Hold the presses: Collins is being used

I wonder what he can sue them for. Is it illegal to use someone's statements in a misleading way? If so, Salvador would get the death penalty :-)

I am happy that Dr. Collins's name has been cleared, and apology for blaming him before all the facts came to light is in order. Just one more illustration of creos dishonesty (as if as proof of itwas needed)

I wonder what he can sue them for.

Sounds like they pulled a Dawkins Information Challenge on him, and he's doing the right thing. I hope he's able to more publicly make his case in the near future.

Of course, if repudiating Coral Ridge is doing the right thing, then ex hypothesi not repudiating them would have been doing the wrong thing.

Yay Collins :) I'm happy that we haven't lost a decent populiser to the Dark Side.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Anton/Suttkus -

Have answered your quite lengthy posts a few days after - see Understanding Charles Darwin and Vaccine/Smallpox threads.

I'm so glad to hear this. I just knew there was some mistake.

Of course, he's on record as wondering how atheism can philosophically lead to moral behavior. So Dawkins, Dennett and Wilson, by his reasoning, should be the ones twisting his words. How odd that it's fellow Christians like Dembski and Kennedy doing it instead.

He's still culpably naive. Anyone who has more than five minutes involvement with the crevo issue learns that any engagement with creationists will be exploited ruthlessly and if necessary dishonestly. Rather than rail ignorantly against Dennett, Wilson, and Dawkins, Collins needs to educate himself about his co-religionists.

Of course, he's on record as wondering philosophically how atheism can lead to moral behavior. So Dawkins, Dennett and Wilson, by his reasoning, should be the ones twisting his words. How odd that it's fellow Christians like Dembski and Kennedy doing it instead.

Wow, I lose internet access for a day and I come back to find people jumping all over a man for his personal religious beliefs and assuming the worst of character over involvement in an ID scam, instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt, when these people know full well that CreationIDists will use any and everything they can possible take out of context to their advantage and, ironically, admonish Dr. Collins for making such a mistake.
This is one of the reasons I find certain anti-religious sentiments on this site extremely distasteful and off-putting. Kudos for cooler heads who insisted on waiting to see the nature of Dr. Collins' "contribution" before making snap judgements and armchair finger-waggling.

In addition to not being a scientist, I'm also not a lawyer, but I wonder whether they had him sign a release. If not, they may argue that he is a "public figure." I hope he confronts them both to protect his reputation and to spotlight their tactics.

This is one of the reasons I find certain anti-religious sentiments on this site extremely distasteful and off-putting.

That's funny, I find the anti-religious sentiments here sadly few and far between.

He's still culpably naive. Anyone who has more than five minutes involvement with the crevo issue learns that any engagement with creationists will be exploited ruthlessly and if necessary dishonestly. Rather than rail ignorantly against Dennett, Wilson, and Dawkins, Collins needs to educate himself about his co-religionists.

Maybe we can send Francis and Allen "Mr. Civility" McNeill to "Know Your Creation Peddlers" Training Camp.

"This is one of the reasons I find certain anti-religious sentiments on this site extremely distasteful and off-putting." "That's funny, I find the anti-religious sentiments here sadly few and far between."

Yes, jumping all over Collins prematurely was a bad thing, and apologies should be given where appropriate. However, unlike some other sites -- *ahem* -- at least the Panda's Thumb crew has the integrity and the nerve to stand up say "we were wrong."

Thanks to Karen, Mike, Nick et al. who suggested that we wait for all the facts on this one. I'm disturbed by how quickly some people assumed that Collins was willing to participate in a smearfest. He has a clear record of statements condemning ID and describing himself as a theistic evolutionist (though not necessarily in those words). Even if you don't like how he attempts to reconcile his religion and his science, at least give him credit for being pretty low-key and reasonable about it. I also think that it's harsh to condemn him as being ultra-naive. If Kennedy in fact clip-mined a video on a completely different topic, that is sooooo low that even a fairly savvy person might be blindsided by it. Anyone who know Francis even slightly knows that he is pretty politically astute, but also a straight shooter and a genuinely nice guy, maybe too nice to anticipate such slimy tactics.

I think everyone needs to take a look at this again:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

Surely all Christians should be above the tactics used by Keziah productions to trick Richard Dawkins. In my opinion, what was done to him was not a very Christian act. I'm still surprised he hasn't sued !

