Glenn Beck slanders Charles Darwin

[Moonbat]

We already know this nutjob knows no limits to his calumnies...and he's already well off the beam as far as being a wingnut lunitard.

But today, on this afternoon's ridiculous screed, Professor Dumbermore tried to suggest that Charles Darwin was, and I quote, "the father of racism"...

That's right, you heard me.

The oft repeated but truth-less conflation of "social Darwinism" with Charles Darwin, rears it's ugly head again. You may have thought this had been debunked by now and that most people capable of rational thought would not have to put up with this nonsense... (pandering idiots like Ben Stein excepted of course)

Discuss...

I suggest a starter with "the dozens"

Glenn Beck is so crazy or dumb that...

[Jo van]

He was the "Half-cousin" of the "Father of Racism" wasn't he ..?
Francis Galton took Darwin's ideas and tried to apply them to Humankind, and came up with "Eugenics", which was every bit as accurate as "Phrenology"
Sadly, many racists still believe you can tell a lot about a man from the ratio of his nose length to his brow ridge, or whatever other stupid formula they used...
or by holding a photometer somewhere near the skin....
Hitler was a "fan" I believe..?

Anyone who's ever read a good book with a green cover, and a bad book with a green cover, will realize the fallacy of that thinking...

The bit that I'm always amazed by, is that Darwin got the "relationship" between species right, just by observation,
and 150 years later, they confirmed those relationships using DNA analysis.

Am I the only one that finds that a little bit "spooky"...?

[savona]

We already know this nutjob knows no limits to his calumnies...and he's already well off the beam as far as being a wingnut lunitard.


Glenn Beck is so crazy or dumb that...

Only those who take him seriously are deranged themselves

[ambien girl]

We already know this nutjob knows no limits to his calumnies...and he's already well off the beam as far as being a wingnut lunitard.


Glenn Beck is so crazy or dumb that...

Only those who take him seriously are deranged themselves

Thank you. Savona...an accurate depiction of what I have read.

I am not sure what you are referencing, Moonbat. Could you maybe cite your sources?

I would like to know exactly what I am supposed to debating.

[Moonbat]

It was an episode of Glenn Beck that aired today so it may be some time before it hits the blogs or Fox Watchers sites...

He said in no uncertain terms that Charles Darwin was the father of racism.

Simple is as simple does.

[ItsMargo]

Here's a link:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-beck-c ... ay-racism/

[ambien girl]

Here's a link:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-beck-c ... ay-racism/

Thank you, ItsMargo...

He says Charles Darwin is a racist and then says, "back in a minute"? With the pinched mouth posed for dramatic affect?

And then the clip ends?

He makes no sense!

I am struck speechless with the speech:

government, commerce, religion and science

Has any relevance to what he had to say! Or how they concretely relate!

[Humphrey Osmond]

A little digging will show where he probably got this from.

Discovery Institute Creationist/ID hacks (in particular: David Klinghoffer) sowing disinformation (which is kinda' the only talent Beck has) in a vain attempt to discredit evolution (by lying, ..par).

He published his speculation concerning Darwin and the Nazis on the Huffington Post site (Beck was once affiliated with them), here's an excellent refutation by P.Z. Myers:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... _mix_t.php

Another rebuttal appeared on Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-r ... 01718.html

Of note (from the above article):


Now, let me say, speaking now as a historian of ideas, I don't think you can or should say definitively that there are no links. Apart from anything else, something had to lead to Hitler and the Nazis, and if you eliminate Luther and eliminate Darwin and eliminate -- well, you know the tune -- then you end up with no causes at all leading to the horrendous movement that overtook Germany in the 1930s. I would be very surprised if the anti-Semitism of Christianity and the racism of the nineteenth century had no causal role. However, before you rush to conclude that the IDT crew is correct and that significant links can be found between Darwin himself and Hitler, there are a number of points that should be considered.

First, the members of the Darwin family were fanatical anti-slavery campaigners. In the early part of the nineteenth century, when the young Darwin was growing up, this was the family obsession. And it rubbed off on him. On the voyage of the Beagle, he had a horrendous row with his captain, Robert Fitzroy, over slavery in South America. And during the American Civil War he was a strong supporter of the North, precisely because of the slavery issue (many Brits supported the South because of the links with the cotton trade). Descent of Man, for all that it did reflect the concerns of a middle-class Victorian gentleman, was no clarion call to racial superiority. Darwin was explicit that when the races met and (as so often was the case) the non-Europeans suffered, it came not from intellectual or social superiority but because non-Europeans caught the strangers' diseases and suffered and died.

Second, while it is true that many used Darwin's ideas to promote specific social policies, and that some used them to promote aggression -- the pre-World War One German general Count Friedrich von Bernhardi argued strongly for the moral imperative of Germany fighting and destroying competitors -- there were others who promoted very different ideas. The co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, was an ardent socialist and feminist in the name of Darwinism. The Russian Prince Peter Kropotkin argued for anarchy in the name of Darwin. And Vernon Kellogg, associate of then future president Herbert Hoover, argued for pacifism on Darwinian lines. Wars kill the best and brightest and that is biologically stupid.

So you can argue that Darwinism, a bit like Christianity, supported a plethora of quite contradictory positions. This being so then, a bit like Christianity, one might ask just how genuine and important was the support being offered. There was a propaganda value, true. But genuine links are another matter. (I should say that since I am criticizing the IDT folk for thus tying Darwin to Hitler, I am no less critical of Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion tying Jesus to Hitler. The truth, as always, is much more complex than it appears in such simplistic analyses.)

Finally, when you turn to Hitler himself, the story is murky. To put the matter politely, he was not a well-educated man. There is no evidence he studied Darwin's writings or much about them. At most, he was picking stuff up off the street or from the barroom or from the doss house where he lived in Vienna before the War. And when you look at Mein Kampf in more detail, the story seems less straightforward. Just before the apparently Darwinian sentiments quoted above, he wrote: "All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning." What he is really on about is the Jews. Darwin would have been appalled at such a connection.

So take my advice. Reject IDT as bad theology, bad philosophy, and bad science. And while you are at it, reject it as bad history. Charles Darwin was not to blame for Adolf Hitler.

It's important to also consider what was meant by Darwin's use of the word "race", ...by context it's really quite clear that he presaged the concept of "gene" and "genome", ...which were not known of at that time. Lucky for us, ...Darwin's work led us to a better understanding that includes genes and genomes.

He makes no sense!

None at all, ...but then again, ...making sense is not something Glenn Beck is known for.

[Moonbat]

Beck knew all about the date in advance

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129449408&sc=fb&cc=fp

Beck has repeatedly said that he was dumbstruck when he realized that he had requested his rally permit for the anniversary of King's 1963 speech during the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

It must have been "divine providence" that he unwittingly settled on that day, he told his radio audience. He later said he was out to "reclaim" the civil rights movement.

It must have been "divine providence" that he unwittingly settled on that day, he told his radio audience. He later said he was out to "reclaim" the civil rights movement.

Baloney, says Alexander Zaitchik, author of the recent book Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance, who acknowledges that he takes a cynical view of the talk show host's motivations.

Zaitchik recalls listening to Beck last November talk about the difficulty in securing a permit for the Aug. 28 date because of its historic significance.

"He only later claimed it was divine providence," Zaitchik says. "He has certainly tried to jump on the 'coincidence' and claim the civil rights legacy for himself."

For those who have watched or, like Zaitchik, researched, Beck's career, the civil rights mantle doesn't settle easily.

"This is the guy who has a whole history, going back in Top 40 radio, of using racist jokes, racist humor, making fun of police brutality, and with a very deep hatred for black social justice activists," Zaitchik says. Beck stood by his claim that Obama is a "racist" and has frequently referred to the president's initiatives — including health care — as "reparations."

[belinda]

He later said he was out to "reclaim" the civil rights movement.

Not an original thought, i read it elsewhere (Boston Globe online possibly?) but worth repeating:

"Reclaim" from whom?

Who stole it? Where did they hide it?

Does he actually understand the phrase "civil rights movement"?

i guess he flunked history.

[Edit to add this quote, same US source as i suggested above:

Eighty-four percent of Tea Party supporters think their views reflect those of most Americans, according to that same polling. (Perhaps they’ve watched too much of Glenn Beck’s coverage of their events.) That’s just silly. Among a larger sample of US adults, only 25 percent thought Tea Party sentiments typified the majority’s thinking, while only 18 percent actually called themselves Tea Party supporters.

In sum, Zernike’s book leaves me more confident in the idea that the real effect of the Tea Party won’t be in the middle of American politics. Rather, it will be within the Republican ranks, where the newly minted activists are engaged in a power struggle with the establishment.

It’s a struggle that may well drag the GOP even further out of the mainstream. If so, some who celebrated the protests as the start of an anti-Obama backlash may find the movement has boomeranged on them in ways they never imagined.

One may hope, one may hope.]

.