Now that is real faith

[Aqueous Id]

explain
:shrug:

By way of example:

Between 1926 and 1928, the AES held contests for the best sermon preached on the subject of eugenics. In addition to the nine folders labeled AES Sermon Contest, the collection includes 45 submissions filed under the name of the minister, preached before Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Unitarian, and Jewish congregations across the country.​

http://www.amphilsoc.org/mole/view?docId=ead/Mss.575.06.Am3-ead.xml

An except from contestant #43:

From Mount Sinai, God is thundering his commandment against bowing down to idols, a sort of worship which an unobserving man might say would do no harm, but which God knew would poison the bodies, minds and morals of not merely the generation that sinned, but of the generations to come. God is warning most solemnly that the iniquity of the fathers will run in the blood of the coming generations, and is pointing out that terrible law of heredity, so clearly established now by scientists, that blood will tell, that criminality, insanity, idiocy, tuberculosis, alcoholism, and other vices, whose strong corruption inhabits our germ-plasms, leap from parents to children, damning the offspring before it is even born. We may slam our Bibles shut and exclaim, "We will have none of this Biblical doctrine," but at once God speaks to us again, this time through the microscope, or through the statistics of the notorious Jukes family, thundering again that the iniquity of the fathers rushes on in the blood into the generations following, and curses the children before they ever see the light of day.​

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/view_image.pl?id=791

 

[Balerion]

Really? I have been informing just about half of Sciforums that they have been wrong, but we don't ban half of the users....

Would you ban a theist for stating his/her religion's tenets??? He/she would be obviously wrong, but we don't ban them...

Anyhow, just to stay on topic:

That's not at all what happened. "Hitler was simply Stalin's homeboy and had no problem with the Jews" is not a religious tenet, nor is it an accurate portrayal of history. The comment was made, as is usually the case with Wynn, to stir the pot. And then when called on it, she says I was "doing just the kind of thing the Nazis did." Really? Were the Nazis notoriously rigorous historians?

In history there will always be losers or winners. Often times the losers completely disappear from the stage of history. We can cry or be happy about it, a moralistic approach is completely irrelevant and meaningless. Everything what humans do I considere natural, thus eliminating each other certainly is, no matter in what form it happens. The strongest survives, the weakest certainly doesn't write history. Just look at whom we consider our biggest heros. Not to mention one's hero is another's evil man (Genghis Khan for one, he is worshiped in Mongolia today) Killing each other is just in our nature, humans are the only spieces who kill for something else than food or territory. We are killers, get used to it. We don't have to like it, nevertheless it is a fact. Now once we get used to this fact, we might even see the upside of it, that generally the better/stronger wins, thus overall, this process has an evolutionary effect on the whole population, improving the gene pool. Just like in the animal world...

So you're arguing in favor of, essentially, Social Darwinism. Despite the fact that there is no established correlation between military strength and genetic fitness, nor is there one between those who are disenfranchised and genetic weakness.

Your argument is ideology dressed up in the vague accouterments of science, nothing more. You posit that the victor must be the strongest, which is a flawed concept.

Generally watching the Game of Thrones one could learn a lot about the world. For one, who is right? Who should be on the throne? Well, nobody is right and the strongest should be the king.

As an avid fan of the show and longtime reader of the books, I can promise you that you've drawn the wrong conclusion. Joffrey is a psychopath, so there are obviously better choices. But how much better for the realm was Robert? Yeah, he was obviously a better human being that the Mad King, but he was half the leader, both in compassion and competency, that Prince Rhaegar was. So Robert was stronger, but look at where his victory left the realm.

Might does not make right, and George R.R. Martin never implied it to be.

Here is a quote, the king's mother teaching the would be princess about life:

"“Look at me,” he fumes to Sansa through wine-stained lips after retreating from the battlefield. “Stannis is a killer. The Lannisters are killers. Your father was a killer. Your brother is a killer. Your sons will be killers someday. The world was built by killers. So you’d better get used to looking at them.”

Yes, because the depressed queen, freshly keen of her son's true nature and her inability to control him, is the voice of the realm. Please. She's spent 20 years married to a whoremonger whose true love died while he was off trying to win the throne for her. She's a nihilist, and trying to break the optimistic Sansa's spirit.

