Culture Darwinism Education Evolution Religion

Michael Ruse on Darwin and Hitler

Spread the love

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.

53 Replies to “Michael Ruse on Darwin and Hitler

  1. 1
    Kyrilluk says:

    Well, it’s well documented that most of the scientists that Hitler use to put into place euthanasia were staunch Darwinist (for ex Heinz Brücher). Also, it’s a stupid mistake to believe that Mein Kampf was the produce of a revolution in term of racism. All the ideas that Hitler develops were already well accepted among scientists living before him and that worshipped Darwin (just have a look at what Haeckel use to say about race…).

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    This biblical creationist sees Hitler as having some ideas like general ideas on the differences between people. this was a common opinion due to the influence of evolution in high circles as today.
    Einstein also mused about race and intelligence with him puting Jews at the top but then pulling back.
    Everyone belived its reasonable to see differences in mankind and conclude biology is responsible.
    I don’t see Hitler had real beliefs on race as much as simply to try to make his own people, so himself, the best people and so he had to invoke biology. It was popular and science was needed for credibility.
    Hitler was not a product of Darwin but simple ethnic nationalism as then as now, with hyphenated North Americans and President Obama.
    I am convinced his genocide ideas were not based on racial ideas but simple ethnic hatred against a dominant ethnic group and then get rid of all of them for the satisfaction of a single identity in the land.
    Not Darwin but envy , anger at real or perceived aggression, and some attempt for identity segregation as a continuing thing.
    If Darwin never existed it would of made no difference.

  3. 3
    Kyrilluk says:

    @Robert: I don’t agree. Darwin give a scientific justification that Hitler needed in order to planify and execute his murderous plan. Moreover, don’t forget that at that time, Hitler wasn’t the only one being inspired by Darwin when it came to eugenics. He was just the one who had the opportunity to experiment on a larger scale than the ones in the UK or in the USA.

  4. 4
    zephyr says:

    sigh, usual confusion and even straw-men. Ages ago Dave Scott himself criticised the ID community for this whole ‘Darwin conflation with Nazism’, writing something along the lines of “what does Hitler have to do with design in nature?”. As an IDist I endorsed this and was heavily critical of the film Expelled for this whole Darwin-Hitler meme.

    Yes there is/was much in Darwinism (and his writings like “The Descent of Man”) that is prejudiced and was used to justify bigotry and brutal colonialism in our recent past. This is well-covered in the academic literature. Certainly the language of science was needed to give a scientific veneer to Nazi ethnic policies. In the modern industrial age, an age that worships science and technology or what passes for science, the Nazi ‘race’ policies had to be justfied in the name of science. So?

    The advent of Darwinism and its sweeping popularity in the West in the late nineteenth century was as much a product of its time and culture, rapacious European and Western colonialism and European prejudice, as anything else. Darwinism was thus used to justify this colonialism/expansionism and the rapacity associated with it, not the other way around. Who is putting the cart before the horse here?

    One has to ignore European and British history and its conquest of the New World, including America, Latin America, Southern Africa, Australia etc and the social, cultural and economic history of these nations in the nineteenth century (including the history of slavery), the real motives behind ‘manifest destiny’ in North America and so much else in order to narrowly and conveniently focus on Darwinism and its role in fostering prejudice.

    I have said it before, I will say it again, this whole attempt to conflate social Darwinism as a central pillar in paving the way to Nazism is a black mark against ID (and remember I am an IDist). Yes Darwinism has a dark history, this needs to be recognised, but it needs to put into proper perspective and context. Should we talk about the REAL histories of the Catholic and Protestant and Eastern Churches, that’s not taught at schools?

    The vicious anti-Semitism in Europe and the resulting pogroms predate Darwin by more than a thousand years. The xenophobic nationalism in Europe and the barbaric conflicts thus resulting, Europe’s horrid role in the slave trade and its associated conquest, rape and pillage of the New World predates Darwin by centuries.

    If you are going to go on about this whole Darwin to Hitler theme, sorry but it’s a few drops in the bucket when it comes to the motivations and delusions that drive man’s inhumanity to man (and I include in modern times).

    Let’s talk the conquistadors, The Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, witch-hunts, the history of the slave trade in the West, the destruction of Native cultures in the Americas and elsewhere, the real history behind the pogroms against Jewry in the Middle-Ages and later Eastern Europe, and so much more. It is disingenuous to sweep all this under the carpet and then harp on about the “scientific” prejudices of Darwinism. It doesn’t wash and you are not going to win any thoughtful person over to considering ID seriously by this kind of thing, those who are not already IDists and/or Creationists. In fact just the opposite…

    So unless the tactic is to preach to the choir and lose the undecided middle, then I suggest just dropping the very selective Darwin to Hitler tub thumping. As Dave Scott pointed it out, what does this have to do with design again?

  5. 5
    aqeels says:

    zephyr – finally someone talking some sense.

    I support ID but this is frankly ridiculous. Its one thing to say that Hitler admired the writings of Darwin and its quite another to conclude that Hitler did what he did purely on the thesis of natural selection. Guys and gals, Hitler would have done what he did with or without Darwin.

    To all those who advocate this bizarre theory, it is never too late to back down and accept your folly. Its not shameful but rather a sign of goodness in your character. Otherwise continuing with this will ultimately harm ID and its cause.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Ideas do indeed have consequences and to deny neo-Darwinism had a direct foundational impact on western thought is simply not being honest:

    From Darwin to Hitler – Richard Weikart – lecture video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A

    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/issu.....-world.htm

    This recent book by Professor Weikart really nails the connection between Darwinism and Nazism with undeniable evidence (although evolutionists will still deny it means anything):

    Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress by Richard Weikart
    Excerpt: In Hitler’s Ethic Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating the surprising conclusion that Hitler’s immorality flowed from a coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. Hitler’s evolutionary ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy:
    http://www.csustan.edu/history.....sethic.htm

    The Dark Legacy Of Charles Darwin – 150 Years Later – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060594

    Cruel Logic – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI

    Evolutionist William Provine Lays Out The True Implications Of Evolution – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109249

    The Fruit of Evolution – video
    http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/fruit.xml

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    To me it just seems obvious that if you remove God from influencing a culture then solely the “state” will be what is determining what a human worth is,,,which is Not Much and not a proposition I care for at all,,, But if the living God is allowed to influence a culture and to determine the worth of a people within it then:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, , that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    This new song reflects this precious “objective” value of worth placed on humans by God that no government can ever imitate:

    Francesca Battistelli – Beautiful, Beautiful (Video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbCfyZHSQbE

  8. 8
    Toronto says:

    Robert Byers @ 2,

    I think your post explains it best.

    A world lacking Darwin would not have stopped Hitler.

  9. 9
    Pan Narrans says:

    aqeels at 5,

    Its one thing to say that Hitler admired the writings of Darwin

    In fact, Hitler ordered books supportive of Darwin to be burned. From http://www.library.arizona.edu.....uments.htm

    6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).

    Not only is the logic of equating Hitler with Darwin’s theory wrong, the underlying facts don’t support the argument.

  10. 10
    Pan Narrans says:

    bornagain77 at 7,

    To me it just seems obvious that if you remove God from influencing a culture then solely the “state” will be what is determining what a human worth is,,,which is Not Much and not a proposition I care for at all,,, But if the living God is allowed to influence a culture and to determine the worth of a people within it then:

    I was going to respond with one or two of the numerous Hitler quotes advocating his Christian faith and claiming that National Socialism was based on that faith, but found it too distasteful. All the data is available via a quick Google search for anyone who can stomach it.

    Hitler did what he did because he was a sociopath, not because he was a Christian nor because of any love for Darwin’s theories.

  11. 11
    Phaedros says:

    Hitler wasn’t a Christian, you can say that much at least.

