Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[1robin]

Is there a particular verse/passage/anything similar in your holy text(s) that prevents you from accepting ToE? And is it specifically because of human evolution, or the whole concept of animals evolving altogether?

I know of no modern Christian scholar that denies evolution. Long before the ToE, many great theologians had interpretations of Genesis that allowed for both long ages and evolution. You will mainly find less educated Christians that deny that evolution exists. However we all usually deny that the theory is a complete one. The bible said evolution occurs within limits 3000 years before Darwin was born, so the idea that it occurs was first a theological one. I think what educated Christians deny is the theory it contains the idea that materialism explains genetic reality from A - Z.

1. Evolution occurring is biblical and was recorded long before any scientist discovered a fossil.
2. The ToE and the fact that evolution occurred are two independent issues.
3. It is the idea that the fact that evolution occurs is conflated into an A - Z theory which is not even remotely proven but is still used as an argument against God despite this that most of us question.
4. Actual evidence and the bible are virtually in perfect harmony. The bible and theories piled on top of evidence have some inconsistencies.

 

[Sapiens]

I know of no modern Christian scholar that denies evolution.

So all those folks who like to pretend that they work at creationist and intelligent design think tanks and that like to thump their chests about both their Christian beliefs and their educational credentials are what? Not Christians? Not Scholars? Neither?

Long before the ToE, many great theologians had interpretations of Genesis that allowed for both long ages and evolution.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please.

You will mainly find less educated Christians that deny that evolution exists.

That's the truth.

However we all usually deny that the theory is a complete one.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. They are never "complete." A complete theory is an oxymoron, if you are to engage in this conversation you should know that.

The bible said evolution occurs within limits 3000 years before Darwin was born, so the idea that it occurs was first a theological one.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please, also some details as to what the "limits" you speak of were/are.

I think what educated Christians deny is the theory it contains the idea that materialism explains genetic reality from A - Z.

I think that you are cutting off a bit more than you can swallow when you attempt to speak for all educated Christians. I think it is a trademark of most educated people to reject supernatural explanations, they just say, "we don't know yet" rather than engage in an argument from ignorance.

1. Evolution occurring is biblical and was recorded long before any scientist discovered a fossil.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please.

2. The ToE and the fact that evolution occurred are two independent issues.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please.

3. It is the idea that the fact that evolution occurs is conflated into an A - Z theory which is not even remotely proven but is still used as an argument against God despite this that most of us question.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please.

4. Actual evidence and the bible are virtually in perfect harmony. The bible and theories piled on top of evidence have some inconsistencies.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So what if Hitler's ideas were influenced by Darwinian ideas? That has no effect on whether the theory of evolution is true or not. You might as well be arguing that nuclear energy isn't possible because of what happened at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. "Bad things have happened because of it. Therefore, it isn't true." That's a fallacy. Someone could just as easily argue that since religion has caused people to kill other people, religion is wrong and God doesn't exist. See what's wrong with that reasoning?

What my story shows is that evolutionists are generally dishonest about the history of the holocaust. As a sign of generally rampant dishonesty amongst evolutionists, as explained before. Your reply is also dishonest about the history of the holocaust.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What kind of comprehensive decisions are you referring to? I don't really understand.

Indeed, you are completely ignorant about how any choosing works, you have demonstrated that.

 

[Looncall]

And so what about your emotional basis, does this constitute a sincere effort to consider how organisms are chosen to be the way they are, or is this just prattling a few prejudices? Is it in any sense a fair and honest answer how freedom is relevant in the universe?

At what decision then did the neanderthals go extinct? The whole point of a decision is that there are several ways which it can turn out. That means the decision can also turn out so that neanderthals don't go extinct.

To refer to many variables then means, many independent decisions coincidentally resulting in something.

Why would there only be these many simple decisions, and not more comprehensive decisions taking place
?

What you are calling decisions are nothing of the kind. They are just consequences of the properties of the universe. No intelligence is involved in a ball rolling down a hill. No-one decided that the dinosaurs would become extinct; it was just circumstance.

