= 
*
The producers have debunked all these claims already.
I also have to say that apparently SciAm hasn’t heard of Social Darwinism. That is tied to eugenics very well. Whether the passage is selectively quoted or not, the point is still valid.
"thusly"
AAAARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHH
3. Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints§ 282. thusly
The adverb thusly was created in the 19th century as an alternative for thus in sentences such as Hold it thus or He put it thus. It appears to have been first used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish. The word has subsequently gained some currency in educated usage, but it is still often regarded as incorrect. A large majority of the Usage Panel found it unacceptable in an earlier survey. In formal writing, thus can still be used as in the examples above; in other styles, expressions such as this way and like this are more natural.
— The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
Sorry. Pet peeve.
They really have a small amount of nitpicking cr*p to denounce the film. Looks like their fishing for more to make their counter punch. Maybe, Bill Maher can help.
|
Holy Moley. Having just seen the film (we just got back), I am astounded at the utter vacancy of Scientific American's use of this argument.
Any fair-minded person who watches Stein's film will realize:
Stein or his interviewees say--on at least two occasions, and at some length, that Darwinism does not automatically lead to Nazism. The most elegantly stated, in my opinion, is the gentleman who acknowledges the time and space differences between Hitler and Darwin, and then he says something akin to "Darwinism is not a sufficient philosophy to lead one to Nazism, but it is a "necessary" one."
The film explicity states that not every Darwinist turns into a Nazi...but it does show how people like Margaret Sanger and Hitler freely used Darwin's ideas.
Additionally, the quote in question is used after the effect of Darwin's philosophy played itself out--in essence, the words used by Darwin that were adopted by the "pure race" advocates.
The quote takes up probably about 15 seconds of the film, after the evidence had been presented that Darwin's ideas formed the foundation for those actors in history.
In my opinion, this "objection" by SA, especially after having seen the flick, is incredibly weak.
Notwithstanding the report's conclusions, its appendix contains copies of e-mails and other documents in which Sternberg's superiors and others specifically argued against penalizing him for his ID views.
Interesting that such arguments were even needed in the first place. It sounds like a debate was indeed raging. This revelation only supports the filmmakers' primary contention that IDers are not tolerated by the short-sighted, snobbish elites of the "scientific" community.
=
