The blame for the Holocaust lies with the Nazis, and the Nazis alone. Darwin never advocated genocide. To place the blame on biologists is an absurdity.

I would encourage you to google “Godwin’s Law”. It is common for people to associate what they don’t like with Hiter and the Nazis. It is dishonest hyperbole.

The film also ignores what Biologists have given mankind: Modern Medicine.

Stein is under heavy artillery for ‘exaggerating’ or ‘going easy’ on the influence of evolutionism behind Nazism and Stalinism (super evolution of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Russia). But the monstrous Haeckelian type of vulgar evolutionism drove not only the ‘Politics-is-applied-biology’ Nazi takeover in the continental Europe, but even the nationalistic collision at the World War I.

It was Charles Darwin himself, who praised and raised the monstrous Haeckel with his still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc. in the spotlight as the greatest authority in the field of human evolution, even in the preface to his Descent of man in 1871.

Catch 22: Haeckel’s 140 years old fake embryo drawings have been mindlessly recycled for the ‘public understanding of science’ (PUS) in most biology text books until this millennium, although Haeckel’s crackpot raging Recapitulation/Biogenetic Law and functioning gill slits of human embryos have been at the ethical tangent race hygiene/eugenics/genocide, infanticide, and Freudian psychoanalysis (subconscious atavisms). Dawkins is the Oxford professor for PUS - and should gather the courage of Stephen Jay Gould who could feel ashamed about it.

Some edited quotes from my conference posters and articles defended and published in the field of bioethics and history of biology (and underline/edit them a ‘bit’):
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_Bioethics.pdf
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelianlegacy_ABC5.pdf

The marriage laws were once erected not only in the Nazi Germany but also in the multicultural states of America upon the speculation that the mulatto was a relatively sterile and shortlived hybrid. The absence of blood transfusion between “white” and “colored races” was self evident (Hailer 1963, p. 52).

The first law on sterilization in US had been established in 1907 in Indiana, and 23 similar laws had been passed in 15 States and sterilization was practiced in 124 institutions in 1921 (Mattila 1996; Hietala 1985 p. 133; these were the times of IQ-tests under Gould’s scrutiny in his Mismeasure of Man 1981). By 1931 thirty states had passed sterization laws in the US (Reilly 1991, p. 87). Typically, the operations hit blacks the most in the US, poor women in the Europe, and often the victims were never even told they had been sterilized.

Mendelism outweighed recapitulation (embryos climbing up their evolutionary tree through fish-, amphibian- and reptilian stages), but that merely smoothened the way for the brutal 1930’s biolegislation - that quickly penetrated practically all Western countries. The laws were copied from country to country. The A-B-O blood groups, haemophilia, eye colours etc. were found to be inherited in a Mendelian fashion by 1910. So also the complex traits and social (mis)behaviour such as alcoholism, schizophrenia, manic depression, criminality, rebelliousness, artistic sense, pauperism, racial differences, inherited scholarship (and its converse, feeble-mindedness) were all thought to be determined by one or two genes. Mendelism was “experimental” and quantitative, and its exaggeration outweighed the more cautious biometry operating on smaller variations, not discontinuous leaps. Its advocates boldly claimed that these problems could be done away within a few generations through selection, persisted (although most biologists must have known that defective genes could not be eliminated, even with the most intense forced sterilizations and marriage restrictions due to recessive genes and synergism. Nevertheless, these laws were held until 1970’s and were typically changed only when the abortion legislation were released (1973).

So the American laws were pioneering endeavours. In Europe Denmark passed the first sterilization legislation in Europe (1929). Denmark was followed by Switzerland, Germany that had felt to the hands of Hitler and Gobineu, and other Nordic countries: Norway (1934), Sweden (1935), Finland (1935), and Iceland (1938 ) (Haller 1963, pp 21-57; 135-9; Proctor 1988, p. 97; Reilly 1991, p. 109). Seldom is it mentioned in the popular media, that the first outright race biological institution in the world was not established in Germany but in 1921 in Uppsala, Sweden (Hietala 1985, pp. 109). (I am not aware of the ethymology of the ‘Up’ of the ancient city from Plinius’ Ultima Thule, however.) In 1907 the Society for Racial Hygiene in Germany had changed its name to the Internationale Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene, and in 1910 Swedish Society for Eugenics (Sällskap för Rashygien) had become its first foreign affiliate (Proctor 1988, p. 17). Today, Swedish state church is definitely the most liberal in the face of the world.