It will be interesting to see what Kennedy comes up with. I'm sure there will be some very selective editing !

I'm sorry, but "assume" and "conclude" are two different things.

The press release said "The program features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin's theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler's ovens." It listed Collins as one of those authors. People concluded, not assumed, that he participated as advertised.

Shame on me for not sticking with the old heuristic that everything DJK says is a lie. And it's relieving to know Collins is not insane. His general dismissal of ID should have been a bigger clue. But it is not the sign of "guilty until proven innocent religion-bashing" to draw the conclusion that a man who wears his credulity on his sleeve and is in print claiming he doubts atheists can have a reason to be moral might be willing to proffer Nazism as a cudgel when the program description claims that is what he does.

I'm not a lawyer, but I opine he could get a court of competent authority to issue a cease and desist order regarding distribution of the video.

Jacob Bronowski is the best counter to this perverse creationist lie. I'm getting ready to show my students the "Knowledge and Certainty" episode of his "Ascent of Man" series. Should be required viewing for all citizens. In it this Polish Jew very forcefully shows that this notion that science produced the Nazis is a (lets see, I already used the word "perverse") obscene lie. Couldn't get any more 180 degrees about.

I saw this episode live in 1975 as the Ascent of Man was being shown on PBS. It made a lasting impression on me. As Bronowski walked out into the pond of ashes, we sat stunned.

Never again, he said.

One must stand against wrongness. Thus..

Creationism is wrong. We must stand against it. United, arms linked.

Creationism is wrong. We must stand against it. United, arms linked.

Frankly, I think many of the current battles between atheists and fundamentalists have really been started by the scientific community.

If you look at the history of the intelligent design movement, which is now only 15 or 16 years old, you will see that it was a direct response to claims coming from people like Dawkins.

I have trouble with the argument that altruism can be completely explained on evolutionary grounds. Evolutionists now universally agree -- I think Dawkins and Wilson and Dennett would all agree -- that evolution does not operate on the species. It operates on the individual.If that's the case, then it does seem that in any given circumstance, the individual's evolutionary drive should be to preserve their ability to reproduce at all costs.

All of these altruistic things seem to be a universal feature of human beings. And yet, they're a scandal to evolutionary biology because they motivate people to do things that are exactly the opposite of what evolution would require.

According to Collins, the moral law applies exclusively to human beings: Though other animals may at times appear to show glimmerings of a moral sense, they are certainly not widespread, and in many instances other species' behavior seems to be in dramatic contrast to any sense of universal rightness.

Having established that our moral sensitivities are God-given, Collins finds himself in a position to infer the nature of our Creator: And if that were so, what kind of God would this be? Would this be a deist God, who invented physics and mathematics and started the universe in motion about 14 billion years ago, then wandered off to deal with other, more important matters, as Einstein thought? No, this God, if I was perceiving him at all, must be a theist God, who desires some kind of relationship with those special creatures called human beings, and has therefore instilled this special glimpse of Himself into each one of us. This might be the God of Abraham, but it was certainly not the God of Einstein.... Judging by the incredibly high standards of the Moral Law ... this was a God who was holy and righteous. He would have to be the embodiment of goodness.... Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief.

After finding himself powerless to detect any errors in the philosophizing of C.S. Lewis (a truly ominous sign), Collins describes the moment that he, as a scientist, finally became convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ: On a beautiful fall day, as I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains ... the majesty and beauty of God's creation overwhelmed my resistance. As I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful and unexpected frozen waterfall, hundreds of feet high, I knew the search was over. The next morning, I knelt in the dewy grass as the sun rose and surrendered to Jesus Christ.

On the question of why God simply doesn't provide better evidence for his existence: If the case in favor of belief in God were utterly airtight, then the world would be full of confident practitioners of a single faith. But imagine such a world, where the opportunity to make a free choice about belief was taken away by the certainty of the evidence. How interesting would that be?

Frankly, I think many of the current battles between atheists and fundamentalists have really been started by the scientific community. If you look at the history of the intelligent design movement, which is now only 15 or 16 years old, you will see that it was a direct response to claims coming from people like Dawkins.

I have trouble with the argument that altruism can be completely explained on evolutionary grounds. Evolutionists now universally agree --- I think Dawkins and Wilson and Dennett would all agree --- that evolution does not operate on the species. It operates on the individual.If that's the case, then it does seem that in any given circumstance, the individual's evolutionary drive should be to preserve their ability to reproduce at all costs.

All of these altruistic things seem to be a universal feature of human beings. And yet, they're a scandal to evolutionary biology because they motivate people to do things that are exactly the opposite of what evolution would require.

Re ""If that's the case, then it does seem that in any given circumstance, the individual's evolutionary drive should be to preserve their ability to reproduce at all costs.""

Hmmm. What about worker bees in a hive? Worker ants in a colony? For that matter, the cells in a multicellular organism?

Henry

There are definitely atheists, like Dawkins, who are essentially "evangelicals" for their lack of faith.

Because these very visible atheists wield clout as scientists, there has been a reaction against science and against evolution on the part of religious people.

There are definitely atheists, like Dawkins, who are essentially "evangelicals" for their lack of faith. Because these very visible atheists wield clout as scientists, there has been a reaction against science and against evolution on the part of religious people. Note that Collins does not agree with this reaction (see the rest of this paragraph and the next, on p.2 of the interview)--- he seems simply to be stating that it happened. And, indeed, a number of the ID people have a chip on their shoulder against people like Dawkins. I don't see why these statements from Collins are at all controversial. They are not, AFAICT, intended to let ID off the hook.

Minus the first sentence, I find this paragraph uncontroversial.

Collin's claim as to the history of ID flies in the face of how it actually developed, or did you miss that whole trial at dover thing? ever think that Collins might be projecting on to Dawkins exactly what he should be projecting on to ID? Ever consider that's exactly what you are doing as well?

This is simply unhistorical. The ID movement was a direct reaction to Edwards vs. Aguillard; its replacement of 'creation science' was a response to the court decisions barring teaching of creation from school.

Pretending that altruism is a 'scandal in evolutionary biology' is nonsense. It's an active and fertile area of research.

However, it's true that ID was kick-started when Phil Johnson read "The Blind Watchmaker" and decided to write his own screed to counter it. Hence "Darwin on Trial". That's the sense in which I think Collins is correct: ID started as a direct response by Johnson to Dawkins' book.

oh, and "Blind Watchmaker" was a screed?

uh, yeah, right.

I have trouble with the argument that altruism can be completely explained on evolutionary grounds. Evolutionists now universally agree --- I think Dawkins and Wilson and Dennett would all agree --- that evolution does not operate on the species. It operates on the individual.If that's the case, then it does seem that in any given circumstance, the individual's evolutionary drive should be to preserve their ability to reproduce at all costs.

Um, you completely missed the point of my post.

Nah, Spitzer. You just blew it and Sir TJ called you on it.

oh, and "Blind Watchmaker" was a screed?

In Allen McNeill's class this summer, Allen taught his students that Phil Johnson's book and Dawkins' book were comparable (although Johnson's book was "maybe even worse in some parts").

There really is a group of scientists who simply can not abide criticism of religion. They have made up their minds that all this creationist nonsense is a "scientific controversy" and the "theory" and its proponents should only be addressed on the scientific "merits" of the "theory."

Politically naive is a generous term for describing these scientists, as some are surely intentionally blinding themselves (and others) with regards to the ugliest facts.

Johnson is only one part of this. ever read the wedge document? ever study the history of "Pandas and People"? you have a very narrow view, that isn't supported by the weight of evidence.

Dawkins was publishing long before Johnson ever even thought to do so.

Dawkins no more assists the IDers than this very blog does. If you want to think that atheists further the cause of evangelism, go right on ahead, but your logic is as faulty, as saying that evangelicals promote atheism.

Re a passage from Collins' interview which has been quoted:

"If the case in favor of belief in God were utterly airtight, then the world would be full of confident practitioners of a single faith. But imagine such a world, where the opportunity to make a free choice about belief was taken away by the certainty of the evidence. How interesting would that be ?"

I guess we should blame modern molecular biologists - Collins included - for making the world so uninteresting. After all, they took away our free choice to believe that proteins were the basis for inheritance, that exactly 3 nucleotides form a codon, that DNA is directly transcribed into proteins etc. by the certainty of their evidence.

Really!

Regards, HRG.

So PZ thinks that Collins should sue?

And who ALL should he sue?

Would that include all the posters lying about him, PZ?