  12. 12
    Phaedros says:

    zephyr-

    “Let’s talk the conquistadors, The Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, witch-hunts, the history of the slave trade in the West, the destruction of Native cultures in the Americas and elsewhere, the real history behind the pogroms against Jewry in the Middle-Ages and later Eastern Europe, and so much more. It is disingenuous to sweep all this under the carpet and then harp on about the “scientific” prejudices of Darwinism. It doesn’t wash and you are not going to win any thoughtful person over to considering ID seriously by this kind of thing, those who are not already IDists and/or Creationists. In fact just the opposite…”

    What does any of that have to do with Hitler?

  13. 13
    Phaedros says:

    It seems incredibly disingenuous to me to say that eugenics had nothing whatsoever to do with The Origin of Species.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Pan Narrans, Now this is just so special that a evolutionist would try to twist the clear facts of history around to say that Hitler’s “devout Christianity” led him to the holocaust, (He clearly used Christianity, which he personally disdained, as a propaganda tool to achieve his sinister objectives) And Pan Narrans, if you don’t find it too distasteful, Please tell me which part of the love your neighbor as yourself commandment Hitler was enforcing with this “Christian theocracy” he was trying to cram down the world’s throat? What part of the feeding the poor Christian imperative was he operating under as he starved millions in his concentration camps? Please do tell us what exactly is the name of the new denomination of Christianity that he was so zealous to evangelize to the world. The lies that are spread against Christianity are far and wide, but this beats all. I do not deny that men have committed acts of evil in the name of Christianity, but most reasonable people can easily see that the people committing these acts were acting out of personal lusts for power and had clearly left the foundational teachings of Christ. Why do you make such a gross exception in this case of Hitler Pan Narrans? Why are you so willing to be so unreasonable just so to defend a theory that has no reward for you and that tells you that you are worthless? Myself I know that the motives of my heart are fallible and are to be brought in line with the good and perfect will of God. That is a foundational teaching to most Christian denominations in America!

    Take Me In (Holy Of Holies) – Kutless
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4716801

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    It amazes me the extremely selective vision that materialists exercise in only regarding the atrocities of supposed Christians and totally disregarding the atrocities of atheists. Why should such prejudice be so if a person is truly looking for the truth? Should not all evidence be considered?

    The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression:
    Excerpt: Essentially a body count of communism’s victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million, non-war related, deaths in the century. (of note: this estimate is viewed as very conservative by many, with some more realistic estimates passing 200 million dead) (Of Note: Atheistic Communism is defined as Dialectic Materialism)
    http://www.amazon.com/Black-Bo.....0674076087

    Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions By David Berlinski – list of genocides by atheists
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    Atheist Atrocities Frightening Stats About Atheists – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP1KpNEeRYU

    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.....27s_theory

    Darwin’s Deadly Legacy (1 of 7)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mxXICZ9mXo

    The Irrational Atheist – book
    http://irrationalatheist.com/f.....theist.pdf

    Lives Saved By Christianity
    Excerpt: here is an article, detailing how Christianity improved the status of women and saved millions of people in ancient Rome from death by female infanticide and from the plagues which periodically swept the Roman Empire:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-337994

    From Josh McDowell, Evidence for Christianity, in giving examples of the influence of Jesus Christ cites many examples. Here are just a few:

    1. Hospitals
    2. Universities
    3. Literacy and education for the masses
    4. Representative government
    5. Separation of political powers
    6. Civil liberties
    7. Abolition of slavery
    8. Modern science
    9. The elevation of the common man
    10. High regard for human life

  16. 16
    Pan Narrans says:

    bornagain77 at 13 and 14,

    You’re committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. Hitler claimed to be a Christian:

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org.....itler.html

    Was he a good Christian? Of course not. Is any Christian perfect? Are all Christians in agreement about all points of doctrine? Assuming that the answers to the last two questions are no and no, on what basis do you reject any individual’s clear statement of belief?

    Again, my point is not that Christianity motivated Hitler’s sociopathy, but that blaming the holocaust on Darwin is an untenable position.

  17. 17
    aqeels says:

    Phaedros said “It seems incredibly disingenuous to me to say that eugenics had nothing whatsoever to do with The Origin of Species.”

    The Nazi spectre came about for differing reasons. Remember that Germany was going through an economic recession and the ordinary German man felt neglected and forgotten. With the back drop of the so called successful “Jew” amidst German society, it only needed someone to rally people around to find the scape goat. The rest is history as they say. He may or may not have been influenced by Darwin. History (official at least) tells us the the main factors were socio-economic, and a race of people that that were seen as the enemy. We see it all around. In the UK we have the BNP (British National Party) trying to divide people and find a common enemy. It seems to be in enshrined in human nature to find someone to blame.

    Lack of religion does not mean one loses basic human values. God created us with a purpose. He instilled into us certain universal values that the theist and atheist alike share, whether they accept it or not. One can commit genocide whether one believes in God or not.

    BA77 tells us of many atrocities committed by atheists, yet someone else tells us of so called Christian atrocities. It just proves the original point made by zephyr – that it serves no purpose making grand sweeping conclusions about genocidal policies and how they can be linked to Darwin and his ideas.

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Pan Narrans and aqeel, The overriding lesson in all this is that the heart of man is hopelessly evil and that we all are desperately in need of redemption from Christ, but to deny the fact of history that the evil manifest in man is exponentially worse without a solid foundational belief in the Living God, is to deny a clear fact of history. Nazism, and the clear link historian Weikart thoroughly documents to Darwinism, is a clear case study of what happens when a “Christian society” that falls under the control (spell) of materialistic evolutionary thinking. Darwinism has “scientifically justified” all manner of atrocities from eugenics to abortion to euthanasia and this is a undeniable fact that Christianity directly teaches against. Christianity is indeed the salt of the world that prevents the world from dissolving into total “survival of the fittest” of Darwinism where only the strong deserve to survive and the weak and meek are just so much dead weight to be thrown away. Frankly I can find no justification for the materialistic worldview and am amazed that its practioners would be so deceptive as to revealing its bankruptcy

    My Redeemer Lives
    http://www.wayn.com/waynvideos.....;wci=watch

  19. 19
    Pan Narrans says:

    bornagain77 at 17,

    Hitler ordered books supporting Darwin to be burned. If someone were looking for reasons for Hitler’s antisemitism other than those so well articulated by aqeels, it would be a lot easier to point to his clear claims about his Christian faith than to some tortured logic connecting him to a man whose books he burned.

    Easier, but equally fallacious. Ascribing sociopathic behaviors to anything other than sociopathy makes no sense. More importantly, as pointed out by other participants in this thread, doing so makes those you would like to interest in your positions far less likely to consider them.

  20. 20
    Phaedros says:

    Pan-

    i find it telling that someone would invoke the so-called fallacy “no true scotsman in a discussion in which we are trying to discern the TRUE motivations of a man, i.e. Hitler. In trying to do this we have to look at what lines of thought REALLY played their part in the ultimate results of Nazi Germany. Then, you pose a strawman fallacy, a true fallacy, by claiming that we are blaming the holocaust on Darwin, which is obviously absurd since he was dead. However, his ideas were not dead.

    Of further interest, Antony Flew, the originator of the so-called no true scotsman fallacy, after he became a deist said he apologized for any damage he had done. I would wager that that fallacy is part of that damage in that it stifles critical thought.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Pan Narrans, so you deny Darwinism had anything whatsoever to do with “scientifically justifying” the holocaust?

    The Dark Legacy Of Charles Darwin – 150 Years Later – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4060594

    You can deceive yourself if you want but the fact is that a whole society willingly followed Hitler into his madness because they had been brainwashed into thinking Darwinist ideology was true, and could muster no effective defense from their Christian heritage to stop this intrusion any longer. You cite book burning as if this justifies your claim of no connection of Nazism to Darwin, do you want me to cite the ample propaganda that dehumanized non-Aryans to prove your point wrong? This is amazing. Just as in evolutionary debates the evolutionists never ever consider solid evidence to the contrary but always consider whatever flimsy piece of circumstantial evidence they can find that can be twisted to fit their preconceived conclusion. as Dr. Hunter says “Religion drives science and it matters”.

  22. 22
    aqeels says:

    BA77 – “Pan Narrans and aqeel, The overriding lesson in all this is that the heart of man is hopelessly evil”

    Cant disagree with that! Man succumbs to his lowly desires and forgets his intellect and reason.