Hitler’s formulation of the differences between the human races was affected by the brilliant sky-blue eyed Ernst Haeckel (Gasman 1971, p. xxii), praised and raised by Darwin. At the top of the unilinear progression were usually the “Nordics”, a tall race of blue-eyed blonds. Haeckel’s position on the ‘Judenfrage’ was assimilation and Expelled-command from their university chairs, not yet an open elimination. But was it different only in degree, rather than kind?

In 1917 the immigration of “defective” groups was forbidden even in the United States by a law. In 1921 the European immigration was diminished to 3% based on the 1910 census.
Eventually, in the strategical year of 1924 the finest hour of eugenics had come and the fatal law was passed by Congress. It diminished immigration to 2% of the foreign-born from each country based on the 1890 census in order to preserve the “nordic” balance in population, and was hold through World War II until 1965 (Hietala 1985, p. 132).

Richard Lewontin writes:“The leading American idealogue of the innate mental inferiority of the working class was, however, H.H. Goddard, a pioneer of the mental testing movement, the discoverer of the Kallikak family,
and the administrant of IQ-tests to immigrants that found 83 % of the Jews, 80% of the Hungarians, 79% of the Italians, and 87% of the the Russians to be feebleminded.” (1977, p. 13.) Regarding us Finns, Finnish emmigrants put the cross on the box reserved for the “yellow” group (Kemiläinen 1993, p. 1930), until 1965.

Germany was the most scientifically and culturally advanced nation of the world upon opening the riddles at the close of the nineteenth century. And she went Full Monty.

Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. In England, they are fertilizing human embryos for research purposes and pipetting chimera embryos of humans and monkeys, ‘legally’. The legislation should not distract individual researchers from their personal awareness of responsibility. A permissive law merely defines the ethical minimum. The lesson is that a law is no substitute for morals and that dissidents should not be intimidated.

I am suspicious over the burial of the Kampf (Struggle). The idea of competition is innate in the modern society. It is the the opposite view in a 180 degree angle to the Judaeo-Christian ideal of agapee, that I personally cheriss. The latter sees free giving, altruism, benevolence and self sacrificing love as the beginning, motivation, and sustainer of the reality.

pauli.ojala@gmail.com
Biochemist, drop-out (Master of Sciing)
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Expelled-ID.htm

TEXAN: How did Ben Stein come to be involved in the film?

CRAFT: Well, John had a real insight, we believe, into the necessity to have a person, first of all, who wasn’t overtly Christian or overtly religious and also someone who had a comic element to their personality or their repertoire, but also an intellectual. Well, that kind of limits the field. There aren’t that many of those folks out there.

Once Ben became acquainted with what we were doing, he got excited because he began to see a connection between our exploration and sanctity of life issues. He’s a very, very strong pro-life advocate. He has a high view of human dignity and human sanctity. And he saw a connection between what we were exploring, and sanctity of life issues and the historical elements of the eugenics movement, and especially as a Jewish person, the eugenics movement as it morphed into the Nazi racial cleansing laws.

TEXAN: How do you answer those who charge that ID is simply a Trojan horse for getting six-day biblical creationism taught in public schools?

CRAFT: That’s fanciful to the point of comedy. Understand that although all the producers are Christians and we have, let’s say, complementary views about most moral issues, I can’t say we came to this project with any uniform view or underlying agenda.

One point I want to make though, Stein is really not much more than a “face” for the movie (although he is also credited as being a writer). I read an interview with the executive producer of Expelled (Logan Craft) with the Texas Southern Baptist Convention magazine “Texan” where Craft states on how Ben Stein came to be involved in the picture, that another producer (John Sullivan) had the idea that first and foremost, they needed someone who wasn’t “overtly Christian” and not “overtly religious”. A minor deception(?) ploy(?) strategy (?), but indicative of the thoughts and actions of the movies’ producers.

http://www.sbtexan.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=5533&issue=2/4/2008

Criticsm, comment, scholarship and research are various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair.” I believe that “Expelled” fits there.