The ones who found him guilty until proven innocent?

And what about the Darwin descendants like Matthew Chapman? Could they sue for Darwin being accused of being a racist?

Oh, wait...truth is a defense is such cases...

And after all, Darwin was simply a product of his time who spewed ideas like savage races being exterminated, women being intellectually inferior, vaccination weakening the race, survival of the fittest, etc.

I chuckle at this apology. I suggest that peopel are a little slower at condemnation. Too many on Panda's Thumb are too keen to condemn any who have any kind of faith as if they were anti-science. I am afraid some are no better than creationists!

I suggest more measured responses in future.

I will now duck and avoid the flack - I get it from both sides!

oh, and "Blind Watchmaker" was a screed? uh, yeah, right.

— Sir_Toejam

I chuckle at this apology. I suggest that peopel are a little slower at condemnation.

— Michael Roberts

See above. Collins is correct about the founding of the ID movement; of course, as soon as it was sparked, all the creation science folks shifted over to it.

Uh, no. Of Pandas and People was edited to change 'creation' to 'intelligent design' in 1989.

Collins is correct about the founding of the ID movement; of course, as soon as it was sparked, all the creation science folks shifted over to it.

— B. Spitzer

Again, if you think that the statements of, say, Dawkins or Dennett or Provine or Sagan don't help to motivate the IDers, then why are the IDers constantly repeating quotes by these folks?

— B. Spitzer

If you double-check, I think you'll find that happened in 1987, the same year as Edwards v. Aguillard.

B. Spitzer wrote: Collins is correct about the founding of the ID movement; of course, as soon as it was sparked, all the creation science folks shifted over to it.

This is not true. Answers in Genesis, a larger organization than the DI, rejects ID. It isn't Christian enough. Many adopted the DI's rhetoric as an expedient way to get around legal issues (they hoped), but it has always been just a stalking horse for the culture warriors of creationism.

B. Spitzer wrote: Again, if you think that the statements of, say, Dawkins or Dennett or Provine or Sagan don't help to motivate the IDers, then why are the IDers constantly repeating quotes by these folks?

Because they are attacking their enemies, and their most effective opponents have been people like those. What do you expect, that they're going to make a big deal out of misrepresenting some random schmoe nobody has ever heard of?

An offense, the proper object of judicial process, is anything in the doctrines or practice of a Church member professing faith in Christ which is contrary to the Word of God. The Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly, together with the formularies of government, discipline, and worship are accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice.[Emphasis mine]

The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man,and the good name of our neighbour. [Emphasis mine]

Seriously, does anybody here believe that religious people aren't put off at all by the anti-religious sentiments of, say, Dawkins or Dennett? I'll admit that I don't know of any systematic study of this, but, just based on anecdotal evidence, religious folks seem to react pretty negatively to those sentiments. Sorry, but any time a highly visible scientist links science with atheism, it's going to help generate a backlash against science. Why the effort to paint Dawkins et al. as lily-white in this regard?

OK, but I'm not talking about "misrepresentation" here. I'm talking about scientists making anti-religious statements which the ID folks are using to rally the troops. In many cases, no misrepresentation is required. (For a change.) Seriously, does anybody here believe that religious people aren't put off at all by the anti-religious sentiments of, say, Dawkins or Dennett? I'll admit that I don't know of any systematic study of this, but, just based on anecdotal evidence, religious folks seem to react pretty negatively to those sentiments.

Because they are attacking their enemies, and their most effective opponents have been people like those. What do you expect, that they're going to make a big deal out of misrepresenting some random schmoe nobody has ever heard of?

Actually, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect of extremists, demagogues and con-artists: take the least credible, or most threatening-looking, of his opponents, quote that opponent's most off-the-wall statements (even if he's an irrelevant academic like Ward Churchill), and pretend this loony really represents ALL of the demagogue's opponents, thus making the demagogue, extremist or con-artist look like the only voice of reason. Bush and his chums do this all the time, especially when they say "Everyone who opposes our Iraq policy is a peacenik wussy traitor," and totally ignore their most intelligent critics who don't fit into that B&W picture.

(BTW, Can anyone tell me exactly how effective Dawkins has really been as an opponent of creationism? "Visible" does not equal "effective." Are America's Christian majority really listening to an obnoxious atheist?)

Spitzer:
"I doubt that what he actually said would strike you as heretical if it had come from someone less religious."

The point is of course that he has written a book named "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" and so gets rightly criticised for errors in science. Here he discuss evolution and gets it wrong.

The book should have been named "The Language of Science: A Believer Presents Evidence for Science" if he was serious about discussing his and others science in a religious context. And he would still be criticized on errors in science. :-)

"Does this mean that Dawkins started the ID movement? No, and that is nowhere implied anywhere in anything that I've written."

But you are commenting on Collins claim "If you look at the history of the intelligent design movement, which is now only 15 or 16 years old, you will see that it was a direct response to claims coming from people like Dawkins." It does imply so.

What you are saying is that Johnson's reaction made the movement important. Collins says otherwise.

"Sorry, but any time a highly visible scientist links science with atheism, it's going to help generate a backlash against science."

How isn't this a a smear on free discussion, and so a critique on religion and creationism? And specifically here, why should we criticize Dawkins but not Collins?

Creationism is a religious idea promoted for religion. It is impossible to avoid discussing that dimension when discussing creationism of any kind, even teleological theistic creationism/evolution.

This Kennedy guy is absolutely terrible, I've seen
him spew creationist lies from his PULPIT. He's a self
parody and I don't know how anyone could attend his church much less have any respect for him as a supposed christian. He's almost as bad as Phyllis Schafly

Can anyone tell me exactly how effective Dawkins has really been as an opponent of creationism?

"BTW, Can anyone tell me exactly how effective Dawkins has really been as an opponent of creationism?"

How did this thread go from an apology to Collins to a critique of Dawkins?

Oh yes, Gerard remarked early on that: "Anyone who has more than five minutes involvement with the crevo issue learns that any engagement with creationists will be exploited ruthlessly and if necessary dishonestly. Rather than rail ignorantly against Dennett, Wilson, and Dawkins, Collins needs to educate himself about his co-religionists."

Gee Bee.

I'm not criticising anything Dawkins said. I am merely pointing out that creationists, like other dishonest extremists, will indeed pretend that the least credible evolutionists represent their opponents, and ignore or belittle those evolutionists whose voices are more likely to persuade the masses.

(If the creationists wanted to attack their most effective opponents, they'd be gunning for the Vatican and the Lutherans, among other mainstream churches, whose acceptance of evolution and real science will probably prove more persuasive to the non-science-educated Christian majority.)

Andrea: "You and I, to different extents probably, may disagree with Dawkins's argument, but why should we shut him up?"

Torbjörn Larsson: "How isn't this a a smear on free discussion, and so a critique on religion and creationism?"

Glen Davidson: "What needs to be done is that the whole picture be given to those intelligent and open enough to listen. However, many will not, and Kennedy will continue to simply lie from his pulpit, quote-mining and misrepresenting the entirety of evolutionary science/scientists through his selective quotes. That's why we tend to focus on the blatant liars like Kennedy, and not the far more honest Dawkins, for instance."

Oh yes, Gerard remarked early on that: "Anyone who has more than five minutes involvement with the crevo issue learns that any engagement with creationists will be exploited ruthlessly and if necessary dishonestly. Rather than rail ignorantly against Dennett, Wilson, and Dawkins, Collins needs to educate himself about his co-religionists."

... if the public gets in their collective head the idea that science is attached to this or that metaphysical perspective, that's a misunderstanding of what science is and where its boundaries are.

It is interesting to compare this discussion with what is currently going on at Uncommon Descent. It seems to me that with the arrival of Denyse O'Leary there has been an increased effort to corral anybody religious into the ID stable. This effort is directed towards both the fundamentalist (prototype: YECs) as well as the more moderate Christian (prototype: Catholics).

The overall strategy by ID camp, as I see it, is to separate religious folks who understand evolution from the mainstream by threatening everybody with buzzwords like atheist, undirected, meaningless, etc. I am tempted to call that their New Strategy: Wedge II.

Sorry, but any time a highly visible scientist links science with atheism, it's going to help generate a backlash against science. Why the effort to paint Dawkins et al. as lily-white in this regard?

I think it would be worthwhile to examine this statement in detail.

Let's start with this:

Is Dawkins linking science with atheism?

-what do you mean here? that dawkins links science with a lack of religion? In that sense, would you disagree?
Or do you mean he links it with some psuedo-religion you view as "atheism"?

