Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Founder of Apartheid was a Missionary and Creationist

I came across this fact watching NOVA on the coelacanth last night. Here's the relevant quote from the linked transcript:

NARRATOR: Malan was a creationist and the father of South African apartheid. Aiding Smith in his evolutionary research was dangerous politically, but South Africa's prestige was at stake, and Malan welcomed the publicity.

From Encarta (copyright below, Bill -- chill, man!):

Malan, Daniel François (1874-1959), prime minister of South Africa (1948-1954), and architect of the country's former racial policies. Born in Riebeek West ( in what is now Western Cape province), of Afrikaner parents, Malan became a minister in the Reformed Churches. After serving as editor of an Afrikaans nationalist newspaper, he turned to politics. Elected to parliament in 1918, he rose to cabinet rank in 1924 and in 1940 assumed leadership of the National Party. Campaigning on a program of white supremacy, Malan won power in 1948 and immediately began to enact the doctrines of apartheid, or racial separation. These laws remained the basis of South African policy until their repeal in 1991 and 1992. After Malan resigned in 1954, his program was carried forward by another National Party member, Johannes G. Strijdom.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® Encyclopedia 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Here's what About.com has to say about Malan.

Interestingly, he and his party supported the Nazis in WWII. From the linked article above:

In 1939 Hertzog and Smuts disagreed over South Africa's role in the war brewing between Britain and Germany. Hertzog wanted South Africa to be neutral, Smuts wanted to support Britain. Malan and his GNP were all for supporting Germany.

Now, of course, that doesn't mean that creationism = fascism in some philosophical or necessary sense. That'd be just silly -- and wrong.

But what it does explode is this moronic idea that being religious somehow innoculates one from fascism, or that paying attention to "origins" in a religious sense guarantees good moral behavior.

And that explodes the real reason behind the b.s. promulgated by the Discovery Institute (see: Wedge Document) on finding a moral fixed star after all this bad "materialism."

Would love to hear what our Thornblogging friends have to say, as per usual.

6 Thoughts:

Blogger A.T. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 5:44:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

If you'd read the Wedge Document, you'd know who touts it.

If you'd like to distance yourself from the Discovery Institute, be my guest! You'll be welcomed with open arms.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:03:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Allen, if you have time, check out the other links today on this decision. I'd read the decision, if I were you. Are you sure you want to be associated with this kind of propaganda?

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:06:00 PM  
Blogger A.T. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:58:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Read the Wedge Doc and judge for yourself. It is totally relevant to the discussion because that is what drives "ID," or "creationism by other means." Evidence and argument certainly don't drive it, not by a long shot.

We could avoid all of this by simply talking about how best to encourage ethical behavior, of course, as I suggested, as that's the key issue.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:27:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

You are right that simply identifying a bias, institutional or not, doesn't constitute a refutation of an argument.

That's not what's been happening here, just to be clear.

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:35:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home