Other aspects of each situation must be considered, including the purpose and character of the use, including:
* whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
* the nature of the copyrighted work;
* amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
*the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Stein wove John Lennon’s “Imagine” lyrics into the documentary’s commentary, and used only a few seconds of the actual song. My personal viewpoint is that Stein’s use was legitimate under Fair Use.

Two final points from the U.S. Copyright Office fact sheet:

* The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. (I doubt that Yoko would grant this.)
* If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. (I would bet that Stein followed this advice.)

The topic of Fair Use has come up in communications related blogs and podcasts; particularly podcasts that intersperse short clips of copyrighted music and audio for dramatic or entertainment purposes.

As you involved with the IABC, do you have any input as to the copyright infringement suit being filed by Yoko Ono re Expelled’s use of Imagine in the movie?

Do you think the producers can make a legimate case for it under Fair Use Doctrine?

“Of course, another reason is that a certain percentage of bloggers don’t want a two-way conversation that would put their thoughts in a bad light. I can live with rational disagreement, and have changed my perspective at times thanks to an insight from a reader.”

You remain welcome on this site, Mr. Franklin, as do any people who would express an opposing viewpoint to yours, in the same respectful, considered way. I’ve enjoyed the conversation!

Yes, I agree with you that it would be preferable to look at the evidence and merits of bot evolution and ID individually. Further, I would have no problems at all that if a empirical is built for ID, that it could be presented in curricula.

Are you familiar with the Biologic Institute? It was set up by the Discovery Institute over 2 years ago to do precisely what you are looking for. To analyse the information angle regarding design. Sadly, after millions of dollars invested, their output has been zero.

This, I feel, is a major reason why the scientific community shows little respect for ID. There are cries of purported persecution, suppression and discrimination, supported by major PR efforts such as those by the Discovery Institute and Expelled, but no real contributions to the actual science.

Look at the activities of the major credentialed ID proponents, like Behe, Dembski, Meyers, Egnor. All they have produced in the last 5 years are a couple of mainstream books, but no research, no experiments, no testing of hypotheses.

Are there pompous, prima donna academitians? I wouldn’t doubt it for a second. Have some ID proponents been treated unfairly for their beliefs? I would say probably so. But is it the vast, conspiratorial, cabalistic plot Expelled makes it out to be? I would say definately not.

I can also point to several cases where proponents of evolutionary theory have felt they were likewise suppressed for their views, ie Comer in Texas. Such is life.

One thing I can state with a high degree of confidence, I am not aware of any cases where ID proponents have been either physically assaulted, or threatened with physical force, but both Judge Jones and Mrs Kitzmiller from the Dover case recieved death threats after the decision was issued.

And by the way, the sites I posted my essay at were all small blogs with only a couple of responses, 10 tops. Not the sites like Expelled, although I was active at that site with comments.

Your Thoughts?

It wouldn’t surprise me that you were engaged in conversation at only 18% of the blogs where you posted, if they had anywhere near the number of comments that I saw on the official Expelled blog. My comment there was somewhere around 930! It is difficult to maintain a flow of conversation when so many other comments post around you.

Of course, another reason is that a certain percentage of bloggers don’t want a two-way conversation that would put their thoughts in a bad light. I can live with rational disagreement, and have changed my perspective at times thanks to an insight from a reader.

Your final paragraph contains an important point. Science is not a democracy, and concepts need to be vetted and supported by research and fact-checking. I want both theories–evolution and intelligent design–to be afforded consideration and study.

Back to an original point of my blog: Freedom of thought and expression are important to me (and to millions–billions?–of others). In a “free” society such as the United States where I live, that freedom is maintained only so long as its people are willing and able to require it–not relinquish it.

The Expelled documentary purports to show examples where that freedom of scientific inquiry has been squashed. I oppose anything that would limit our ability to advance knowledge–unless in doing so, we would impose unnecessary pain and suffering on others. (The “experiments” conducted in Nazi concentration camps is an example of my point.)

That said, I would prefer that we separate the study of evolution and intelligent design. Not look at them together, but study the evidence and merits of each individually. If that study results in reasonable evidence that could support one or both of the theories, then our educational institutions should present the theory (or theories) along with the evidence, in curricula.