I claim you do the latter: It's you who have Dawkin's "evanglezing" and linking science with an "anti-relgion".

again, you impose a perspective on the issue that is colored by your own perceptions.

the "backlash against science" is being generated by the very idiots we fight against, not by fence sitters, not by the VAST majority of scientists themselves.

it's YOU who are not seing MY point here.

I hope it is clearer now.

Sorry, but any time a highly visible scientist links science with atheism, it's going to help generate a backlash against science. Why the effort to paint Dawkins et al. as lily-white in this regard?

This Kennedy guy is absolutely terrible, I've seen him spew creationist lies from his PULPIT. He's a self parody and I don't know how anyone could attend his church much less have any respect for him as a supposed christian. He's almost as bad as Phyllis Schafly

I actaully saw this sermon (I often watch just to hear his anti-evolution statements) but this one seemed particularly nasty. I'm actually surprised that Stephen J. Gould's family didn't comment on it.

I almost fell out of my chair. A public television interviewer had just asked Sir Julian Huxley, a leading defender of evolution until his death in 1975, why he thought Darwin's idea caught on so quickly. His answer astonished me. "[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Darwin's On the Origin of Species]," Huxley said, "was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores." "Mores," of course, is a secular term for morals.

I pray sometimes, or sometimes just listen quietly and pray internally. I am not against prayers. I figure there's a bit of theist inside even atheists, and a bit of atheist inside even theists. As I said, I have my own private beliefs and hopes in God and an afterlife, just as Deists and philosophical theists and people of many different religions have since time immemorial.

Interesting bit of obfuscation, Toejam. First you offer to "examine this statement [that Dawkins tries to link science with atheism] in detail;" then you ask the question: "Is Dawkins linking science with atheism?" Then you hem and haw and rephrase the question a couple of times, and then completely fail to provide an answer. No quote from Dawkins himself on the subject? That's sounding kinda evasive...

This is one of the reasons I find certain anti-religious sentiments on this site extremely distasteful and off-putting.

I'm not criticising anything Dawkins said. I am merely pointing out that creationists, like other dishonest extremists, will indeed pretend that the least credible evolutionists represent their opponents, and ignore or belittle those evolutionists whose voices are more likely to persuade the masses.

Popper's Ghost wrote:

Too bad you don't find the anti-atheist sentiments expressed by Collins and in this thread to be extremely distasteful and off-putting.

How do you know that Wheels doesn't feel that way? Do you just make that assumption of anyone who expresses distaste for fundie-atheist rhetoric?

"his own screed" applies to Darwin on Trial. It doesn't apply to The Blind Watchmaker, AFAICT.

How do you know that Wheels doesn't feel that way?

Do you just make that assumption of anyone who expresses distaste for fundie-atheist rhetoric?

I know that he doesn't express it.

If he doesn't express an opinion, then how can you know he has it? Are you a mind-reader?

It's not just an assumption that such people (you being a prime example) are hypocrites.

Really? All I see is an assumption, spat out with no supporting logic or evidence.

If he doesn't express an opinion, then how can you know he has it? Are you a mind-reader?

Really? All I see is an assumption

We interrupt the regularly scheduled flame war to bring you this:

ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler

New York, NY, August 22, 2006 ... The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, "Darwin's Deadly Legacy."

After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy's project, Dr. Collins said he is "absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and inflammatory," he told ADL.

ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement:"This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.

"It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of 'Christian Supremacists' who seek to "reclaim America for Christ" and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law."

The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book "Evolution's Fatal Fruit: How Darwin's Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions."

A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program "features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin's theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler's ovens."

I'd say Dawkins is just a convenient target for frothing fundies. It's not as if they would be any less vocal, active, or dangerous if no scientist ever even mentioned God, because their problem is bigger than that. Their problem is that the findings of science at least marginalize and at most refute a great many of their religious beliefs. Evolution is particularly problematic, because it undermines their notion of special creation. At the same time, they are increasingly culturally marginalized. So they gather in their Coral Ridges for mutual reassurance and lash out to varying degrees at all perceived threats.

As long as the social/political agenda they fund is kept in check, I'm happy to let them have their megachurches and persecution complexes.

As long as the social/political agenda they fund is kept in check, I'm happy to let them have their megachurches and persecution complexes.