Religion rots the mind with teleological thinking.

 

[metis]

What my story shows is that evolutionists are generally dishonest about the history of the holocaust. As a sign of generally rampant dishonesty amongst evolutionists, as explained before. Your reply is also dishonest about the history of the holocaust.

Linking evolutionary theory and the Holocaust is where the problem lies.

 

[Parsimony]

Your reply is also dishonest about the history of the holocaust.

What about my reply was dishonest?

 

[1robin]

So all those folks who like to pretend that they work at creationist and intelligent design think tanks and that like to thump their chests about both their Christian beliefs and their educational credentials are what? Not Christians? Not Scholars? Neither?

Well what makes a person a scholar is quite elastic. I was of course using my definition. I know of some very smart laymen Christians who reject evolution as whole, I know of some stupid Christians with degrees who do, what I have never seen is a Christian who has gained respect (including mine) for his scholastic prowess who denies evolution on the whole. Ravi does not, Craig does not, White does not, Lennox does not, etc...
I know some very sharp creationists who deny evolution as a whole but they are not credentialed, I have no idea who runs the general category of creationist institutions (whatever they are) at all. I have followed professional debate for almost 20 years and know of know well credentialed, educated and, respected Christian who denies evolution has occurred. This is necessarily restricted to what I am aware of but it is a huge slice of what exists.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please.

Maimonides and some of the general Cabalist writings for certain plus some church fathers ( I believe Augustine was one). If you want an actual example one of the best is the fact no official Hebrew calendar ever included pre-Adam creation days on any calendar. They leading theory is that they considered the days prior to Adam as none Earth related time frames. A good book on that issue is Schroeder's "The science of God".

That's the truth.

I find it odd that 100% of what is reliable is what agrees with the non-theist to a non theist and 100% of what is unreliable is theistically suggestive. Quite convenient.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. They are never "complete." A complete theory is an oxymoron, if you are to engage in this conversation you should know that.

I was discussing complete enough to justify the conclusion which is drawn. The evidence does justify claiming things change over time. It in no way justifies that life came from non-life, is all descended from a common ancestor, or even that Dinosaurs produced birds (even though the last one is complete enough to have at least plausibility). The theories relevance in a theological debate is if it challenges theology. The only way ToE has a challenge relevant to theology is if it is A - Z explanation and that theory is almost entirely lacking in evidence.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please, also some details as to what the "limits" you speak of were/are.

This verse seems clear and clean to me.

The Sixth Day: Creatures on Land
24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."…

This is an since X then Y type of statement. Since God began life with all it's necessary pre-conditions now nature can bring forth changes to the basic body plans.

I think that you are cutting off a bit more than you can swallow when you attempt to speak for all educated Christians. I think it is a trademark of most educated people to reject supernatural explanations, they just say, "we don't know yet" rather than engage in an argument from ignorance.

I would have thought that what is true in my experience was the context here. No one knows what every member of any large group thinks. I meant my experience as a person almost obsessed with professional theistic debates. I can not think of a single published, respected, Christians scholar in a relevant field which denies evolution occurs.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please.

You asked for and received this above.

Some clear, clean evidence if you please.

That was not really an empirical statement. The ToE comes in more forms it seems than the reality it is supposed to represent. From tree models, bush models, to forest models, punctuated equilibrium, cataclysmic, common descent, and so on. Those models and the theory it's self are quite a bit more aggressive that the simple fact that genetic variation occurs over time (which is all the evidence and the bible suggest). It is a pound of evidence (which mostly I accept) and a ton of theory (which I have every reason to be suspicious of).

Some clear, clean evidence if you please.

Again not really an empirical claim.
Some clear, clean evidence if you please.[/QUOTE] Even as bloated and over reaching as the current ToE is, even then it is not relevant. To be relevant to theism it must be an A - Z explanation and many have already attempted to make it so. All the way from cosmic evolution, through chemical evolution, and even abiogenesis. To make evolution relevant to theism you need to show a bang to life chain of events with only materialistic explanations. You do not have to do that, but until you do yelling evolution is only a confirmation of the bible.

 

[1robin]

Linking evolutionary theory and the Holocaust is where the problem lies.

It would be hard to link genetic evolution with the Holocaust but social Darwinism issues deducted from it would be relevant.

 

[metis]

It would be hard to link genetic evolution with the Holocaust but social Darwinism issues deducted from it would be relevant.

But that can only be done if one cherry-picks and distorts evolutionary theory and then applies it to the Holocaust. "Social Darwinism" is an application of the ToE that ignores other factors, such as the cooperative element found within a species and often between species. OTOH, the Holocaust was fascism prone to using genocide. Yes, one could argue Hitler's and the NAZI's emphasis on power could lead to genocide, but that's not intrinsic to the ToE.

 

[1robin]

But that can only be done if one cherry-picks and distorts evolutionary theory and then applies it to the Holocaust. "Social Darwinism" is an application of the ToE that ignores other factors, such as the cooperative element found within a species and often between species. OTOH, the Holocaust was fascism prone to using genocide. Yes, one could argue Hitler's and the NAZI's emphasis on power could lead to genocide, but that's not intrinsic to the ToE.

Let me change my statement a bit. Social Darwinism could explain (A) genocide or holocaust type event. The one that actually occurred is better accounted for by other means. I was only trying to say that social Darwinism is relevant to behavior issues. Without doing any injustice what so ever to rational deductions from evolutionary ideas, they can be used to justify the greatest goods or the worst evils. The biggest tragedy given naturalism is having no objective standard by which to determine which Darwinist theories are justified or unjustified. Actually Hitler did claim massive amounts of social Darwinist reasons for his actions and on materialism they are hard to fault. However with God and his objective moral standard it is easy to condemn Hitler even if he is consistent with nature.

 

[metis]

Let me change my statement a bit. Social Darwinism could explain (A) genocide or holocaust type event. The one that actually occurred is better accounted for by other means. I was only trying to say that social Darwinism is relevant to behavior issues. Without doing any injustice what so ever to rational deductions from evolutionary ideas, they can be used to justify the greatest goods or the worst evils. The biggest tragedy given naturalism is having no objective standard by which to determine which Darwinist theories are justified or unjustified. Actually Hitler did claim massive amounts of social Darwinist reasons for his actions and on materialism they are hard to fault. However with God and his objective moral standard it is easy to condemn Hitler even if he is consistent with nature.

Again, that only "works" if one takes a blind eye to other factors. There simply is not direct link from the ToE to the Holocaust, but one could use an element of truth and then stretch it to their own ends, much like many do with scripture. For example, one could cite Deuteronomy and the slaughter of peoples that was ordered by God (supposedly) to justify genocide.

Fanatics can justify almost anything if they cherry-pick science or scripture.

 

[1robin]

Again, that only "works" if one takes a blind eye to other factors. There simply is not direct link from the ToE to the Holocaust, but one could use an element of truth and then stretch it to their own ends, much like many do with scripture. For example, one could cite Deuteronomy and the slaughter of peoples that was ordered by God (supposedly) to justify genocide.

Fanatics can justify almost anything if they cherry-pick science or scripture.

I was thinking about your claims about cherry picking and I came upon a weird idea. There is no intentional whole to naturalistic means. I have no burden to adopt all of evolutionary principles in my moral actions. The bible is an intentional whole meant to be taken as a whole. To pick it apart is to violate it's purpose. Nature has no moral intent and any picking it apart violates nothing. IOW why in the world is anyone obligated to build moral systems on 100%, 90%. 50%, or 10% of naturalistic events and principles. For example I am far more justified in adopting the principle of wiping out all individuals who compete with my tribe for resources and do not contribute to my tribe. I also am under no obligation to anything or anyone to adopt in a principle that would inhibit my doing so. This is a case where cherry picking is a valid as any other ideas about how much of a principle I must adopt. This is just another reason in thousands to be glad no society has ever actually acted as if nature is a sufficient basis for moral systems. I do not care who claims we got morality from nature no one actually lives that way.

