Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The unauthorized history of Hitler as a Darwinist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Richard Weikart kindly writes to say,

I’m happy to announce that my article, “The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought,” has just appeared in German Studies Review (Oct. 2013 issue), one of the most important journals publishing on German history.

Here’s the Abstract:

Historians disagree about whether Nazis embraced Darwinian evolution. By examining Hitler’s ideology, the official biology curriculum, the writings of Nazi anthropologists, and Nazi periodicals, we find that Nazi racial theorists did indeed embrace human and racial evolution. They not only taught that humans had evolved from primates, but they believed the Aryan or Nordic race had evolved to a higher level than other races because of the harsh climatic conditions that influenced natural selection. They also claimed that Darwinism underpinned specific elements of Nazi racial ideology, including racial inequality, the necessity of the racial struggle for existence, and collectivism.

A bit from the Intro:

Many historians recognize that Hitler was a social Darwinist, and some even portray social Darwinism as a central element of Nazi ideology. Why, then, do some historians claim that Nazis did not believe in human evolution? George Mosse argued that human evolution was incompatible with Nazi ideology, because Nazis stressed the immutability of the German race. More recently Peter Bowler and Michael Ruse have argued that the Nazis rejected human evolution, because they upheld a fixed racial type and racial inequality.4 Nowhere is this irony more pronounced than in the work of Daniel Gasman, who claimed that Hitler built his ideology on the social Darwinist ideas of Ernst Haeckel, but simultaneously argued that Nazis rejected human evolution. How is it possible to embrace social Darwinism, while rejecting Darwinism and human evolution? Anne Harrington suggests that the Nazis liked some elements of Darwinism, especially the struggle for existence, but not human evolution. Robert Richards agrees, claiming that Nazi racial ideas “were rarely connected with specific evolutionary conceptions of the transmutation of species,” even though they bandied about the term “struggle for existence.” In another essay Richards went further, arguing that Hitler and the Nazis completely rejected biological evolution. The notion that the Nazis could embrace racial struggle without believing in evolution seems plausible at first, especially since Houston Stewart Chamberlain, a forerunner of Nazi racial ideology, embraced this position. However, the claim that the Nazis did not believe in the transmutation of species and human evolution runs aground once we examine Nazi racial ideology in detail. In this essay I examine the following evidence to demonstrate overwhelmingly that Nazi racial thinkers embraced human and racial evolution:

1) Hitler believed in human evolution.

2) The official Nazi school curriculum prominently featured biological evolution, including human evolution.

3) Nazi racial anthropologists, including SS anthropologists, uniformly endorsed human evolution and integrated evolution into their racial ideology.

4) Nazi periodicals, including those on racial ideology, embraced human evolution.

5) Nazi materials designed to inculcate the Nazi worldview among SS and military men promoted human evolution as an integral part of the Nazi worldview.

This should pretty much end the discussion but won’t because the issue isn’t about the massive evidence that Nazis were social Darwinists but about defending Darwin’s sacred name from the sacrilegious facts.

Note: Weikart explains how he first got involved with this matter here:

Actually, at first, he wasn’t interested. While living in Germany some years ago to improve his German, he was mainly interested in the nineteenth century. He doubted that he would uncover anything new about the Third Reich. For one thing, in his view, it was an overworked field. But then he discovered one neglected point:

[A]s I investigated the history of evolutionary ethics in pre-World War I Germany, I noticed—to my surprise—remarkable similarities between the ideas of those promoting evolutionary ethics and Hitler’s worldview. This discovery (which happened around 1995) led me to investigate Hitler’s worldview more closely, and this research convinced me that I had found something important to say about Hitler’s ideology.

One wonders if Weikart will ever be forgiven for documenting it all so carefully, in the faces of all those who want to explain it away.

Comments
goodusername at 5:41: People could all be “Aryans” in the Nazis’ sense and thus “racially pure” without running genetic risks from interbreeding if they are not closely related (consanguine), as you seem to indicate yourself.
The problem is lessened in a larger population, but Darwin believed it still wasn't healthy in the long term to remain racially pure. The problems, such as infertility, would develop slower in larger populations, but fertility was just one issue. Race mixing brings variety, which Darwin saw as good for a population. Here's a good example of Darwin discussing the benefits of race (and even species) mixing from The Variation of Animals and Plants: http://www.freefictionbooks.org/books/v/9578-the-variation-of-animals-and-plants-under-domestic?start=115 In Origin of Species he writes that there are many “good effects of frequent intercrossing." And in Descent of Man, Darwin argued (contrary to just about everyone else) that mixing of human races caused no fertility or health problems. (It's hard to convey just how shocking this idea was at the time. Nearly a century later assumptions of the deleterious effects of miscegenation were still cited in anti-miscegenation laws.)goodusername
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
goodusername at 5:41: People could all be "Aryans" in the Nazis' sense and thus "racially pure" without running genetic risks from interbreeding if they are not closely related (consanguine), as you seem to indicate yourself. Could you provide some quotations from Darwin approving of race-mixing? Species-mixing? For our edification. It's odd if the Nazis never noticed that Hitler was in utter disagreement with Darwin. One wonders why that might be.News
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
If LarTanner thinks the NT is anti-semetic he should read the OT!Mung
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT
Yes, indeed, that WAS the point, goodusername at 4:01pm. And MY point was that the Nazis were aware of the issues Darwin would raise about inbreeding – and their strategy would actually minimize that because “Aryans” from distant parts were not usually closely related. Unfortunately, the Nazis were not as dumb as we might have hoped.
They were racially pure Aryans and yet not closely related? I don't think you understand what racially pure means. They believed that the people they were kidnapping were pure Aryans (ie. they hadn't yet mixed with the local population genetically) who had wondered from the North into foreign lands, and the Nazis saw the kidnapping as rescuing them from potential race mixing. And so they hardly saw it as helping with problems of inbreeding (a problem they never mentioned, and with tens of millions of German Aryans available, a problem they probably didn't need to worry about). The central tenant of Nazi racial theory is the importance of racial purity. The Nazis didn't believe they were kidnapping people of a different race, and so it's irrelevant here. Darwin viewed race mixing (and at times, even species-mixing) as a good thing, which is something Hitler viewed as a crime against God and Nature and as a threat to civilization. On this, and just about every other racial belief, Hitler was in utter disagreement with Darwin.goodusername
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
F/N: It seems appropriate to again outline the core moral teachings of Jesus and his apostles, as directly relevant to and corrective of distortions, errors and obfuscations across the ages. Let me clip from no 2:
Ac 17:24 The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,[c] 25 nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’;[d] as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’[e] Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments [--> as in Mosaic . . . ], “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal [--> these two cover aggressive warfare and the like as carried out by the Nazis right there], You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Thus, "the [Christian] Faith once for all delivered unto the saints" and passed down to us by apostles, martyrs and confessors:
1: is directly rooted in the Hebraic, Jewish creational, prophetic-scriptural-covenantal tradition (never mind the rhetorical flourish that uses a couple of pagan poets to find common ground with a pagan audience] 2: is antithetical to racialist ideology, and to invasion of peoples in their own spaces 3: directly opposes the basis of Nazi aggression and mass killing: both murder and stealing are directly opposed through direct citations of the Mosaic Decalogue 4: Asserts the general principle that neighbour-love does no harm/wrong to neighbour as undergirding the specific commandments (directly parallelling Moses in so doing) 5: In the person of Jesus in the Good Samaritan parable answers "who is my neighbour" by asserting an account of neighbourliness across lines of religious and ethnic hostility.
So, plainly, where christians, christianised peoples and church leaders have violated these principles -- and that is a serious historical challenge, the sins of Christendom [cf. here on]-- this has been in violation of undeniably core, foundational Christian teaching. Such wrongs, though grievous (remember, I am a descendant of Black slaves, indentured Indians, oppressed Irish and oppressed Scottish), have never had the warrant of the Christian Faith qua Christian Faith. So, it is never fair or appropriate to tax Christianity as being responsible for evils in direct violation of core Christian ethics. A fairer assessment, is that we are all finite, fallible, morally fallen and struggling, as well as too often stubborn and ill-willed. This is multiplied by the moral hazards of power, where power is always dangerous and if accountability is weakened, that danger tends to go out of control. Hence a dictum I strongly believe, from Lord Acton: power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. He goes on to great men are bad men, but I think I would moderate that a bit to, too often. And that core moral teaching as cited is important, as it is the classic springboard for reformation as the natural and proper fruit of genuine repentance, renewal of mind and heart and revival. Which is materially responsible for any number of reforms in our civilisation. Now, too, someone above suggests the NT teaches antisemitism. I think some have read it that way improperly, as the NT itself warns against. In the Gospels, there is undoubted tension between the Galilean and the Judaean Jewish leaders but obviously, that is between Jews and Jews; where both Jesus and the apostles are all Jews. There is even more tension with Samaritans, but we can notice Jesus' response to the Woman at the Well and in the parable of the Good Samaritan. The judicial murder of Jesus is seen as implicating both corrupt Judaean leaders and corrupt Gentile leaders. If anything, that is subtly anti-authoritarian. And it is across the board. Pastors in this part of the world are fond of pointing out that it was Simon of Cyrenica, an African [the man who seems to have been coming into the city as everyone else was going out], who helped carry Jesus' awful burden. And it is ordinary Jewish women who wail at his fate, the fate shared by so many prophets. The difference is of course that in Christian thought "That was Friday, but Sunday was coming." Nor can you find justification for a general hostility to Jews in the rest of the NT. As for the Christian idea that in the end of days many Jews will turn to Jesus as messiah, that comes from a very specific OT passage in the prophets:
Zech 12:12 The oracle of the word of the Lord concerning Israel: Thus declares the Lord, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him: 2 “Behold, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of staggering to all the surrounding peoples. The siege of Jerusalem will also be against Judah. 3 On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples. All who lift it will surely hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth will gather against it . . . . 7 “And the Lord will give salvation to the tents of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not surpass that of Judah. 8 On that day the Lord will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them on that day shall be like David, and the house of David shall be like God, like the angel of the Lord, going before them. 9 And on that day I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.
Quite opposite to antisemitism, this envisions nations rising up against Jerusalem, only to find themselves fighting God. And in the midst of this, grace poured out on the people of Jerusalem leads them to turn to "him whom they have pierced." This, not in the NT, but the OT. But, I fear, there has been such lonngstanding polarisation and hostility, that it is hard indeed for the balance to be struck. Just remember, Christian Zionists see the hostility of nations to the Jews of Jerusalem through this lens, of such finding themselves to be enemies of God. The very God who is seen as decisively intervening in defense of the people of Jerusalem; sparking a bitter regret and change of heart to "him whom they have pierced." It is time for some re-thinking. KFkairosfocus
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
CS, yours evokes my final comment. Have you not read your own Greek Testament? Surely one of your learned UD colleagues or Bing/Google-trained terrier could help you locate NT sources of antisemitism. You can also find statements made by Hitler and comments from other Nazi literature on Christianity and the Nazis’ view of themselves.
I'm quite sure I've read the New Testament in Greek a lot more than you have. So, no specific examples, eh? I thought not. Case closed.CentralScrutinizer
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
What I find really interesting is the way some of Darwin's followers go ballistic when the evidence that the Nazis were fond of his theories is brought up. It's curious, really. Protestants don't usually go ballistic about the history that many of their denominations got suckerpunched into supporting eugenics. Catholics don't typically go nuts with denial over the Inquisition. Mormons don't often abandon their faith just because their church has a chequered former history around racism. Any point of view has its scandals (unless it disappears within seconds after it gets started). Yet Darwinists react as if a calm discussion of Nazis' affection for Darwin's theory means that people think today's Darwinists are Nazis. And no reasonable person thinks that. Perhaps they are sensitive about growing disconfirmation of their ideas. One can only keep shouting fact! Fact! FACT! for so long, as a defense ...News
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Yes, indeed, that WAS the point, goodusername at 4:01pm. And MY point was that the Nazis were aware of the issues Darwin would raise about inbreeding - and their strategy would actually minimize that because "Aryans" from distant parts were not usually closely related. Unfortunately, the Nazis were not as dumb as we might have hoped.News
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
LT: “This is the reason I won’t respond anymore” No it isn’t. You are taking your marbles and going home, because you advanced a thesis only to see it utterly demolished. That has to be discouraging. “one of the most powerful causes of atheism is actually reading the Greek Testament” Blithering nonsense. You truly are shameless. “NT sources of anti-Semitism” Nonexistent. I notice you provide no examples. Telling.Barry Arrington
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
goodusername, the Nazis believed in racial purity but they were willing to scour various lands for humans whom they thought represented it (cf kidnappings of “Aryan” children in occupied territories): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....-race.html The Nazis probably were not as ignorant of the genetic issues you raise as is sometimes supposed. Their kidnapping-from-foreign-parts and have-babies-with-local-women strategies might have tended to reduce the foreseen medical issues over time. Happily, they never got the time.
Umm, the point of the kidnappings was to maximize the number of racially pure Aryans by preventing their mixing with the foreign races, and to make sure they mated with other racially pure Aryans.goodusername
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
CS, yours evokes my final comment. Have you not read your own Greek Testament? Surely one of your learned UD colleagues or Bing/Google-trained terrier could help you locate NT sources of antisemitism.
Heh. Kill the Jews! - Words Jesus Never Said Blame the Jews! - Stuff Not Said by Paul, the Jewish ex-Pharisee Stinking Jews! - Not the Opinion of the 12 Apostles, all Jewish The Jewish "cult" sure hates Jews. Just read the Bible's NT writings, where it says there is one body in Christ, with no Jew or Gentile (non-Jew) ... So anti-Semitic.SirHamster
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
SB: If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”—Dovtoevsky
And this quote is supposed to carry the force of authority? You are too much!
It conveys a fact. Any fact ought to carry the force of authority. People do, in fact, get their ought to from their is. I can successfully argue that point all day long.
Somebody bring back Joe G. from the wasteland!
I don't know why you are getting so upset. If you would read a little literature that transcends your Darwinist ideology, you would gain immeasurably from the increase.StephenB
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
CS and all, I am going home now to enjoy my weekend. This is the reason I won't respond anymore. I think all you emperors are pretty much standing naked right about now anyway. CS, yours evokes my final comment. Have you not read your own Greek Testament? Surely one of your learned UD colleagues or Bing/Google-trained terrier could help you locate NT sources of antisemitism. You can also find statements made by Hitler and comments from other Nazi literature on Christianity and the Nazis' view of themselves. Barry, of course, chooses to take anything Hitler and the Nazis say about Christianity as lies, and anything they say about their understanding of evolution as true. And he says that Nazi actions show the difference, even though others might suggest that Nazi actions show the truth going the opposite way from Barry's interpretation. So, do a little homework. But be careful: one of the most powerful causes of atheism is actually reading the Greek Testament. When you read it, you might start saying to yourself, "These are just dull stories by some long-dead dudes. Why am I giving them any weight whatsoever?"LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
The Nazis also used an already existing Christian cultural bedrock for the same reason, and they viewed themselves as serving God eminently.
Ridiculous. Public speeches to that effect by Hitler were demogogic overtures to gain power--nothing more. Pay no attention to what political leaders say in public. Watch what they plan for and do. There were not altar calls in private chambers of the Third Reich. Get real.StephenB
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Moreover, "Christianity" is an extremely imprecise term. It was never used by Jesus and the Apostle themselves, and it is so broad, you could blame just about anything on "it." Be specific, LarTanner. What specific teachings and/or statements of Jesus, the Apostles, and the New Testament writers inspire Hitler and his associates to exterminate 20th century Jews, and commit all the rest of the Nazi atrocities?CentralScrutinizer
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
goodusername, the Nazis believed in racial purity but they were willing to scour various lands for humans whom they thought represented it (cf kidnappings of "Aryan" children in occupied territories): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1111170/Stolen-Nazis-The-tragic-tale-12-000-blue-eyed-blond-children-taken-SS-create-Aryan-super-race.html The Nazis probably were not as ignorant of the genetic issues you raise as is sometimes supposed. Their kidnapping-from-foreign-parts and have-babies-with-local-women strategies might have tended to reduce the foreseen medical issues over time. Happily, they never got the time.News
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”—Dovtoevsky
And this quote is supposed to carry the force of authority? You are too much! Somebody bring back Joe G. from the wasteland!LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
LarTanner "We have words from Hitler and the Nazis explaining how Christianity informs their mindset and validates their policies."
Specifics please. I'd like to know what Jesus and the Apostles wrote that could have justified genocide and all the rest of the Nazi atrocities.CentralScrutinizer
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
StephenB, I know Table Talk and you have completely missed my point, probably due to your zeal to downplay the undeniable role in the German atrocities played by Christianity, Christian institutions, Christian antisemitism, and ardent Christian believers. I have already pointed out that the Nazis sought to use Darwinian evolution to validate their ideas. The Nazis also used an already existing Christian cultural bedrock for the same reason, and they viewed themselves as serving God eminently. Not even super-weasels KF, Barry and News have denied it. I know you all don't agree that the Nazis were serving God, that the Nazis were horribly mistaken in their Christian practice. Unfortunately, your view of Christianity's true message is but one in a centuries-long cacophony of conflicting true Christianities. So, whenever you people get your story straight on what the true religion truly lived is, just send me an email.LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
LarTanner
Yet your — you, not commenting on Weikart’s paper — attempt to convert the IS of Darwin’s theory to the OUGHT of Nazi Germany is scurrilous.
You have been reading too much Hume. People derive their OUGHT TO from their IS on a daily basis. "If God does not exist, everything is permitted."---DovtoevskyStephenB
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
Table Talk" also attributes to Hitler a confidence in science over religion: "Science cannot lie... It's Christianity that's the liar".Michael Burleigh contrasted Hitler's public pronouncements on Christianity with those in Table Talk, suggesting that Hitler's real religious views were 'a mixture of materialist biology, a faux-Nietzschean contempt for core, as distinct from secondary, Christian values, and a visceral anti-clericalism.' Richard Evans also reiterated the view that Nazism was secular, scientific and anti-religious in outlook in the last volume of his trilogy on Nazi Germany, writing, 'Hitler's hostility to Christianity reached new heights, or depths, during the war;' his source for this was the 1953 English translation of Table Talk.
StephenB
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
SB: It wasn’t Christianity that provided the rationale for mass murder and produced all those damning charts, diagrams, and photographs. Lar Tanner:
Martin Luther, etc., will be pleased to know this.
That is not a very intelligent statement. Martin Luther, the off again on again anti-semite, did not provide any scientific charts, diagrams, and photographs to confirm the truth of Darwinian evolution or its application to social policy, which was the driving force of the holocaust. If you want to know Hitler's true attitude about religion, just consult the anti-ID, pro Lar Tanner website called Wikipedia and search for "The Religious View of Adolph Hitler." Or, if you have even a modicum of intellectual curiosity, consult "Hitler's Table Talk" to get a feel for how much he hated Christianity and how much he identified with materialist biology and Nietzschean ethics. There comes a time when willful ignorance degenerates into dishonesy.StephenB
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
it is worth noting that the specific contribution of Darwinism was the resulting widespread notion that there was something *scientific* about anti-Semitism (and racism).
They were believed to be scientific ideas long before Darwinism. And Darwin argued against the more extreme rationales of racism, such as polygenism (which was a mainstream idea until Darwinism).
The Nazis, who saw everything in Darwinian terms, saw Jews as a threatening *race,* in Darwin’s sense...
The central theme of the Nazi's (especially Hitler's) racial theory is the importance of keeping racially pure, and thus saw miscegenation as dangerous, unnatural, and against God's Law. Darwin rarely spoke of racial purity, but when he did, he saw it as a bad thing, and saw racial mixing as a positive. (Racial purity is basically the elimination of variety, which selection needs for adaptation. Darwin also noted how close interbreeding seems to cause infertility and illness.) The reason Hitler and many other Nazis saw racial purity as so important was the belief that only the Aryan race is capable of civilization. Thus, racial mixing was a threat to civilization itself. By expanding the Aryan race, and removing other races from their territory, they believed that they were safeguarding civilization. Obviously, you won't find any such thing in Darwin's writings. But this is the central theme of Gobineau's "Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races", which predates Origin. Gobineau is one of the originators of "Aryanism."goodusername
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
LarTanner: "We all know how they sought to use Darwinian evolution to validate their ideas." No, as Weikart provides numerous examples of, many writers have sought to exculpate Darwin and Darwinism in this matter. But glad you at least admit that they did indeed seek to do that. It is a fact. So that is refreshing.News
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Darwin never distinguished between humans and “other” animals – that was his and is now his followers’ major point about humanity.
Aaaaand your point is? I don't care whether you think I am dishonest. I think you are a terrible journalist, a bad writer, an ideologue, and a sloppy thinker. So there. Look, Nazi ideology was built on many elements. We all know how they sought to use Darwinian evolution to validate their ideas. They used Christianity and traditional Christian antisemitism also. I don't say this to indict Christianity at all. Christianity is quite malleable. Yet your -- you, not commenting on Weikart's paper -- attempt to convert the IS of Darwin's theory to the OUGHT of Nazi Germany is scurrilous. You really should stop and think, and have some shame. Then you should apologize publicly.LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
@O'Leary:
JWTruthInLove, if you have to reach this far, you have already lost. – O’Leary for News
Finally. Can I have my UD News writer badge now?JWTruthInLove
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Lartanner, Darwin never distinguished between humans and "other" animals - that was his and is now his followers' major point about humanity. I do not say this lightly but I begin to think you are quite seriously dishonest. That is, you know that is true. In another forum it would never be challenged. When it is, you deny and obfuscate. Readers who think facts matter should pay attention to Weikart's research and reporting when confronted with Darwinism's many fashionable defenders and some less fashionable ones.News
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT
The Nazis, who saw everything in Darwinian terms, saw Jews as a threatening *race,* in Darwin’s sense (“man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”) That is a completely different point of view, and one that lent itself to genocide as a Final Solution.
Ah, I see. Christianity on its own led to a few pogroms and some massacres every Easter for a few centuries. So, yeah, a few Jewish communities here and a few Saracens there. But for one full national program of extermination, that took a theory about the development of different animal species. Thanks for clearing that up, News.LarTanner
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
JWTruthInLove, if you have to reach this far, you have already lost. - O'Leary for NewsNews
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
StephenB, Yes, it is worth noting that the specific contribution of Darwinism was the resulting widespread notion that there was something *scientific* about anti-Semitism (and racism). As we all know, the original feud between Christians and Jews revolved around whether Jesus was the Messiah and whether, if so, Jews were culpable in his death, an explicitly religious quarrel. Jews who converted were treated as Christians. The Nazis, who saw everything in Darwinian terms, saw Jews as a threatening *race,* in Darwin's sense ("man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.") That is a completely different point of view, and one that lent itself to genocide as a Final Solution. Incidentally, a traditional Christian belief was that just before the end of all things, the Jews would convert en masse. An English poet tells his mistress (17th century): "And you shall, if you please, refuse Till the conversion of the Jews" = till, practically, the end of the world. The belief must have been widespread because he was a popular poet, and assumed that people understood what he meant. The situation lent itself easily to persecution, but not so easily to extermination. There is a big difference, and it is not in Darwinism's favour. - O'Leary for NewsNews
November 1, 2013
November
11
Nov
1
01
2013
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
1 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply