"Real meaning of life...stuff" - Daniel Jackson
Thursday, May 01, 2008

Speaking of “Bat-shit insane” – someone left this bit of creo-spam-droppings on my “Expelled Exposed” post.  It is far too scattered, unfocused, and densely populated with historical misrepresentations, logical fallacies, and downright random batshit for one mere human to address it in her spare time.

I could delete it as spam…, but that’s no fun, and would only be called “censorship”.

  So.

We’re going to have another “play-along at home”

Here is the format:  pick a paragraph, any paragraph, and pick it apart.  Show the lack of knowledge, the errors, and the lunacy in every possible way you can imagine.  Being funny is a plus.  Then, post it (saying which paragraph you are responding to).  I will then go through and sort them out, and re-post it with your rebuttals on a point-by-point basis.

If we don’t get enough participation, this won’t work.  So if you don’t have a lot of time, just pick an easy one, and leave the heavy lifting to those with more ready specialized knowledge, who type faster, or who have more free time.

1.              Ben(jamin) 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 German Ernst 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. If Thomas Henry Huxley with his concept of 'agnostism' was Darwins bulldog in England, Haeckel was his Rotweiler in Germany.

 

2.             'Kampf' was a direct translation of 'struggle' from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application.

 

 

3.             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. Despite factum est that 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.

 

4.             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

 

5.             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).

 

6.             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.

 

7.             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).

 

8.             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.

 

9.             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?

 

10.           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).

 

11.            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.

 

12.           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.

 

13.           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.

 

14.           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 (contra epithumia, eros, filia & storge) (ahava in Hebrew), 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

Thursday, May 01, 2008 6:32:50 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [9] |  | #
Thursday, May 01, 2008 11:57:25 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Well, I'll start with the first two -

"1. Ben(jamin) 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 German Ernst 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. If Thomas Henry Huxley with his concept of 'agnostism' was Darwins bulldog in England, Haeckel was his Rotweiler in Germany."

Wow. what a bizarre collection of non sequiturs, contradictions, irrelevancies and half-truths.

Haeckel is known for the quote "politics is applied biology", that is true, and the relevance there is that Haeckel was a German Nationalist FIRST, and a naturalist second. Darwin and Haeckel didn't see eye to eye on much, really. Haeckel didn't buy natural selection despite the evidence; he preferred Lamarckism. Darwin respected Haeckel's intellect and scientific pursuits, but flatly and uncompromisingly disagreed with his racism (Darwin's denouncment of racism is easily found in "On the Origin of Species" by anyone who, you know, bothers to actually read the book.

Natural selection, which was the key understanding and central theme of Darwin's reasearch and publications, was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in the machinations of either Hitler or Stalin. Hitler explicitly REJECTED Darwin's work and threw his books on the fires at the Nuremburg Rallies to burn along with the writings of Einstein, specifically because the common descent of all mankind contradicted the notion of a Master Race. Stalin rejected natural selection - and sent those who spoke of it to the Gulags - because it conflicted with the resurrected Lamarckism of Trofim Lysenko, whose notions of forcible improvability better suited Stalin's political rhetoric.

All of these kinds of ideas were things that appalled Darwin.

Haeckel's notion that "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", which is what I think Gas Blaster is referring to in his otherwise incoherent line "still recycled embryo drawing frauds etc.", is an interesting footnote in the history of science and nothing more; a clever and potentially illuminating idea that turned out to be wrong. Shrug. Beyond that, the guilt-by-association bullshit that creos love to indulge in is silly on its face; i.e., that fact that some of my co-workers are Republicans doesn't imply that I share their views, however competent I may find them to be in other areas.

As ERV would say, EPIC FAIL.

Next!

"2. 'Kampf' was a direct translation of 'struggle' from On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Seinen Kampf. His application."

Seriously? That fact that 'kampf' is the German equivalent of the English word 'struggle' somehow ties Darwin to Hitler? Watching Gas Blaster fall flat on his face and fail to achieve even a tenuous link here reminds me of another German word - 'Schadenfreude'!

Okay. Someone else's turn now.
Thursday, May 01, 2008 2:41:33 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Rick,

Thanks for a very good beginning, with the first two paragraphs. I'd just like to point out at this point that the nut-job we are responding to is "Pauli Ojala", not "GatsBy Blastyn".

Although I can see where you would get the two confused. :-)

Teresa
Thursday, May 01, 2008 2:50:28 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Teresa,

Thanks for the correction. Pauly Shorla will be addressed correctly from now on.
Thursday, May 01, 2008 3:49:24 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Rick,

No problem. After all, we want to show the proper respect.
Teresa
Friday, May 02, 2008 9:12:58 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
We certainly do. And Gas Blaster is more than welcome to jump in; I'm sure he can provide plenty of material to work with.
Friday, May 02, 2008 1:30:27 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
3. "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. Despite factum est that 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."



As Rick already addressed in Paragraphs 1 &2 – Haeckel and Lamarck differed from Darwin in a number of ways. They all observed many of the same phenomena. Indeed, these phenomena were repeatedly observed independently by scientists and non-scientists alike throughout the ages previous to Darwin. Haeckel and Lamark chose to explain those phenomena differently. Where Darwin was more cautious (read his works, you’ll see) about drawing moral or ethical conclusions about human behavior from natural processes he observed (and in fact specifically stated that human values should not be abandoned just because they seem to be at odds with fitness traits observed in nature), other scientists were not so careful, and if fact they allowed their ideological biases to taint their work (such as Haeckel’s German Nationalism, for instance).
Darwin afforded these other scientists with professional courtesy and acknowledgement as far as he thought their work was sound, and disagreed firmly where he thought it was not. A few professional courtesies are no more grounds for confusing Darwin and Haeckel than blaming a politician for the misdeeds of a bitter political rival because they once voted the same on a bill, or were pictured shaking hands.
The differences are rather critical, as Rick pointed out…because it was the DIFFERENCES between Darwin and his colleagues that caused both Hitler and Stalin to choose to promote “Lamarkism” and tried to stamp out “Darwinism”. (And in fact, as “Neo-Darwinism” has since proven those DIFFERENCES to be ERRORS many times over –In fact, Haeckel’s incorrect ideas were “Expelled” by the same process that the Discovery Institute is complaining about! Perhaps the Discovery Institute would like to complain about the unfairness of the scientific consensus there? TEACH THE CONTROVERSY! LOL)
But the Discovery Institute won’t go to bat for Haeckel. In fact, they want to make Darwin responsible for Haeckel’s sins.
Here’s an excerpt from an excellent treatment of this tactic by PZ Myers: (Full text here): http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/wells_and_haeckels_embryos/