BTW I think you are a theistic Jewish person. What is your thesis or position here?

 

[metis]

I was thinking about your claims about cherry picking and I came upon a weird idea. There is no intentional whole to naturalistic means. I have no burden to adopt all of evolutionary principles in my moral actions. The bible is an intentional whole meant to be taken as a whole. To pick it apart is to violate it's purpose. Nature has no moral intent and any picking it apart violates nothing. IOW why in the world is anyone obligated to build moral systems on 100%, 90%. 50%, or 10% of naturalistic events and principles. For example I am far more justified in adopting the principle of wiping out all individuals who compete with my tribe for resources and do not contribute to my tribe. I also am under no obligation to anything or anyone to adopt in a principle that would inhibit my doing so. This is a case where cherry picking is a valid as any other ideas about how much of a principle I must adopt. This is just another reason in thousands to be glad no society has ever actually acted as if nature is a sufficient basis for moral systems. I do not care who claims we got morality from nature no one actually lives that way.

BTW I think you are a theistic Jewish person. What is your thesis or position here?

Take a look at my signature at the bottom.

Also, there's a way even for atheists to be completely opposed to genocide, such as we see with Buddhism.

Also, one can have respect for life and not have any religious drift at all. I have not heard or read a single modern scientist who's an atheist or agnostic who says (s)he would support genocide against any group.

 

[Sapiens]

Well what makes a person a scholar is quite elastic. I was of course using my definition. I know of some very smart laymen Christians who reject evolution as whole, I know of some stupid Christians with degrees who do, what I have never seen is a Christian who has gained respect (including mine) for his scholastic prowess who denies evolution on the whole. Ravi does not, Craig does not, White does not, Lennox does not, etc...
I know some very sharp creationists who deny evolution as a whole but they are not credentialed, I have no idea who runs the general category of creationist institutions (whatever they are) at all. I have followed professional debate for almost 20 years and know of know well credentialed, educated and, respected Christian who denies evolution has occurred. This is necessarily restricted to what I am aware of but it is a huge slice of what exists.

Most convenient to have your own definitions. Are you working on your own private language too?

Maimonides and some of the general Cabalist writings for certain plus some church fathers ( I believe Augustine was one). If you want an actual example one of the best is the fact no official Hebrew calendar ever included pre-Adam creation days on any calendar. They leading theory is that they considered the days prior to Adam as none Earth related time frames. A good book on that issue is Schroeder's "The science of God".

There is no evidence presented here.

I find it odd that 100% of what is reliable is what agrees with the non-theist to a non theist and 100% of what is unreliable is theistically suggestive. Quite convenient.

Reliable? I guess. I just said that I agree ... but then it's your tautology ... not mine.

I was discussing complete enough to justify the conclusion which is drawn. The evidence does justify claiming things change over time. It in no way justifies that life came from non-life, is all descended from a common ancestor, or even that Dinosaurs produced birds (even though the last one is complete enough to have at least plausibility). The theories relevance in a theological debate is if it challenges theology. The only way ToE has a challenge relevant to theology is if it is A - Z explanation and that theory is almost entirely lacking in evidence.

Here, once again, is the basic root dishonesty. Abiognesis and evolution are two separate and distinct things, that has been pointed out to you in the past.

This verse seems clear and clean to me.

The Sixth Day: Creatures on Land
24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."…

This is an since X then Y type of statement. Since God began life with all it's necessary pre-conditions now nature can bring forth changes to the basic body plans.

No evidence there.
You asked for and received this above.
[/quote]But there was no evidence provided.

That was not really an empirical statement. The ToE comes in more forms it seems than the reality it is supposed to represent. From tree models, bush models, to forest models, punctuated equilibrium, cataclysmic, common descent, and so on. Those models and the theory it's self are quite a bit more aggressive that the simple fact that genetic variation occurs over time (which is all the evidence and the bible suggest). It is a pound of evidence (which mostly I accept) and a ton of theory (which I have every reason to be suspicious of).

Again not really an empirical claim.

The models and discussion concern the details of exactly how, not the question of did evolution occur.

You have still yet to provide any of the evidence requested.

Even as bloated and over reaching as the current ToE is, even then it is not relevant. To be relevant to theism it must be an A - Z explanation and many have already attempted to make it so. All the way from cosmic evolution, through chemical evolution, and even abiogenesis. To make evolution relevant to theism you need to show a bang to life chain of events with only materialistic explanations. You do not have to do that, but until you do yelling evolution is only a confirmation of the bible.

Again, you are confusing multiple phenomena to create a strawman. This is dishonest, you know (or at least by this time should know) better. You're just playing god of the gaps with materialism, there will always be gaps for you to cram your god into ... however unlikely,

 

[1robin]

Most convenient to have your own definitions. Are you working on your own private language too?

Oh who cares? This was a secondary issue of one point. My standards are very very similar to what determines scholastic excellence because I happen to watch who have excellent credentials granted by academic institutions. Lets stop obsessing on an issue that has nothing to do with evolution.

There is no evidence presented here.

The fact that no Hebrew calendar considers the pre Adam days of creation to be Earth centric 24 hour periods is a fact and fact that has more to do with long geological periods presented in Genesis than any other claim I can possibly think of. I have no idea how any fact could be a greater piece of evidence for my claim.

Let me point out something I have learned after decades of theistic debate. You can make what you wish out of them but their existence is beyond contention.

1. In General non-theists will obsess about every particular of a statement regardless of it's importance or relevance. IMO it is the result of thinking if you were to let the slightest bit of daylight in the whole house of cards crumbles, but feel free to draw your own and convenient explanation.
2. In General an educated theist is the one who is interested in debate in general and the one who will grant anything that can be to spend time on the core issues.

Let me throw in a recent conclusion for you to consider.
I have recently been testing an observation I have made. If you look at laymen titles for debates. Like if you look at lists of UTUBE debate videos. Only non-theists add in the conclusion to the title. A theist says White versus Ehrman for example, the atheist commonly says Ehrman embarrasses White. The theists says Craig versus Krauss, the atheist says the stupid Craig gets humiliated by the brilliant Krauss, etc..
Another is that constant cry made by atheists that theists shy away from debate but instead Christians are who sponsor most professional debates. Only a weak position requires color commentary. Take it for what it's worth.

Reliable? I guess. I just said that I agree ... but then it's your tautology ... not mine.

I am using this post to annunciate several generalities I happen to have noticed are virulent of late. This one is about the convenience of evidence as judged by a non theist. It is similar to the tendencies of Muslims in general. Any historical account convenient to a non-theist appears to be perfectly reliable to them and only those that are convenient to the theist are unreliable. These are just things or patterns you notice after years of being obsessed by debate.

Here, once again, is the basic root dishonesty. Abiognesis and evolution are two separate and distinct things, that has been pointed out to you in the past.

1. The only dishonesty here is the claim of dishonesty. To claim a person lied requires access to motivation that you do not have.
2. Only if you know first my claim was wrong (and you do not even attempt to show that it is), then second you have to show that it was known to be wrong by me and then stated as fact anyway (this you can't know). So the claim to lying is it's self a lie.
3. I even anticipated this well known tactic of trying to subdivide a theory from the relevant reality it represents. The ToE without abiogenesis is no threat nor relevant to a theistic debate, only with creation from nothing, cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, and abiogenesis, plus countless other necessities is it relative to or a threat to theism. I have no interest in the boundaries of a super elastic theory that is stretched or contracted based on convenience. I care about the actual reality is supposedly represents as it is relevant to theism.

No evidence there.

This brings up another trend I have noticed. When no actual defense is required but the person will never admit it I get non-stop demands for evidence without a desire to accept any when given. You asked for evidence that the doctrine exists in Christianity for evolution with limits. The verses I supplied state exactly that. I conclude the demand for evidence was insincere and you either do not understand what you asked or are simply moving the goal posts without justification.

You asked for and received this above.
But there was no evidence provided.

You asked for evidence of a doctrine. I gave the verses that are the clear and simple foundations of the doctrine. If that is not evidence there is no such thing and the word has no meaning.

The models and discussion concern the details of exactly how, not the question of did evolution occur.

Kind of but that is not all they suggest by a long shot. The tree is a model that posits a single ancestor to everything, the forest is a model that has several ancestors to everything. The how is genetic mutation but those models go way way beyond that.

You have still yet to provide any of the evidence requested.

I think otherwise and your only confirming my suspicion that constant requests for evidence and the denial of what is given is a smoke screen.

Again, you are confusing multiple phenomena to create a strawman. This is dishonest, you know (or at least by this time should know) better. You're just playing god of the gaps with materialism, there will always be gaps for you to cram your god into ... however unlikely,

There are far more gaps where science is crammed without justification. Materialism of the gaps is just as unjustified as a God of the gaps argument would have been if I had made one.

Do you have a relevant argument at all on the issue? So far you have only been having a debate about having a debate. You have not made one relevant scientific claim (right or wrong) yet.

 

[1robin]

Take a look at my signature at the bottom.

It does not help. I as a Christian have a degree in science and work in a scientific lab and yet deny that nature is a basis for morality.

Also, there's a way even for atheists to be completely opposed to genocide, such as we see with Buddhism.

That is a whole other subject and not one I have ever challenged. Of course atheists can object to genocide. What they can't do is justify that rejection in atheism rationally. They can object that it is wrong and IMO would be right because they have a God given conscience which witnesses to that truth. Naturalism cannot condemn genocide but an atheist can.

Also, one can have respect for life and not have any religious drift at all. I have not heard or read a single modern scientist who's an atheist or agnostic who says (s)he would support genocide against any group.

I can respect tennis shoes. Nothing about what I respect makes it right for me to respect it. My claim is about the ontological fact of moral claims given or lacking God, not about how we can come to know (epistemologically) what those moral facts are, and especially not about what our speculations can be or not.

Most average atheists grant objective moral facts which do not exist unless God exists, however scholastic atheists go way beyond the line you said they do not cross. They mostly hold to a moral nihilism and substitute in a relative ethical preference.

 

[metis]

It does not help. I as a Christian have a degree in science and work in a scientific lab and yet deny that nature is a basis for morality.

Your background is irrelevant to the conversation, plus you are ignoring what the scientific evidence actually does suggest..

Most average atheists grant objective moral facts which do not exist unless God exists, however scholastic atheists go way beyond the line you said they do not cross. They mostly hold to a moral nihilism and substitute in a relative ethical preference.

Absolutely false, as the actual scientific evidence suggests otherwise. There seems to be a basic element of compassion that appears to be inside of us, although it can be overwhelmed by attachments that we may accumulate as we progress through life. Ever hear of something some researchers are calling a "God gene" that some believe we may have within us?

Gotta go.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The problem is rampant dishonesty amongst evolutionists, as my story shows of how the evolutionists at talk.origins dealt with the issue of darwinism and nazism. I don't think you understand at all how emotions are required for seeking the truth. People make decisions, it's then on you to make opinion on their emotions, and on your own emotions. You do not have this emotional depth to make opinions, because you simply disregard it. You act like you can find the truth, just by measuring, and then what happens is, your neglected emotional basis degenerates to bland prejudices, and these prejudices point to facts that suit the prejudices.

 

[Parsimony]

The problem is rampant dishonesty amongst evolutionists, as my story shows of how the evolutionists at talk.origins dealt with the issue of darwinism and nazism. I don't think you understand at all how emotions are required for seeking the truth. People make decisions, it's then on you to make opinion on their emotions, and on your own emotions. You do not have this emotional depth to make opinions, because you simply disregard it. You act like you can find the truth, just by measuring, and then what happens is, your neglected emotional basis degenerates to bland prejudices, and these prejudices point to facts that suit the prejudices.

You never told me what particular aspect of my post was dishonest. What did I get wrong about the Holocaust?