    ..”and that we all are desperately in need of redemption from Christ”

    My redemption will come from God. Jesus was a prophet that served God.

    To look upon the face of God is to define attributes for him, to define attributes to him is to point to him, and one who pointed to him mistook him, and one who mistook him numbered him. For such is not the lord of the worlds.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    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.)
    http://www.allaboutgod.com/Jesus-christ.htm

    Brooke Fraser- “C S Lewis Song”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHpuTGGRCbY

    And actually aqeel a very strong case can be made, from science no less, that Jesus conquered the grave and unified infinite God with finite man:

    notes:

    I find it extremely interesting that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its “uncertain” 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that I exist?

    Psalm 33:13-15
    The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men.
    From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

    This is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence they seem to be having a extremely difficult time “unifying” mathematically into a “theory of everything”.(Einstein, Penrose).

    The Physics Of The Large And Small: What Is the Bridge Between Them?
    Roger Penrose
    Excerpt: This, (the unification of General Relativity and the laws of Quantum Mechanics), would also have practical advantages in the application of quantum ideas to subjects like biology – in which one does not have the clean distinction between a quantum system and its classical measuring apparatus that our present formalism requires. In my opinion, moreover, this revolution is needed if we are ever to make significant headway towards a genuine scientific understanding of the mysterious but very fundamental phenomena of conscious mentality.
    http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20I.....enrose.pdf

    “There are serious problems with the traditional view that the world is a space-time continuum. Quantum field theory and general relativity contradict each other. The notion of space-time breaks down at very small distances, because extremely massive quantum fluctuations (virtual particle/antiparticle pairs) should provoke black holes and space-time should be torn apart, which doesn’t actually happen.” – G J Chaitin
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~cha.....edel_6.pdf

    Yet, this “unification”, into a “theory of everything”, between what is in essence the “infinite world of Quantum Mechanics” and the “finite world of the space-time of General Relativity” seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3993426/

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 –
    William Dembski
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    Philippians 2: 5-11
    Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.”
    St. Augustine

    Thus, much contrary to the mediocrity of earth, and of humans, brought about by the heliocentric discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus, the findings of modern science are very comforting to Theistic postulations in general, and even lends strong support of plausibility to the main tenet of Christianity which holds Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

    Matthew 28:18
    And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth.”

  24. 24
    Phaedros says:

    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.

  25. 25
    Petrushka says:

    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.

  26. 26
    Proponentist says:

    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.nytim.....eneration/

    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.

  27. 27
    alicejohn says:

    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.

  28. 28
    NZer says:

    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”.

  29. 29
    aqeels says:

    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.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

  32. 32
    StephenA says:

    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.”

  33. 33
    StephenA says:

    In case any of you waqnt to look it up for yourselves, the last quote is from Matthew 26.

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    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?

  35. 35
    zeroseven says:

    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.

  36. 36
    alicejohn says:

    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?

  37. 37
    tgpeeler says:

    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?

  38. 38
    Phaedros says:

    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?

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    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-4Nsbk

  40. 40
    alicejohn says:

    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??

  41. 41
    tgpeeler says:

    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. tff

  42. 42
    Phaedros says:

    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.

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    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/issu.....-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.....27s_theory

  44. 44
    Phaedros says:

    Just came across this on Amazon, looks intriguing 😀

    http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Da.....roduct_top

  45. 45
    Phaedros says:

    Will there be a Christian Renaissance?

  46. 46
    Robert Byers says:

    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.

  47. 47
    alicejohn says:

    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.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    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)

  49. 49
    Phaedros says:

    alicejohn-

    You have yet to make any argument whatsoever on the validity of NDE or ToE. Panda’s Thumb troll?

  50. 50
    tgpeeler says:

    alicejohn @47

    “I am done. Good luck to everyone.”

    As far as I’m concerned, another proof for the existence of God. 🙂

  51. 51
    alicejohn says:

    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.

  52. 52
    Clive Hayden says:

    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.

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    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__TTOsHpD8

Leave a Reply