 

[lightgigantic]

By way of example:

Between 1926 and 1928, the AES held contests for the best sermon preached on the subject of eugenics. In addition to the nine folders labeled AES Sermon Contest, the collection includes 45 submissions filed under the name of the minister, preached before Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, Baptist, Unitarian, and Jewish congregations across the country.​

http://www.amphilsoc.org/mole/view?docId=ead/Mss.575.06.Am3-ead.xml

An except from contestant #43:

From Mount Sinai, God is thundering his commandment against bowing down to idols, a sort of worship which an unobserving man might say would do no harm, but which God knew would poison the bodies, minds and morals of not merely the generation that sinned, but of the generations to come. God is warning most solemnly that the iniquity of the fathers will run in the blood of the coming generations, and is pointing out that terrible law of heredity, so clearly established now by scientists, that blood will tell, that criminality, insanity, idiocy, tuberculosis, alcoholism, and other vices, whose strong corruption inhabits our germ-plasms, leap from parents to children, damning the offspring before it is even born. We may slam our Bibles shut and exclaim, "We will have none of this Biblical doctrine," but at once God speaks to us again, this time through the microscope, or through the statistics of the notorious Jukes family, thundering again that the iniquity of the fathers rushes on in the blood into the generations following, and curses the children before they ever see the light of day.​

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/view_image.pl?id=791

If having a few theists talking about something renders it their exclusive property I guess that makes the whole of science a subset of religion.
:shrug:

There was a reason I gave you the link - first paragraph.

Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to the manipulation of human populations.[2][3] The origins of the concept of eugenics began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of August Weismann.[4] Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwinism and Social Darwinism.

So again, explain.
:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

And from that definition of Eugenics, how does one arrive at the scientific decision to kill all the Jews?

 

[Balerion]

I don't know how many people have to explain to LG (very slowly) that eugenics had no scientific foundation, but his questions have been answered thoroughly by several people already. Perhaps the issue is that he isn't well educated and doesn't understand the concepts he's arguing, or perhaps he simply doesn't want to admit that he's wrong, but either way all he's doing is asking questions that have already been answered for him.

Eugenics is a pseudoscience. It attempts to cloak bigotry in the jargon of evolutionary biology, just as Intelligent Design attempts to cloak creationism in the jargon of evolutionary biology and cosmology. Just because the proponents of these pseudosciences call it science does not mean that it is science. It is objectively not science.

 

[Balerion]

And from that definition of Eugenics, how does one arrive at the scientific decision to kill all the Jews?

You can't, and that's not the only problem with eugenics. It also makes false assumption about fitness, etc.. It's not a science, it's an ideology.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sorry, son, I wear size 13.

Then I guess that either makes you an american or an ancestor of bigfoot

Pseu-do-sci-ence [soo-do-sahy-uhns
noun
any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance, considered as having no scientific basis.​

Eugenics is an ideology under the guise of science, and has no scientific basis.

Now compare "applied science" ... and it most certainly did have a scientific basis circa 1900

But I'm curious, what "vast tracts" of modern history must I rewrite? That's a conveniently vague statement.

visit the wiki page on eugenics for a brief over view

What an odd way to phrase a question. Why wouldn't you simply have asked if Dawkins was a scientist?

Because we are kind of in the middle of a discussion where science (and the authority of its proponents) begins and ends ... in case you haven't noticed

:shrug:

Is forming a coherent sentence that difficult for you, or were you simply trying to phrase it in a way that you thought might make you appear smarter?

which is why I asked which parts you were having problems with : understanding what is an "aspect of science" or a "presentation"
:shrug:

No, people who understood that it was unscientific and ideological opposed it from the very beginning. It wasn't scientifically sound even at the time. Yes, you could convince an idiot (just as you can today with ID) with its jargon, but it was junk even at the time.

Then I guess you have to explain how one can undergo an applied science without the support of the scientific community ....

Now, I'm guessing here, but I think you're trying to say that Dawkins' work in the field of evolutionary biology is akin to Davenport's "work" in eugenics, correct? The mistake you make here is assuming that eugenics was the best theory we could form at the time with the knowledge we had. That clearly is not true. It was then as it is now a pseudoscience. It's popularity among its proponents is irrelevant.

My point is that whatever points you think makes a majority of Dawkins ideas scientific can be used to justify eugenics as scientific .... and whatever points you think renders eugenics unscientific can equally be applied to Dawkins.

The reason is that both are examples of ..." science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it."

You can't float both boats though, so to speak.

I must have thwarted your plot, because you asked two very purposed questions in an attempt to lead me down a certain path, yet you've abandoned the effort and resorted to non-sequiturs such as commenting on my triteness and the way I ask questions.

Well done, me!

all you have done is state that eugenics was not a science circa 1900 .... on the authority of a few minor criticisms at the time ... Can you think of any scientific idea that was bereft of relevant criticism.
Gawd ... suddenly the scope of science appears remarkably diminished

BTW, I'm pretty sure you've never read a page of Dawkins' writing.

If you can't see a strong connection between atheism and Dawkins I'm pretty sure you are just pretending to be stupid again

]The difference is that you're not pretending.

But what can you possible mean by "difference" ... and how can "pretending" possible render your statements coherent.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

And from that definition of Eugenics, how does one arrive at the scientific decision to kill all the Jews?

When the errors caused by " science at the highest levels (being) no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but in fact profoundly vulnerable to it." make their way as far as application, you have everything you need.

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know how many people have to explain to LG (very slowly) that eugenics had no scientific foundation, but his questions have been answered thoroughly by several people already. Perhaps the issue is that he isn't well educated and doesn't understand the concepts he's arguing, or perhaps he simply doesn't want to admit that he's wrong, but either way all he's doing is asking questions that have already been answered for him.

Eugenics is a pseudoscience. It attempts to cloak bigotry in the jargon of evolutionary biology, just as Intelligent Design attempts to cloak creationism in the jargon of evolutionary biology and cosmology. Just because the proponents of these pseudosciences call it science does not mean that it is science. It is objectively not science.

The interesting aspect of the eugenics movement is that it was mainstream science. The Passing of the Great Race was reviewed favorably in the journal Science, by MIT geneticist Frederick Adams Woods. Every genetics textbook of the era advanced the case of eugenics, showing how genetics could be used to solve social problems, if we simply believe everything geneticists say, give them lots of money, and not worry too much about individual civil rights, and the poor training and track record of geneticists in that area.

and more to the point, the intro of the article which is spot on ....

he longterm support by leading research scientists, basing their claims and beliefs on scientific evidence, for the discredited Eugenics movement from the 19th well into the 20th century (until WW2) is a classic case of the interdependence of science and cultural beliefs. Fully established and accepted scientific views were used as the basis for legislation and court decisions, not that long ago, and here in the U.S. (as well as in most other eurocultural societies), which sought to strengthen the superior "white race" and discourage intermarriage and reproduction of the other "inferior races". What has changed since is not so much the science as the way it is connected to other forces in society.

 

[Balerion]

Then I guess that either makes you an american or an ancestor of bigfoot

Or maybe you're just a very small man.

Now compare "applied science" ... and it most certainly did have a scientific basis circa 1900

Applied science: the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems; "he had trouble deciding which branch of engineering to study"

Eugenics is not the application of scientific knowledge to practical problems. Eugenics has no scientific basis. And you can say it had a scientific basis in 1900 all you like, but that doesn't make it true. It most certainly did not, not even at the time.

visit the wiki page on eugenics for a brief over view

Perhaps this is part of the problem. You see, I don't get my information from wikipedia. The fact that you seem to derive all of your understanding of any particular subject from a wiki page is probably why you have no understanding of any particular subject being discussed, particularly in the sciences.

Because we are kind of in the middle of a discussion where science (and the authority of its proponents) begins and ends ... in case you haven't noticed

That's an evasion, not an answer. What does "does Dawkins present an aspect of science" mean if not "Is Dawkins a scientist?" I'm trying to pin down what you're actually asking me.

which is why I asked which parts you were having problems with : understanding what is an "aspect of science" or a "presentation"

On their own, neither. But the way you phrased the question, it's not clear what you're trying to ask. You could have simply asked me "Is Dawkins a scientist," and the fact that you didn't, and instead opted for this clumsy offering, was very confusing. If that's all you were asking, then I answered your question, and I suggest you get to whatever point you were trying to make.

Then I guess you have to explain how one can undergo an applied science without the support of the scientific community ....

Again, an awkwardly phrased sentence. Undergo an applied science? Undergo means "to pass through, experience," so I guess I can't explain how one would undergo an applied science. I'm again left to guess at what you're really trying to say. Well, if my guess is correct, this clusterfunk of a sentence is supposed to read along the lines of "Then how can something be an applied science without being scientific?" which wouldn't be a terribly dumb question on its own. The answer is simply that it can't be. Which is why I--and everyone else with a brain--has tried to tell you that it isn't an applied science. It's a pseudoscience. You seem to grant wikipedia authority here, but even the wiki page puts "applied science" in quotation marks, indicating that the definition is merely what it is claimed to be, rather than what it really is. It also appears to be an either/or definition in the wiki article, as it says it is an applied science "or bio-social movement."

My point is that whatever points you think makes a majority of Dawkins ideas scientific can be used to justify eugenics as scientific .... and whatever points you think renders eugenics unscientific can equally be applied to Dawkins.

How so? Give me an example of this.

The reason is that both are examples of ..." science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it."

I don't know who that barely-intelligible quote is attributed to, but if that's their grammar and not yours, then I suggest you disregard anything they tell you (though I suspect it's yours). At any rate, science isn't vulnerable to prejudice. Science kills prejudice. Even when ego gets involved, as it did when the Human Genome Project began to splinter, the science wins out and everyone eventually employs the best method regardless of their preconceptions. That's what science is. No good scientist can hold onto those preconceptions.

all you have done is state that eugenics was not a science circa 1900 .... on the authority of a few minor criticisms at the time ... Can you think of any scientific idea that was bereft of relevant criticism.

Another straw man. It wasn't "minor" criticism, it was major criticism. It criticism of the ideology at a fundamental level. It was never good science.

Gawd ... suddenly the scope of science appears remarkably diminished

Only to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

BTW, I'm pretty sure you've never read a page of Dawkins' writing.

I notice that you failed to address this charge.

 

[lightgigantic]

Applied science: the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems; "he had trouble deciding which branch of engineering to study"

hence

Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to the manipulation of human populations.

Eugenics is not the application of scientific knowledge to practical problems.

You don't know the problems eugenics was faming itself to solve?

Eugenics has no scientific basis.

already gave a link to you previously explaining exactly how it did have such a basis.

And you can say it had a scientific basis in 1900 all you like, but that doesn't make it true. It most certainly did not, not even at the time.

Similarly you can say it doesn't have a scientific basis all you like but until you start qualifying your statements they are meaningless
:shrug:

Perhaps this is part of the problem. You see, I don't get my information from wikipedia. The fact that you seem to derive all of your understanding of any particular subject from a wiki page is probably why you have no understanding of any particular subject being discussed, particularly in the sciences.

I guess not being burdened by providing links for one's statements makes it easier to make shit up

That's an evasion, not an answer. What does "does Dawkins present an aspect of science" mean if not "Is Dawkins a scientist?" I'm trying to pin down what you're actually asking me.

It means he is an active part of the scientific community ... much like ideas of eugenics were most certainly an active part of the scientific community circa 1900

On their own, neither. But the way you phrased the question, it's not clear what you're trying to ask. You could have simply asked me "Is Dawkins a scientist," and the fact that you didn't, and instead opted for this clumsy offering, was very confusing. If that's all you were asking, then I answered your question, and I suggest you get to whatever point you were trying to make.

I think your tirade has gone on long enough.

Again, an awkwardly phrased sentence. Undergo an applied science? Undergo means "to pass through, experience," so I guess I can't explain how one would undergo an applied science. I'm again left to guess at what you're really trying to say. Well, if my guess is correct, this clusterfunk of a sentence is supposed to read along the lines of "Then how can something be an applied science without being scientific?" which wouldn't be a terribly dumb question on its own. The answer is simply that it can't be. Which is why I--and everyone else with a brain--has tried to tell you that it isn't an applied science. It's a pseudoscience. You seem to grant wikipedia authority here, but even the wiki page puts "applied science" in quotation marks, indicating that the definition is merely what it is claimed to be, rather than what it really is. It also appears to be an either/or definition in the wiki article, as it says it is an applied science "or bio-social movement."

Which once again brings you back to the task of rewriting modern history to shape the (re)presentation of eugenics to your liking....

How so? Give me an example of this.

Regardless of what definition you provide fro science it shouldn't prove too difficult to place dawkins and eugenics in the same category

I don't know who that barely-intelligible quote is attributed to,

errr ... I just linked it about half a dozen times in this thread ... but hey I guess your attention has been focused elsewhere ...

but if that's their grammar and not yours, then I suggest you disregard anything they tell you (though I suspect it's yours). At any rate, science isn't vulnerable to prejudice. Science kills prejudice. Even when ego gets involved, as it did when the Human Genome Project began to splinter, the science wins out and everyone eventually employs the best method regardless of their preconceptions. That's what science is. No good scientist can hold onto those preconceptions.

Unfortunately we don't see your ideas supported by history .... in fact given that you haven't even read the quote as it has appeared several times in this thread already it might be that your real problem is short and long term memory cognition
:shrug:

Another straw man. It wasn't "minor" criticism, it was major criticism. It criticism of the ideology at a fundamental level. It was never good science.

Once again, history, disagrees
Previous link given already

Only to someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Just plying the same nonsense definition you are insisting on. If the appearance of a criticism renders a claim non-scientific then suddenly much of science could be housed on a single shelf as opposed to several libraries
:shrug:

I notice that you failed to address this charge.

I noticed you did too

(BTW try tracking down the source for the quote I gave and you might get a pleasant surprise)

 

[spidergoat]

When the errors caused by " science at the highest levels (being) no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but in fact profoundly vulnerable to it." make their way as far as application, you have everything you need.

:shrug:

Science did correct them, they just didn't want to listen. They didn't like that whole peer review thing.

 

[Balerion]

At this point, LG is trolling.

LG: "The sky is yellow."
Everybody Else: "No, it's blue."
LG: "So obviously it's yellow." :shrug:
EE: "...no, see, look: It's blue."
LG: "[quoting EE]'...no, see, look: It's blue.[endquote] Clearly, yellow."

 

[spidergoat]

In what contextual arrangement can one consider reliably what is sky and what is not? At what time of day do you propose to measure the light, and with what ruler?

 

[Aqueous Id]

If having a few theists talking about something renders it their exclusive property I guess that makes the whole of science a subset of religion.
:shrug:

Your characterization of these as theists (a term they would balk at) numbering only a few, is off by 1433%, just counting the published sermons. This number is statistically significant. It indicates a trend throughout society to justify racism on Biblical grounds. Of course you know that, you're just either actually in denial or else feigning denial to evade the issue.

Racist fundamentalism posing as science was not only echoed in the eugenics sermons of traditional churches. The racists took an interest in the Mormon program of divine procreation and polygamy "to replenish the white stock lost in the Great War". They penetrated fringe groups like anarchists, mystics and cults, among the families with brand recognition like Kellogg and Carnegie, and they found refuge in the Klan, giving divine justification for lynchings, Jim Crow policies, anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathizing.

What they all had in common was their literal interpretations of the Bible.

They never went away. We've seen them surge, even in the face of the Holocaust, under the auspices of John Birch, Joe McCarthy and George Wallace, in reaction to the Civil Rights movement, and after the unholy marriage of of Billy Graham and Richard Nixon, resurrecting as the Religious Right of the Reagan-Bush years, then again marshaling faith-based initiatives under George W Bush and finally emerging from the closet in tour de force in reaction to the Obama election, then as the TEA party and their pundits Limbaugh, Hannity, FOX News and the like. In parallel with this sordid history, from the era of the Scopes trial until present day they have usurped genetics and replaced it with creationism and its various incarnations, currently aliased as intelligent design. For this, and from the eugenics experience, they have coopted the craft of fabricating pseudo science.

This is why they reject the notion of humans evolving from lower animals, or natural law in place of divine law. Eugenics became a runaway train, but before it derailled it spawned everything from American white supremacy to Nazi Nordic supremacy.

This is why it just won't go away. It's a parasitic hybrid that feeds on the two great insecurities of the American psyche - presumably wounded in the Civil War - insecurity of the material self, recast as white supremacy, and insecurity of the transcendent self, recast as racist fundamentalism. Consequently we see the same trends alive and kicking today

The current study investigated the relations among fundamentalism, authoritarianism, homosexual bias, and racist attitudes. Thirty men and 90 women from a small midwestern university participated. Results indicated a positive correlation among the 4 bias variables: fundamentalism, authoritarianism, homosexual discrimination, and racism. Fundamentalism was positively correlated with authoritarianism, which in turn was positively correlated with racism and homosexual prejudice.​

Attitudes Concerning Religion: Relationships Among Fundamentalism, Authoritarianism, Racism, and Homosexual Prejudice, The International Honor Society in Psychology

 

[lightgigantic]

Science did correct them, they just didn't want to listen. They didn't like that whole peer review thing.

And thats precisely the problem - when you have geneticists who not only don't want to listen but circle the wagons around their cultural prejudice then peer reviewing won't really help you ...or to put it in a modern context, how do you propose that one peer review dawkins et al claims about religion (or even the broader aspects of cosmogony and biology that it rests upon)

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

At this point, LG is trolling.

LG: "The sky is yellow."
Everybody Else: "No, it's blue."
LG: "So obviously it's yellow." :shrug:
EE: "...no, see, look: It's blue."
LG: "[quoting EE]'...no, see, look: It's blue.[endquote] Clearly, yellow."

JDawg when he encounters astute questioning -

ME : How do you propose to answer these issues?
JDawg : How is that a coherent sentence? What do you mean by "propose" and "issue" ... and could you possible have chosen a more vague word than "answer"?
ME : oookaayyy (backs away slowly, avoiding eye contact)

:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Your characterization of these as theists (a term they would balk at) numbering only a few, is off by 1433%, just counting the published sermons. This number is statistically significant. It indicates a trend throughout society to justify racism on Biblical grounds. Of course you know that, you're just either actually in denial or else feigning denial to evade the issue.

Racist fundamentalism posing as science was not only echoed in the eugenics sermons of traditional churches. The racists took an interest in the Mormon program of divine procreation and polygamy "to replenish the white stock lost in the Great War". They penetrated fringe groups like anarchists, mystics and cults, among the families with brand recognition like Kellogg and Carnegie, and they found refuge in the Klan, giving divine justification for lynchings, Jim Crow policies, anti-Semitism and Nazi sympathizing.

What they all had in common was their literal interpretations of the Bible.

They never went away. We've seen them surge, even in the face of the Holocaust, under the auspices of John Birch, Joe McCarthy and George Wallace, in reaction to the Civil Rights movement, and after the unholy marriage of of Billy Graham and Richard Nixon, resurrecting as the Religious Right of the Reagan-Bush years, then again marshaling faith-based initiatives under George W Bush and finally emerging from the closet in tour de force in reaction to the Obama election, then as the TEA party and their pundits Limbaugh, Hannity, FOX News and the like. In parallel with this sordid history, from the era of the Scopes trial until present day they have usurped genetics and replaced it with creationism and its various incarnations, currently aliased as intelligent design. For this, and from the eugenics experience, they have coopted the craft of fabricating pseudo science.

This is why they reject the notion of humans evolving from lower animals, or natural law in place of divine law. Eugenics became a runaway train, but before it derailled it spawned everything from American white supremacy to Nazi Nordic supremacy.

This is why it just won't go away. It's a parasitic hybrid that feeds on the two great insecurities of the American psyche - presumably wounded in the Civil War - insecurity of the material self, recast as white supremacy, and insecurity of the transcendent self, recast as racist fundamentalism. Consequently we see the same trends alive and kicking today

The current study investigated the relations among fundamentalism, authoritarianism, homosexual bias, and racist attitudes. Thirty men and 90 women from a small midwestern university participated. Results indicated a positive correlation among the 4 bias variables: fundamentalism, authoritarianism, homosexual discrimination, and racism. Fundamentalism was positively correlated with authoritarianism, which in turn was positively correlated with racism and homosexual prejudice.​

Attitudes Concerning Religion: Relationships Among Fundamentalism, Authoritarianism, Racism, and Homosexual Prejudice, The International Honor Society in Psychology

eugenics was the possession of geneticists well before whatever you can cite in the name of theism

:shrug:

 

[spidergoat]

And thats precisely the problem - when you have geneticists who not only don't want to listen but circle the wagons around their cultural prejudice then peer reviewing won't really help you ...or to put it in a modern context, how do you propose that one peer review dawkins et al claims about religion (or even the broader aspects of cosmogony and biology that it rests upon)

:shrug:

Then it's not really science! Dawkin's claims about religion aren't science either, they are simply logic and reason.

 

[Sarkus]

Then it's not really science! Dawkin's claims about religion aren't science either, they are simply logic and reason.

LG seems to think that if some things that Dawkins says are deemed "scientific", and if he is classified as a "scientist" then everything he does falls under the banner of science and should be scrutinised as such.