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).

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).

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 Jewish question was assimilation, 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.) 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 in 1933 the German people had not lived normal life for twenty years. And so Adolf Hitler did not need his revolution. He did not have to break the laws in Haeckel’s country, in principle, but to constitute them.

Today, developmental biologists are anticipating legislation of laws that would define the do’s and dont’s. 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.

You may read more on the matter 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

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

“This scientist said, proudly, that if his brain tumor recurred…[]“.

So they get one nutty scientist and imply that he’s representative of scientists in general? Anyone ever take Logic 101 in college? This is so obviously a fallacy. I’m a “scientist” and many of my friends are. This guy is absolutely NOT a representative of scientists in general.

“I think the most valuable contribution of Expelled is to point out that ideas are not morally neutral. ”

Scientific facts are morally neutral though. Nuclear science was not responsible for creating the atomic bomb. People were. Science just tells you “what is”, not how to use the information. To confuse the two is a big mistake.

It is the same with Evolution/Darwinism. Whether you accept the theory or not is regardless. The theory was put forward to explain mechanisms seen in nature. It’s biology. It is not a social system, has nothing to do with society or culture, nor does it have anything whatsoever to say on how we should live or treat one another.

The whole idea of “social darwinism”, which Expelled seems to presume was a cause for the Holocaust, is not related at all the the biological theory, nor natural science in general. Most scientists vehemently disagree with (or rather, “don’t believe in”) Social Darwinism — as it would lead to a very unpleasant society indeed.

Nothing in the biological theory of evolution lends itself to imply that the theory should somehow be applied to society or culture. (Again, this is true whether you believe in evolution or not — and scientific theories NEVER say anything about “what should be”, they are simply explanations of observed phenomena). In addition, what Hitler did was an attempt at “Artificial Selection”, not “Natural Selection”. There’s nothing “natural” about genocide. It is terrible, disgusting and morally reprehensible.

To attempt to tie what Hilter did to the biological theory of evolution/Darwinism is an attempt in vain. There is no connection. And to say that Hitler was influenced by Darwinism seems to be a similar conspiracy theory. Hitler wrote a lot. Mein Kampf is his most well known writing, and among all the people and philosophies he quotes throughout, he never mentions Darwin, evolution or natural selection. Not once. (I actually looked up this info after hearing this claim)

Ben Stein should be ashamed of himself.

Thanks for the helpful review. I always feel bad for being the party pooper- a movie that is genuinely supportive of Christian perspective is so rare that Christians inevitably get fired up about it, and then here I am saying, “Yes, but…”

To me, it comes down to the age old playground argument- if you’re going to be on my side, make sure you play well! Don’t be a hindrance. It sounds like there is significant potential for polemic movies like this one to be detrimental rather than constructive to the Christian cause.

Ben Bartlett’s last blog post..Proactively Vulnerable

patrick’s last blog post..Ben Stein’s Expelled — Science Ain’t Expained Nothin’

We can be tempted to support films like this simply because they claim to support the Christian worldview, but it is imperative that we keep in mind that the medium through which Truth is delivered always shapes that truth. If the medium is self-conscious propaganda, what hope can their be for the Truth to emerge from it unscathed?

Perhaps for Joe and Sally Six-pack this movie will be a wake up call to these issues that have been floating around for years. And perhaps Stein has in a small way popularized the issue and made it accessible to the average Joe – but besides that it doesn’t make any NEW or significant contribution to the debate. My recommendation is save your money, rent it on DVD if you have a free, rainy Saturday afternoon.