The anti-environmentalist thread over at the fundie site I was just referring to in this post has taken an interesting turn.

The host is complaining about a poster that he has had to repeatedly ban because he says wild things like asserting that Stalin was an anti-Darwinist.

I find that funny, because Stalin WAS an anti-Darwinist.  He actually rejected Darwin for many of the reasons that Fundies reject Darwin.  Namely, the misapplication of a scientific description of the world, and imposing on it social and moral implications that just don't fit into it.

Fundies give, as a reason for rejecting Dawin, that "survival of the fittest" dictates a morality of rugged individualism and dog-eat-doggery that will result in the highest moral law being that of survival.  Which would make it "immoral" for a "Darwinist" to rescue a drowing child, or give money to feed a starving person, or what have you.

Stalin rejected Darwin because he also felt that "survival of the fittest" dictated a morality of rugged individualism and blah blah blah...which was in direct opposition to his political philosophy which is why he rejected Darwin and embraced Lamarkism (called Lysinkoism because it was named after the Russian who revived it).  Basically, Stalin's misunderstanding of the theory led him to believe that Darwin was saying that those who were at the top of society belonged there, and any attemps to manage society for the benefit of everyone was contrary to natural law.

Of course, evolutionary biology recognizes collective action, caretaking, and providing for others in your group as a survival trait...so it's just silly to say that "darwinists" don't believe in taking care of others, or the ability to put the well-being of your group above your own well-being.

Kind of like the claims that Hitler was an atheist.  Please.

Hitler believed the God dictated nature, and that nature dictated that there should be no restriction on birth of a species or "race" because it was only by over-running and over-burdoning their environment that a "race" would come into the necessary conflict that would cause the mass death that would make a race stronger.

In Mein Kampf, he makes it perfectly clear that he believed that attempts to live within the confines of a people's resources (such as birth control), attempts to limit population, and to manage resources, would lead to the death of a people...and that it was GODS WILL that they should be whiped out if they did such a thing.

He believed in unrestrained birth for the unborn and unrestrained struggle and death for those who were born (I still get chills when this philosophy is echoed by Scar in The Lion King.  Scar's "Be Prepared" interlude is one of the most chillingly evocative description of Hitler's mindset that I have seen.)

This is not the sort of thing Darwin talked about as a matter for social policy.

Of course, evolutionary biology recognizes that some species have a fitness adaptation of limited or small birth rates with a higher level of nurture and resource investment in the resulting young...and some have a fitness of adaptation of astronomical birthrates with little or no nurture for the resulting young.  Both are adaptations that make a given species succeed or fail in a given niche and condition.

It's depressing to me that such a potentially intelligent guy as this Fundy only feeds his mind with Coulter-crap and the like.

I suppose it's the liberal's fault.  We no doubt banned some chemical that makes reading high-quality material too expensive.