clausius …”

  7. Or without the Gospels, there would be no hatred of Jews?….

  8. Charles Deetz ;)

    You’d think that a politician like H would have made enough speeches where one could quote his eugenic/darwinist intentions, yet all we get is a basic implication that eugenics relies on evolution.

  9. @Charles Deetz 🙂
    You forgot his famous speech when he declaimed, “The birds are descended from dinosaurs, so let’s invade Poland.”

    I apologize for those who may be offended by my treating such a serious subject so flippantly. But at times it just becomes too much for me to remain cool.

  10. Christine Janis

    @ Tom. Yeah, but there’s be no need to invade Poland, all the Archaeopteryx specimens are German.

  11. The case in point is when one points to the policy of those various social/political movements of the early 20th century, that purposeful intervention is needed to counteract the natural tendency of nature toward deterioration.

    Not sure whether you personally believe there’s such a tendency, Tom S. In actuality, the closest one comes to that is entropy, the natural tendency for energy and matter to be distributed in ways which do no work (in the scientific sense of that term). If entropy applied always and everywhere, life would be impossible–but it applies only to closed systems. The planet Earth isn’t a closed system, since it receives energy from the sun and radiates heat into space, so it can support processes such as life (and evolution) which have negative entropy–at the expense of a gradual increase in the entropy of the sun as it burns through its supply of fusion fuel. The sun is so huge that it can keep doing this for billions of years before its entropy increase becomes as real problem.

  12. @Eric Lipps
    I don’t know whether Nazis invoked the 2nd law of thermodynamics to argue for the necessity of their intervention in the nature course of things.
    If they did, I would not assign any blame to Clausius, etc.

    As far as my take on the creationists’ argument, my favorite points are (as you point out) if it worked as the creationists claim, it is life itself which would be impossible; and, intelligent designers (humans, for example) are as subject to the 2lot – that’s why we cannot design a workable perpetual motion machine.