Where are all the recapitulationists?
One premise that Wells brings up with regularity in this chapter is that evolutionary biologists have relied on the false doctrines of Haeckel to prop up Darwinian dogma. He claims that Haeckelian theories "have periodically risen, phoenix-like, from the ashes of empirical disconfirmation" throughout the 20th century. He uses section headings like "Resurrecting recapitulation" and "Haeckel is dead. Long live Haeckel." He accuses biologists of a conspiracy of silence, hiding the flaws in Haeckel's work on one hand, and using it as evidence for evolution on the other.
None of this is true.
This is so patently obvious that we only need to use Wells' own scholarship to show it. He cites a number of authors who discuss Haeckel or the biogenetic law:
• Adam Sedgwick, 1894
• William Garstang, 1922
• Gavin de Beer, 1958
• William Ballard, 1976
• Stephen J. Gould, 1977
• Richard Elinson, 1987
• Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
• Michael Richardson, 1995
• Stephen J. Gould, 2000
However, here is the surprising thing: all of these authors condemn the idea that embryonic development follows the evolutionary pattern in no uncertain terms! Sedgwick, for instance, compiled an extensive list of objections to recapitulation as formulated by von Baer and Haeckel, and specifically rejected it as untenable - in 1894. This represents over a century of unambiguous denial of recapitulation. The date can be pushed back even further, since von Baer published his critique of recapitulatory interpretations of his observations in 1828. Wells cites these authors to back up his argument that Haeckel's ideas are false, but at the same time he tries to pretend that evolutionary biologists are all closet fans of Haeckel. If that is the case, where are the citations to prominent modern scientists defending his theories?
The case of Stephen J. Gould illustrates Wells' two-faced strategy particularly well. In 1977, Gould wrote an excellent scholarly book on the intertwined history of embryology and evolution, titled Ontogeny and Phylogeny. As might be guessed from the title, Haeckel is a prominent character in the book, and his theories and their consequences in the field are dissected in detail and without mercy. Gould also returned to this topic in his column in Natural History magazine in 2000, centering his commentary on the discovery of a scathing critique of Haeckel by one of his contemporaries, Louis Agassiz. Gould has also written other related articles, disparaging textbook authors for their deplorable habit of recycling text and figures well beyond reason. Yet how does Wells twist the facts? He claims that Gould "...(despite having known the truth for over twenty years) kept his mouth shut until a "creationist" (actually, a fellow biologist) [he is referring to Michael Behe here] exposed the problem"!
This is a remarkable example of the kind of dishonest doublespeak used by Wells throughout his book. He can cite author after author clearly condemning Haeckel's ideas between 1894 and 2000, and simultaneously claim that biologists have been "resurrecting recapitulation" throughout the 20th century. He claims that Behe "exposed the problem", but Behe has done no research in embryology, has published nothing original on the history of 19th century science, and deserves no credit here - this "problem" was exposed over a century ago, and the real creative and innovative work in embryological analysis being done here is by an evolutionist, Michael Richardson, not Behe. I'm also surprised that Gould can publish an almost 500 page book that is critically well-received and frequently cited, and still be accused of keeping his mouth shut on the subject!
Teresa
Saturday, May 03, 2008 6:44:47 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
4. "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"



Wow. Ya know, those URLs should read something more like:
http://www.insanely/obsessed with a footnote in history/total/crank.wtf

Seriously, Pauli, I don’t know what you are talking about. Scratch that. I don’t think you know what you are talking about. Yes, when I was in High School Biology. Yes, I learned about Ernst Haeckel. Yes, I saw his pictures of embryos. WE WERE TOLD THAT ONTOGONY DOES NOT RECAPITULATE PHILOGONY. Sure, not in those exact words, because we were in tenth grade…but it was presented as a scientific idea that had been tested and rejected…just like Intelligent Design WILL be as soon as the proponents actually get around to defining something in their “theory” that can be tested.
Much like you, Haeckel made some legitimate observations. However, he went on to boldly assert conclusions from those observations that were more in line with his ideological leanings, and desires than with actual reality. Which is why his name is on the bone-pile of history, and Darwin’s isn’t.
Your attempts to confuse (in the alchemical sense) Darwin with Haeckel is just plain bizarre, misguided, and a waste of your efforts.
Teresa
Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:20:17 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
"5. 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"


Un yeah...'cause there was NO SUCH THING as marriage laws prohibiting marriage outside your racial/ethnic/religious group before Darwin came along...like, oh I don't know...IN THE BIBLE...sheesh.
Teresa
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:05:32 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
"6. 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."

And where in all of Darwin's works did he ever say that people should be sterilized at all, much less without their knowledge or consent?

Furthermore, it is typical of animal husbandry going back to the dawn of history to "sterilize" stock that is considered undesireable, and it is typical of writings of humans going back into the dawn of history to view certain kinds of people as "animals", and to attempt to whipe out certain genetic heritages. Human beings were sterilized without their consent (much like livestock) for centuries before Darwin was born (hello, eunichs?) The Bible records some of them, along with the religious (not scientific) justification for doing so.

I don't recall anything Darwin ever wrote that countincnced genocide nor forced sterilization.
Teresa
Comments are closed.
Search
Archive
Links
Categories
Admin Login
Sign In
Blogroll
Themes
Pick a theme: