Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Ruse on Darwin and Hitler

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michael Ruse decides that Darwin had no impact on Hitler in this piece.  He decides that Hitler couldn’t have been influenced by Darwin, because Darwin would have been appalled by Hitler.

Finally, when you turn to Hitler himself, the story is murky. To put the matter politely, he was not a well-educated man. There is no evidence he studied Darwin’s writings or much about them. At most, he was picking stuff up off the street or from the barroom or from the doss house where he lived in Vienna before the War. And when you look at Mein Kampf in more detail, the story seems less straightforward. Just before the apparently Darwinian sentiments quoted above, [“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”] he wrote: “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning.” What he is really on about is the Jews. Darwin would have been appalled at such a connection.

Of course, Hitler could have been influenced by Darwin, regardless of whether Darwin would have been appalled by Hitler. The question of whether Hitler could have been influenced by Darwin in his thinking about favored races is not answered by Darwin being appalled by how Hitler implemented this idea. Many men have had a stern belief in the futility of life and been appalled when another man actually jumped off the bridge. The question of the consistency and logical end to an idea is not answered in this way. The logical end of a man’s belief may very well appall that same man, and he can hold both views simultaneously. The idea itself may very well be appalling, and it would only be logical that when carried out it would appall. But the question of whether the belief in question had purchase with another person is not refuted by reference to the emotion it may produce by anyone. Nevertheless, Ruse thinks it historically inaccurate:

There was a propaganda value, true. But genuine links are another matter.

And….Ruse doesn’t actually argue anything about genuine links, one way or the other….He just claims that Hitler was uneducated, and heard about Darwin on the street. Yet for this reason we should reject the Darwin/Hitler influence?

An actual historian would disagree, and seems to go into a little more detail on the subject than Ruse.

Comments
alicejohn, you are arguing the absurd position that Ideas do not have consequences. you do not seem to realize that thought always precedes action. (Eclles; Hammeroff) Do you really think that the wholesale devaluing of human life brought about by the materialistic Ideology of Darwinism had no repercussions for society? This is absurd on the face of it and even more absurd once we get into the details of it as amply pointed out by Weikart. You say we have been silent on this matter, but I say that if you are indeed hearing silence in our responses as you say you are it is because you are spiritually deaf to the truth we are saying to you. i.e. Ideas do indeed have consequences! Just as removal of prayer from school had consequences: The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped - David Barton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930 My question to you alicejohn is why do you have such a disconnect for seeing that the beliefs that undergird a society dramatically effect the actions of that society? Do you actually think that a high moral road for a society is achievable for a society that believes life is fundamentally worthless? It simply does not follow that you would deny the consequences of Ideas. off topic: Dean S. Potter - Sky Flier (Adventurer of the Year 2009) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R__TTOsHpD8bornagain77
June 12, 2010
June
06
Jun
12
12
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
alicejohn,
I have asked my question. Unless someone wants to try to answer it, I am satisfied with the same silent response I always get. I will continue to seek the answer elsewhere when given the chance.
I posted Rickard Weikart's video for that very purpose. I know it's an hour long, but if you're really interested in this question surely you can dedicate yourself to watching it.Clive Hayden
June 12, 2010
June
06
Jun
12
12
2010
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Occasionally during conversations I have had about the relationship between evolution and religion, someone will bring up the link between Hitler and evolution which they claim disproves evolution. As I stated in my first post, I do not understood the logic. I saw this discussion and figured I would try to get someone to explain it to me. My question has nothing to do whether evolution is true or untrue. I did not post here to debate the merits of evolution. The best I can tell, it is off-topic for this thread. I have asked my question. Unless someone wants to try to answer it, I am satisfied with the same silent response I always get. I will continue to seek the answer elsewhere when given the chance. Thanks for your time.alicejohn
June 12, 2010
June
06
Jun
12
12
2010
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
alicejohn @47 "I am done. Good luck to everyone." As far as I'm concerned, another proof for the existence of God. :-)tgpeeler
June 12, 2010
June
06
Jun
12
12
2010
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
alicejohn- You have yet to make any argument whatsoever on the validity of NDE or ToE. Panda's Thumb troll?Phaedros
June 12, 2010
June
06
Jun
12
12
2010
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
alicejohn: That is the whole thing, evolution claims to be true yet no one has even scientifically demonstrated evolution can produce any functional information of any sort. i.e. The Second Law and Conservation of Information have NOT even been violated by purely material processes. For you to ignore that fact, that I would be more than willing to discuss with you in detail, and for you to instead insist that ideas do not have consequences, as Darwinism surely does have consequences, is not even in the ballpark of "the game" that you imagine we are "playing". (Though to be sure I hold the consequences for "this game" you think we are "playing", to be far greater than we can possibly imagine right now)bornagain77
June 12, 2010
June
06
Jun
12
12
2010
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
I was just pointing out what zephyr and others have pointed out. If you want ID to be ignored by the scientific community forever, continue to make non-scientific, religious, and/or moral based objections to the validity of the TOE. Work on your science. Bioethical discussions of the application of science are essential and necessary, but the chemistry, biology, physics, etc of the way things work are not up for negotiation in non-scientific arenas . I am done. Good luck to everyone.alicejohn
June 12, 2010
June
06
Jun
12
12
2010
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT
Kyrilluk #3 Many good posts here on this subject. Yet I insist, I'm very sure, Hitler's plans for genocide were unrelated to evolution or making a better world through Eugenics. He added on this stuff to make pure German and so a better race. yet his genocide was based on his conclusion Germans were not the better race but the Jews were. Just as Einstein, Prime Minister D'israeli, and Mel Brooks have said. Hitler killed the Jews out of murderous envy, with added real or imagined Jewish hostility to Germans and Europe, and some fleeting idea of a clean slate for german dominance of Europe. Mostly the first. Eugenics folks wouldn't murder people but only stop them from breeding. Yes Evolution made a cultural and intellectual allowance for the higher classes, educated or not, to see the acceptability of race ideas to make a better world. Yet all this only allowed someone to do secreatly a greater thing. Evolution is the origin of the Holocaust but only a origin for very preliminary moves of racial concepts and actions in Europe. Hitlers Jewish problem and solution is unrelated to any evolutionary influence I insist. What we creationists can only say is evolution influenced acceptance in the high or general public on racial/identity concepts being influential to the general health and progress of society. it set up a smoke screen indeed. Evolution can be charged with manslaughter but not murder. Darwin had no influence on Hitlers murder ideas or origins of his hate.Robert Byers
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Will there be a Christian Renaissance?Phaedros
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT
Just came across this on Amazon, looks intriguing :D http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Darwinism-How-Became-Hedonists/dp/0830826661/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_topPhaedros
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
alicejohn, Now you have the unenviable task of proving to us why a theory, which use to declare humans had 180 useless vestigial organs until proven wrong, and a theory that still has many leading proponents declaring that 95% of our DNA is junk, had no impact on the devaluing of human life in western culture upon its acceptance at the cost of undermining the Judeo-Christian ethic that we are fearfully and wonderfully made: How Darwin's Theory Changed the World Rejection of Judeo-Christian values Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide. “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75). Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.). http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn85/darwin-theory-changed-world.htm As we have seen, World War I broke out because of European thinkers, generals and administrators who saw warfare, bloodshed and suffering as a kind of ‘development’, and thought they were an unchanging ‘law of nature. ‘ The ideological root that dragged all of that generation to destruction was nothing else than Darwin’s concepts of the ’struggle for survival’ and ‘favored races’.,,, That the Nazis were influenced by Darwinism is a fact that many historians accept.,,, In short, there is an unbreakable link between the theory of evolution and communism. ,,, http://absolute-truth.net/2009/12/darwins-dark-legacy/#Abortion_and_Darwin.27s_theorybornagain77
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Sorry Alicejohn you aren't "playing the game" at all. Christians don't hate Jews and their is no Biblical support for such a belief.Phaedros
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
alicejohn, Did you perhaps attend the Judith Butler school of communication? "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power." Yeah, right, whatever. tfftgpeeler
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Regarding the scope of TOE, who cares if Hitler used evolution or not?? It has nothing to do with the tenets of the theory. I don't know if Hitler used TOE or not. I suspect he used whatever suited his needs. I suspect the primary emotion he played upon was Christianity's centuries-long hatred of the Jews. Do you deny that existed and still exists?? Should we condemn Christianity for Hitler's misuse of Christianity? We could take a look in the Bible and discuss God explicitly directing "his people' to kill other peoples. If I recall, kill everything: men, women, children, livestock, etc. So let's make a list: evolution, the Bible, God, Christianity. Anything else you want to eradicate because Hitler may have used it to justify starting a world war?? You guys should read about how people in power use propaganda. It may stop the U.S from invading another country without good cause again. Although reading some of these posts, perhaps you are experts at propaganda. Finally, I see you still can't answer the question about a Hitler/evolution connection and its affect on the correctness of the theory. Thanks for playing. Anyone else want to try to answer the question??alicejohn
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
alicejohn, quite the contrary I hold the Theory of Evolution to be completely wrong from first principles of science. Primarily from the principles of the Second law of Thermodynamics and the Conservation of Information. As to the Darwin/Hitler connection, which is certainly a true connection as amply noted by Weikart, and to how that connect effects the truthfulness of Darwin's theory Jesus said this: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. evanescence - lies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHP9-fEuRk Nickelback – Savin’ Me – song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPc-o-4Nsbkbornagain77
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Aqeels- I don't buy it and I would ask that you show how you know it would have occurred anyways. Do you mean that people would have died anyways? Well, that's what happens in war. Would the nazis and other Germans still had been racist towards the Jews and blamed them for theor problems? Probably, but would they have had the legitimacy to do what they did? It's quite obvious that people and animals that are "inferior" physically are less likely to survive compared to those that are stronger (or however you want to word it). However, the nazis developed different ways to formulate this idea to fit their ideology and used Darwin. Alicejohn- So you admit there was a possible connection? Ok that's a start. You ask what the "misuse" of a theory has to do with its accuracy and then shy away from showing the theory's accuracy. Not only that but you incorrectly say it would have been a misuse o the theory. Why is it a misuse? Is it because it doesn't follow the logic or implications of the theory or is it a misuse because of other things we know and understand? In other words is it a misuse on the theory's own terms or is it a misuse because of our inherent knowledge of human worth and dignity?Phaedros
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
toronto says "A world lacking Darwin would not have stopped Hitler." If the evolutionary / naturalistic view of man is correct, why should it? What difference does it make? What difference does ANYTHING make?tgpeeler
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
bornagain77, I see you can't address the question about how a supposed Hitler/Darwin connection affects to correctness of the TOE either. Thanks for playing. Anyone else want to try?alicejohn
June 11, 2010
June
06
Jun
11
11
2010
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
alicejohn's point remains a good one though, which is that peoples use or misuse of scientific theories says absolutely nothing about the veracity of the theory itself.zeroseven
June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT
alicejohn asked: "So what if Hitler did use Darwin. How would that change the fact evolution and common descent is an absolute certainty??" alicejohn do you care to present this absolutely certainty evidence and be the very first human in history to prove Darwinian evolution true?bornagain77
June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
In case any of you waqnt to look it up for yourselves, the last quote is from Matthew 26.StephenA
June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Even demons acknowledged Jesus' divinity. Matthew 8:29 (New King James Version) 28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes,[c] there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way. 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, “What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?” And what crime was crime was he convicted of? He was given the death sentence for blathsphemy; for claiming to be the Son of God. 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” 64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” StephenA
June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
NZer your quote on Hitler's christianity reminded me of this scripture: James 2:19 - 20 "You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror." How foolish! Don't you remember that our ancestor Abraham was shown to be right with God by his actions when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see, his faith and his actions worked together. His actions made his faith complete. Can't you see that faith without good deeds is useless? And so it happened just as the Scriptures say: "Abraham believed God, and God counted him as righteous because of his faith." He was even called the friend of God. So you see, we are shown to be right with God by what we do, not by faith alone.bornagain77
June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Aqeels you stated: "Alas you will continue to believe that Jesus is divinity, even though there is nothing in what he said that claimed such a preposterous belief. When Jesus called out to the “heavenly father” he did not imply that he was divine but rather showed humanity that God alone is sovereign, and is like a loving father." And Jesus states: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. [4] From now on you do know him and have seen him.” 8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. So let's see do I believe what aqeels says or do I believe what Jesus says? Sorry aqeels, its not even close, I'm sticking with Jesus.bornagain77
June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
Ba77 said - "aqeels to quote CS Lewis: C.S. Lewis, a popular British theologian, continues, “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The MacMillan Company, 1960, pp. 40-41.)" C.S Lewis had a lot of good things to say but on this one he is monumentally wrong. There is no dichotomy of god versus mad man. C.S Lewis seems to ignore the third option, namely that he was a prophet. There have been many prophets as you know, and they were not normal men as you and I, but were inspired by God with wisdom and power. Moses performed great miracles as did many prophets throughout history, including Jesus. Tell me, when Moses parted the sea or sent forth his staff into the shape of a living snake, are these things that you would consider normal, or something a learned teacher could do? Of course not as only one inspired by God and elevated to a prophet can perform these miracles. So Mr Lewis seems to ignore this from his thesis. Alas you will continue to believe that Jesus is divinity, even though there is nothing in what he said that claimed such a preposterous belief. When Jesus called out to the "heavenly father" he did not imply that he was divine but rather showed humanity that God alone is sovereign, and is like a loving father. Phaedros - "That is this insidious assumption that only Jews were killed and targeted by the Nazis. This is not the case whatsoever as 11 million peoples besides the 6 million Jews were killed for various reasons." You are quite right to point that out. I merely mentioned Jewish people as they were singled out, something that is well documented. Needless to say my original point stands and I contest that whilst the policy of eugenics may be compatible with Darwinian views, the mass murder of Jewish people and others would have occurred anyway. I don't wish to defend Darwinism but there seems to be a tendency on these blogs to simply agree lazily with some really sweeping statements purely on the grounds of like mindedness.aqeels
June 10, 2010
June
06
Jun
10
10
2010
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT
Even as a 15 year old uneducated kid, raised on a Darwinian diet, I realized that anything was permissible if there was no God. 25 years later, I still agree with myself! Whether Hitler burnt Darwinian books or not makes little difference. The questions is: what was his BASIS for moral values? Atoms and molecules??? If Hitler was a Christian, well, I guess the anti-Christ may be likewise. I'm sure the nice fuzzy Jesus of post-modernity would welcome them both into heaven with a "well done my good and faithful servants".NZer
June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT
I have never heard an answer to the following question regarding Hitler and Darwin. Perhaps you guys can provide one: So what if Hitler did use Darwin. How would that change the fact evolution and common descent is an absolute certainty?? If I shoot someone, is the gun evil? If I steal your money, is money or the economy evil? If a Christian commits murder, is Christianity evil? I will never understand the point of the Hitler/Darwin "argument" people try to make. It makes no sense.alicejohn
June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Genocide is consistent with Darwinian theory -- so anyone who followed Hitler's plan (or any other kind of genocide) would be acting in a way that is supported and validated by the Darwinian worldview. This can be seen with Peter Singer's latest proposal that the human race should plan to kill itself off: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/ This is perfectly consistent with the Darwinian view, and ultimately has no more or less value than an opposite argument (since neither have any ultimate purpose, meaning or value and simply arose by accident). We can refer to moral failings of various Christians because we can identify the Christian moral code and notice where people have not lived up to it. The same is not true in the Darwinian system where a moral code is ultimately unnecessary and (if one was created) merely response to environment, mutations and chemical reactions.Proponentist
June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
Let's not forget that those not targeted inherited the property of those who were. It's always a good idea to follow the money.Petrushka
June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
I think something very crucial is being missed here and intentionally ommitted. That is this insidious assumption that only Jews were killed and targeted by the Nazis. This is not the case whatsoever as 11 million peoples besides the 6 million Jews were killed for various reasons. These reasons included so-called biological and mental inferiorities (this gives it all away by the way) and religious and political dissidents, including thousands of Christian clergy. So let's not forget the real goals of Hitler, his advisors, and those that supported his ideology. Let's not forget that it wasn't simply anti-semitism that played its part. This is a gross oversimplification and outright lie.Phaedros
June 9, 2010
June
06
Jun
9
09
2010
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply