Darwin, Hitler, Columbine

Darwin's theory of evolution was behind the rise of Hitler in Europe and the school-shooting massacre at Columbine, a former St. Petersburg City Council member says in a letter to the Pinellas School Board in which he urges the board to expose students to alternative theories.

"Evolution gives our kids an excuse to believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, which leads to a belief that they are superior over the weak," Bill Foster (left), whose term recently expired, writes in a three-page letter on his law firm's stationery that School Board Chair Nancy Bostock received this week. "This is a slippery slope. One of the Columbine shooters wrote on his website, 'You know what I love? Natural selection! It's the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms."

Foster also writes: "Adolph Hitler duped an entire generation using Darwin's evolution. He sought to preserve the 'favored race in the struggle for survival."

Foster's letter comes as an emotional debate continues to unfold over the state's proposed new science standards, which embrace Darwin's theory as the fundamental pillar of modern biology. The state Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the issue Feb. 19.

The argument that Darwin's theory leads to racism and fueled Hitler is not new. But many scientists and others who support the theory say that such arguments are a twisted misreading of both science and history. Foster's premise is "faulty," Becky Steele, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, told The Gradebook this morning. "There was a lot of murder, mayhem and manslaughter before Darwin came on the scene."

- Tom Tobin and Ron Matus, Times education writers

Comments

[Tholin]

I find it rather pusillanimous that, after reading us his resume to demonstrate what a thoughtful city councilman he was, Bill Foster whines about the "unhappy people' criticizing his foray into ID politics.

It's instructive to note that, like many ID advocates, Foster claims to "appreciate healthy debate", until, of course, he begins to lose said debate, whereupon he invokes "persecution" and "unchecked scientific ideologies" as the usual suspects in oppressing his beliefs.

Foster attempts to backpeddle a bit, telling the reader that he never said "No Darwin, no Hitler", yet claims in the next paragraph that "both ideologies devalue human life", and "there is an undeniable correlation". Sounds like Foster wants to stick to his guns, but isn't certain there are bullets - and not blanks - in the chambers.

After that bit of muddled reasoning, Foster calls for backup from the "hundreds of leading experts in a multitude of scientific disciplines" who doubt Darwinism. Wow. A multitude. That's a lot of "leading experts". Surely Foster could've made his case more persuasive by citing a few names from that impressive list.

Having assembled his horde of lettered creationists, Foster flashes his first amendment credentials, assuring us that faith and religion "are not science, and therefore should not be taught in in a science classroom." His solution: Air the "alternative theories" in ... wait for it ...-social studies class. With that sort of tactical prowess on display, the Discovery Institute should be phoning Foster with pledges of support any day now. (cue crickets chirping)

Then again, perhaps the creationist - and the "millions" of voting constituents they purportedly represent - aren't so eager to add St. Petersburg to their list of successes, just below Dover, PA.

[Bob]

An explanation of the evolution of the eye:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ&feature=related

enjoy!

Primordial soup is a dish best served cold.

[Noah Nelson]

"We have the purpose of preventing bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States…" Clarence Darrow.

What a brilliant idea, Mr. Bill Foster! I'm all for it. So let's think about whose creation theory we should teach.

How about the Mongolian? One Mongolian account of the earth’s origins is that a golden frog carried the earth on its back and was shot by arrows releasing fire and water. After the creator made man and woman from clay, they multiplied. Men in the north mated with ewes to produce Mongolians, while those in the south mated with hens to produce Han Chinese.

Or perhaps the Aztec version? Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca changed into snakes and ripped apart a big, many-mouthed, goddess who moved across the seas & consumed all of their creations. Her upper body formed the earth and lower body became the sky.

Or perhaps an African version? According to the Boshongo of Central Africa, the god Bumba created the sun by vomiting it up after a stomach ache. As water evaporated, land was revealed. But Bumba wasn't through vomiting, so he vomited the moon, the stars, some animals & finally men.

Certainly, you would not object to any of these being taught in science class right along with the Bible’s version. As a country of immigrants from every part of the world, we must not be prejudiced and omit anyone’s beliefs. With thousands of different ideas about the origins of the world, it would take at least one school year of science classes to cover them all, but we should probably wait until high school for children to understand their complexities. Also, I’m sure we should do away with evolution, since a deranged Columbine student has enlightened us all with his understanding of natural selection. But why stop at evolution, when much of science was at one point or another considered blasphemous—think Galileo. It is amazing that “racist” European scientists came up with a theory that suggests humankind originated in Africa! Oh, and since there’s no more science in the science class, perhaps we could call it religion class instead.

I also happen to be a graduate of a Pinellas County high school and don’t recall what we discussed in science class, mostly because after high school, I went to college, where I learned more about biology, botany, chemistry, physics, astronomy, and all sorts of highfalutin’ topics. None of these brought up creation theories, possibly because they were taught by “evil, Aryan” PhD’s. I also took an elective in world religions, taught by a Catholic priest with a PhD, which I enjoyed and where I learned various origin beliefs, everything except evolution or the Big Bang, of course, since these were not considered religious topics, even by a priest. There was no discussion about the merit of this or that belief or comparisons to scientific “faith.” Amazing! It worked out quite well--science in science class, religion in religion class.

I learned a lot in all of my classes and never stopped learning--not after high school, not after college, not even today. Believe it or not Mr. Foster, scientists have learned a few more things since Darwin and since you finished high school, where your science teacher did you a disservice. You see none of us “descended from monkeys,” but share a common ancestor with the “apes.” Maybe you should go back to those museums and pay a little more attention to those little cards that were written by the “descendants of monkeys/scientists.” Or perhaps you should turn on your computer and Google “transitional forms” or “evolution.” I use the internet on a daily basis as a tool to learn and to teach. There’s been so much more to learn since I went to high school—I teach my middle-schooler every day about these new things. I don’t write the school board to tell them that they should force my personal beliefs on everyone else’s children, not even yours. Perhaps you could try the same with your high-schooler.

PS: It sounds from your letter to the School Board that a “slippery slope” exists only in the theory of evolution and not in your “superior” beliefs. I would like to remind you of just a few cases: the Spanish Inquisition, the “conversion of savages” in the New World, the burning of witches, slavery—all cases where the “weak” were at the mercy of the “superior.” Or perhaps your history teacher did you a disservice as well.

[Chris W]

will grant, then it's up to us to hang this around his neck like a bloody albatross and make it the main thing the public pays attention to when Baker leaves office.

The future of recession-proof jobs in this area is biotechnology, which isn't possible if you have public officials spouting creationist nonsense.

[mddawson]

To quote the website of Matthew F. Bonnan, Ph.D. Dept. Biological Sciences, Western Illinois University:

"Most laypeople equate the word Darwinism with Evolution, and most people make no distinction between “Darwinism” and “Social Darwinism,” but the two are actually very different things. “Social Darwinism” is a naive philosophy of evolution used by rich and powerful men who wanted an excuse to justify child labor, slavery, ethnic cleansing, and euthanasia. But “Social Darwinism” and these horrific acts have nothing to do with science or the theory of evolution – it was just a way to make an excuse that sounded legitimate because it was supposedly “scientific.” Darwin never advocated any of these social ills."

From: http://www.wiu.edu/users/mfb100/evolution.php

[will grant]

Bill Foster wants to be Mayor in St Petersburg.

As bizarre as his comments appear, he knows who is listening to him: folks who will vote for him. Mr. Foster gives not a care for a rat's dairy-air how his copy cat rant makes dumb the school's curricu - lum.

He just purchased a new pleasure craft, "Swift-Boat Darwin", a craft designed to propel him to the Mayor's seat as his final port of call, powered by the hot air from the ID-Evolution-FSM pseudo-argument.

Science? I don't think so.
Politics? Yup!

So pass the Parmesan Cheese, please. Long live his holiness, Lord Lasagna!

[Chris W]

So much for his chances as St Pete's mayor. I wonder if he was dumb enough to think this would help his image.

Well, well. This is getting better. We have here a likely plagiarized letter to the school board (you get kicked out of school for that by the way) that trivializes the causes of the Holocaust and racism to score some political points.

What a shame.

Hey teach, send this guy to suspension and give his letter a failing grade.

A good chunk of what Foster wrote was stolen from this website:

http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/connection.asp?ID=crm&ec=I1301

[b^3]

It's encouraging to see 90% of the posts recognize Foster
as an imbecile but amusing to see others self-validate the same label.

[Chris W]

Argh. Typepad munged up my links. They should have been:

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/brooks91intelligence.html

and

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Sorry for the inconvenience.

[Chris W]

Welcome back, Randy Goggin!

"But I don't believe this should be used to determine whether or not evolution should be taught or criticized. The issue has to do with truth and academic freedom (for both scientists and teachers)."

Then by all means, let's explore truth.

"Opponents of evolution should focus on the evidence against evolution (1) the lack of organic chains of transitional fossils, 2) the inability of mutations and selection to explain the appearance of specified complexity in DNA and irreducibly complex structures and systems in biological organisms 3) the discredited icons of evolution (such as the peppered moth hoax, the embryonic recapitulation hoax, the mythical evolutionary trees that mislead students about what has actually been found in the fossil record, etc.) that are left in many textbooks."

So much BS, so little time. There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity"; Michael Behe had completely ignored piles of literature where his main example *was* shown to be usable with some of its parts missing. "Specified complexity" is worse. He misuses mathematics in a really hilarious way:

"..natural selection has a branching mapping from one to many (replication) followed by pruning mapping of the many back down to a few (selection). These increasing and reductional mappings were not modeled by Dembski. In other words, Dembski "forgot" to model birth and death! It is amazing to see him spin pages and pages of math which are irrelevant because of these "oversights". Dembski's entire book, No Free Lunch, relies on this flawed argument, so the entire thesis of the book collapses."

(_Dissecting Dembski's 'Complex Specified Information'_, Thomas D Schneider)

back to Randy...
"Darwin admitted that the first two could be used against his theory. 1) The fossil record did not show the organic chains of transitional fossils in Darwin's day (and he admitted this), and this predicted record of transitional forms does not exist today. 2) There are countless examples of organs like complex eyes (which supposedly evolved over 40 different times from scratch) which need all of the parts to work in order for these organs to function. These organs would not function before mutations (supposedly) miraculously put these parts together."

Randy falls into the mousetrap of "irreducible complexity" once again. Regarding the eye, I'll quote PBS:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mutations cannot have a goal in mind; they are random mistakes. It is ludicrous to believe that mutations and selection could have accidentally put together even one complex eye (let alone 40-60). So Darwin's proposition that (if it could be shown that structures, organs, etc. could not have been formed by step-by-step processes, then his theory would break down) destroys the notion that evolution could have occured by accidental genetic copying mistakes and selection. Intelligence had to have been involved. There had to have been a Creator."

Finally, Randy tosses out some real chestnuts of the anti-evolution movement with his 'hoaxes'. And he gets to the heart of a very flawed argument, one that shows he doesn't understand *at all* what happens in evolution and natural selection.

1) He talks about mutations as "random mistakes" when what they are is random changes; if they lead to an adaptive advantage, they weren't mistakes.

2) He forgets (or doesn't know about) crossover recombination, in which chromosomal information is exchanged between pairs of DNA strands during replication. (see www.answers.com/topic/genetic-recombination)

3) He quite clearly doesn't understand intelligence; he seems to be stuck back in the 1950's with Herbert Simon and the 'cognition = serial computer program' research instead of coming forward into the parallel distributed processing and brain modeling arena with the rest of us. In a way, I don't blame him; moving intelligence away from the 'single-CPU' model makes it much easier to model an evolutionary pathway from less- to more-complicated sensory processing, and neatly removes the 'cannot happen that way, so there must be a creator' bumper sticker that obscures his vision. (For a good review, see http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/brooks91intelligence.html.)

I'm not really surprised here; that's what happens when you dumb down the science curriculum and let standards languish the way we have in Florida. You get people like Bill Foster and Randy Goggin who keep repeating things they read in creationist mullet-wrappers and think they're true because they were never taught properly and never forced to master the material. If they had, even if they rejected the theory on theological grounds, at least they'd know what they were talking about.

As for Hitler not being a Christian, see http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm. In an age of Google, there is no excuse for not doing your homework on something this simple.

[me]

Enough already!

Science in the science classroom. Creationism in the Sunday school classroom. I am both a Science teacher and a former Sunday school teacher.

Biology is what I teach in my science classroom because that is what the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SHOWS about the changes in life forms. Florida has had that standard for many many years.

All of a sudden we use the "E" word and the pathetically uneducated come out of the closet. Apparently they were too stupid to know that the standard always had Darwin's research in it. It was just with a different label. Ah... "marketing" at work.

The recent devastating tsunami brought up species never catalogued before. In other words, there are species we do not know about just as there are links we have merely not found yet in fossil records. However, every time we get a new flu strain, true scientists know that evolution is taking place before their eyes.

True believers in God will not force their belief on you. They teach tolerance, unlike the religious fanatics who are trying to push their
faith based beliefs on all of us.

I go to church, I pray, but I only discussed my PERSONAL FAITH in my Sunday School classroom.
These pathetic people who call themselves people of "FAITH" were the types of Christians who were behind the Crusades, recent ethnic cleansings, and the Inquisition. But of course that is a fact only educated people would know about.

They are cut from the same cloth as the religious fanatics of the jihad, except they follow another prophet's teachings. Yes...teachings....not facts.

Religious topics fall under the heading of PHILOSOPHY, not SCIENCE.
But of course you have to have some iota of education to even know that fact.

Apparently some of our FLorida school board members are quite uneducated, and that is the scariest fact of all.

Their paycheck is from our tax dollars as is my paycheck, so they need to stop declaring their personal beliefs on our dime.

Bill Foster just lost the Mayors race.

"Chosen people"....interesting.

I think sometimes it stems from the idea that if a person does certain things, behaves in a certain way that is smiled upon or dictated by someone or something, they will receive a reward. If they don't behave according to such rules set forth by that someone or something, they will be punished. I think this often creates the idea of a "chosen" population.

Just my humble opinion.

[gite (g allan)]

and just where does the concept of a "chosen people" come from?

[Tom]

A little briefing on the word "Theory" as it applies to science:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

It is commonly misunderstood that there are known truths that are superior to theories. If this is actually the case, then the seemingly "known truth" is actually a theory itself. Reading on the words knowledge and truth will suggest their uncertain nature, falling below what is assumed under the aegis of faith. One theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of truth, but both statements are theories. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts.

A misunderstanding of the word "fact" contributes to confusion in regard to the meaning of "theory." An appreciation of the actual meaning of "fact" and "knowledge" can help to clarify an understanding of the meaning of "theory." (See also: relativity of knowledge, under Relativism.)

[KD]

Chris W.... I love your comments... and VOR, people who write comments for a "news" article are not bloggers... they are commenters. Sorry, but I hate it went people say they are blogging when the are just adding comments to a bloggers writing.

[SO]

So Foster liked to pull pranks? Big deal. Kriseman has a sense of humor too I think, more than Foster. I think Foster may have been a little envious of Kriseman, a better man, better lawyer, better councilman, better looking. Too bad for Foster as his days appear to be done.

[Kim]

This is the kind of people you put in all govenments. Then we have to pay for it. NOw think this out. Foster use to take Kriseman suit coat and hide it before councl meetings. Kriseman would bring some to eat, you got it Foster would eat it. Foster would laugh at Kriseman at the meetings. He said he was cutting the stress they were under. When asked about it he lied. He said it never happened. Now more truth comes out about him and he sayd they have to make tuff decision for us for that is why we put him in office. I guess being a bully,a hand man for Baker and now tells the school board how to vote-remember the city gives the school board money. I do not think it was Foster using City paperhead. It was Baker.

[Woodstock Santa]

Perhaps Mr. Foster should spend more time studying biology and history, and less time harassing old men for handing out a little bourbon during the holidays.

[Chris W]

"Just because you're a believer doesn't mean you have to be a putz."

Parable, that gets my vote for quote of the day! The way I said in the past was

"Just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to believe every stupid thing someone says about him."

but yours is much funnier.

[Parable]

Why must evolution and a creator be mutually exclusive? During biblical times, do you think people would have understood the concepts of natural selection, DNA, genes, mass extinction or the vast eras of time needed for species to evolve from simple to complex life forms? Just as ancient texts often record the collective memory of massive disasters likes floods or meteor strikes, so might they also record, in allegory or parable, man's intuitive understanding or even God's revealed teaching of earth's origins. Why must one day in Genesis be understood as 24 hours? Literalists pick and choose what they will take literally and what they will read figuratively as it suits them -- even against their God-given reason. Just because you're a believer doesn't mean you have to be a putz.

[jonsid]

According to his biograpy, Hitler studied to be an Abbot and frequently quoted from the Bible.
I attended a lecture at a library in NC a while ago concerning evolution. It was given by a man who considered himself a science teacher at a Christian school. I couldn't believe what I was hearing as he told of an experiment whereby the tails of mice were cut off and then bred. Mice continued to be born with long tails no matter how many times the offspring had their tails cut off and rebred, thus disproving the theory of evolution. He sincerely believed that after a period of time the tails of the newborn mice should be getting shorter.

[matt]

It amazes me how much energy we waste on this never ending battle. Evolution should be taught as it is now as a theory. Their is no reason to add intelligent design to the curriculm, it is already taugth to those children with parents of faith. To be honest evolution is a pathetically small part of science. We should be spending more focus on math which is the real back bone of science. The rest of biology and physics that our of more real pracitcal importance would be better served.

[Chris W]

VOR, it doesn't just come down to what we believe. Evolution is correct (and demonstrably so) and ID/creationism is crap (also demonstrably so). And the only people who *believe* in that crap either don't know any better or because they don't care.

Foster's letter is a case in point of the first one leading into the second. Hitler considered himself a Christian and in his private writings thought he was doing God's work in cleansing the Jews from Germany; if you're going to blame Nazism and eugenics on Darwinian evolution, you're going to have to blame the Bible for the Inquisition, the Hundred-Years' War, slavery, and every other wrong thing justified by an ancient religious text.

Mr Foster, in his letter, sounds whiny and defiant (which is par for the course for him, I understand). His arguments against teaching evolution are nonsensical, and they appeal to the phony "fairness" argument that creationists have retreated into since they keep getting their asses handed to them whenever facts are actually at issue.

We don't teach our kids numbering systems where 2+2 does not equal 4 and tell them to make up their own minds; we don't teach them how to work with earth, air, fire, and water in chemistry class and ask which they'd prefer. It's only in biology, regarding evolution, that this is even an issue.

It's an issue because it threatens their world-view in a way that simple atheism doesn't. Bill Foster and his co-religionists have tied their fate to whether or not the Bible is literally true... starting with the creation account in Genesis (which he says he believes). If that creation account is shown to be bogus, or allegorical, or a just-so story adapted from creation stories in other cultures and religions, he thinks (probably) you can't believe any of the rest of it. And so evolution, which is supported by tons and tons of evidence, threatens Mr. Foster in a way that it shouldn't.

[Angela]

There is no SCIENTIFIC alternative to evolution.

Why do we not teach creationism and evolution in the Science classroom and let students decide? Because the SCIENCE classroom is for SCIENCE.

We also do not teach students about the makeup of the sun and then tell them "oh, also, some people worship the sun as a god and believe that this god compels them to war."

Please read this if you favor the teaching of creationism.

http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf

Thank you.

edit for above post: intert "pit" between "trading" and "without."

Try entering a trading without the mind-set of "survival of the fittest." Without it, you'll loose.

Scientific - religious mumbo-jumbo not withstanding no ID curriculum has past constitutional review anywhere, ever. It's just a big expensive legal fight for us all to pay for, at the end of which ID will lose . . . again.

This is Pinellas....

So will we be teaching Scientology and Xenu-locked-in-a-volcano as well?

[Marc]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has spoken to me in a vision and you will all go to hell if you do not let us Pastafarians teach our theory of Gravity and Global Warming in the Science Curriculum. An if Intelligent Design also get tought in History class along side WWII and Hitler, we want the Theory of FSM tough there as well. Hurray for Bill Foster, open our schools too all theories, especially the ones that are FSM Gods will!

More willful and selective blindness.

And no science.

Color me not surprised.

[VOR]

There is something sick and twisted going on here but its not Mr. Foster's opinions, his right to express those opinions or the way and manner in which he expressed his opionins.
Its pretty easy to see who the real sickies are by the degree of hatred and verbal violence aimed at Mr. Foster, by the bloggers on this thread who disagree with his observations and theories.
I find it intersting that those who claim that there is no God creator (intelligent designer of life and the universe) and that those who have faith (religion) are the cause of the hatred and violence of this world, yet are posting the most hate filled, bitter and resentful comments.
Dawin himself said" The key to the mystery of evolution and the origin of life can only be found through
qualitative and quantitative observation."
Unfortunately, the existance of the spiritual world, (world of faith) cannot be so quantitatively or qualitatively observed as the physical world.
Science today is discovering that there is more to our existence that meets the physical eye (Quantum Physics) Alternative dimensions of reality are being now explored by science as a integral part of our world as a whole. These alternative dimensions could very well be the proof of the spiritual world that atheists are in denial of and that the people of "faith" have believed in for thousands of years. Either way believe in the spirit world or not, there is no reason to hate those who disagree.
Violent and hate filled people are just that, their hatred for other people will manifest itself in violence no matter they believe, they are just looking for excuses to justify their violence. For some its skin color, ancestory, speech dialect, culture, and or faith or the lack of it. Pure science got no answers for that, but at least real Christianity does offer a viable alternative to this vicious cycle of hate and hopelessness (all life is random). It all comes down to choice....what are we going to believe in...

You want your kids to learn about God and His power - take them to church and put them in a private, relgious school.

Absolutly hypocritcal to see people talking about God and His power and how it should be taught, but they leave out all other religions.

[Dennis]

It has been determined that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, and scientists have no idea what the motive force could be. 80% of the universe consists of unknown material, or as Einstein labeled it "funny energy." There is still plenty of room for God and His power.

[Randy Goggin]

In the book, From Darwin to Hitler, Richard Weikart discusses how "Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis" (http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm).

But I don't believe this should be used to determine whether or not evolution should be taught or criticized. The issue has to do with truth and academic freedom (for both scientists and teachers). Opponents of evolution should focus on the evidence against evolution (1) the lack of organic chains of transitional fossils, 2) the inability of mutations and selection to explain the appearance of specified complexity in DNA and irreducibly complex structures and systems in biological organisms 3) the discredited icons of evolution (such as the peppered moth hoax, the embryonic recapitulation hoax, the mythical evolutionary trees that mislead students about what has actually been found in the fossil record, etc.) that are left in many textbooks.

Darwin admitted that the first two could be used against his theory. 1) The fossil record did not show the organic chains of transitional fossils in Darwin's day (and he admitted this), and this predicted record of transitional forms does not exist today. 2) There are countless examples of organs like complex eyes (which supposedly evolved over 40 different times from scratch) which need all of the parts to work in order for these organs to function. These organs would not function before mutations (supposedly) miraculously put these parts together. Mutations cannot have a goal in mind; they are random mistakes. It is ludicrous to believe that mutations and selection could have accidentally put together even one complex eye (let alone 40-60). So Darwin's proposition that (if it could be shown that structures, organs, etc. could not have been formed by step-by-step processes, then his theory would break down) destroys the notion that evolution could have occured by accidental genetic copying mistakes and selection. Intelligence had to have been involved. There had to have been a Creator.

Students are not being taught to critically think about evolution; they are instead being fed propaganda. It's outrageous that courts would rule against allowing criticisms of evolution in classrooms, and it's revealing to think that many evolutionists are afraid of opposing viewpoints and criticisms of evolution.

Let the ad hominem attacks fly...

HA! Atheism equals Satan worship?

Wow. I guess it took all the brain power available to turn on the computer.

[Pilgarlic]

I will never cease to be amazed that religion in any form has survived the enlightenment. It is primitive superstition. Wake up and reason. We were not "put" here for ANY reason; abandon that search. And when you die it's over. Lights out. Accept it. Shed the preposterous security blanket. Superstition is and always has been the refuge of the ignorant and the weak. Stop it. It causes you to fight with one another and kill one another in defense of the superiority of your invisible friend. Your superstitious delusion divides mankind needlessly. Get REASONable. It's about time.

Wow. Look at the intelligent rebuttals. Mom the frog? Uncle lizard? Yep, THOSE are the people I want dictating what is taught in classrooms.

When the supporters of ID show themselves to be such juvenile, ignorant people...well, it says a lot for ID.

May God bless all of you satan worshiping fools… it sure take a lot of faith to be an atheist.

HEY!... there's my grampa, the hermit crab!

[Dennis]

I know I will regret this, as most of the commentary here is sophomoric and simply mean. I simply wish to state the following:
1) Hitler was most assuredly not a Christian, but was steeped in Nietzsche and the concept of the ubermensch, as well as the work of progressive eugencists (the forerunners of Planned Parenthood);
2) Jewry is both a religion and a race, and exterminating the jews was of a piece with exterminating gypsies, slavs, and other non-Aryan racial minorities;
3) The Christian concept that we are all God's children and deserving of respect is in direct contravention to Darwin's concept of natural selection. A Spanish conquistador was once asked by a pagan Indian: "You Spanish come in here, take our land , then spend the rest of your lives trying to make up for it. When we take someone's land, we just kill everybody." That's natural selection, and holocaust is its natural result.

Will this be on the FCAT? If not, why bother?

[Pilgarlic]

If I thought I could humiliate this guy further by adding to his own indictment of his sanity, I would. I just can't.

Religious adherent: "I'm right and the 9900 other religions (and atheists) are wrong".

Atheist: You're all correct that all other religious adherents are wrong. That makes you all wrong, wrong, wrong. Your religious STUPORstition is NO BETTER AT ALL than anyone else's religious STUPORstition.

You are hereby invited to join the world of reason. Repondez, s'il vous plait.

[voxy]

TampaDan, you've got that right. LOL !!!

[voxy]

why did the st pete times change the title of this article from

'evolution is a slippery slope'

to 'darwinism and the rise of hitler'????

st pete times??? or is it the enquirer?? LOL

[mitch]

why do i live in florida again? i thought i moved out of the bible belt?

[TampaDan]

This idiot needs to come across the Bay and run for Hillsborough County Commission; he'd look and sound perfect next to Blair, Hagen and Norman.