Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress

_{Mario Lopez

July 8, 2009

Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Human evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This should be interesting:

Book Description

In this book, 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. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.

More…

Comments

mynym, Evolution has plenty of predictive power.ppb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

tribune7 You still are missing my point. Whether or not Hitler was influenced by Darwin, it has no bearing on the validity of Evolutionary Theory. I was not saying that evolution was a fact. I was commenting on the "facts" you were pointing out in comment 3. I put "facts" in quotes because it is questionable how much Hitler was influenced by Darwin.ppb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT}

Evolution is a descriptive theory, similar to gravity... "Evolution" is hypothetical goo that can comport with all biological observations. What biological observations would falsify evolutionary creation myths and hypotheses (or "theories") of evolution in general? “Putting Darwinism into practice” makes as much sense as going around and pushing people off of tall objects in order to “put the theory of gravity” into practice. You're conflating a physical science with predictive power with pseudo-science rooted in imagining things about the past. A key difference is that the theory of gravity is specified and verified by observers based on objective mathematical and logical reasoning while the "theory" of evolution simply merges the subject with everything based on imaginary events in the past. You point to a supposed difference between morality and science but given the "theory" of evolution the prescriptive is merged with the descriptive, the "theory" explains both. That is what the Nazis thought. I.e. there is no morality, only what is.mynym_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Tribune, here's what you wrote:
ppb — the point you are trying to make
and then you reworded ppb's point in terms that he clearly would not agree with. Those are your terms, Tribune, not ppb's. Doesn't matter if you think that's the correct way to look at it or not. In any case, your argument is basically an appeal to consequences. Sorry, but that's now how logic works.dbthomas_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT}

I'm glad you've brought that up, tribune7. I'm tired of seeing the "that doesn't make his theory any less valid" card, because yes, actually it does. If morality is a product of evolution, then Hitler's--albeit extreme--application of the theory should be of no moral transgression. The fact that this is not the case is quite an invalidation.Berceuse_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT}

dbthomas, it is not I doing the "quotemining". My initial response to ppd was with regard to his statement "I could never understand the fascination for Hitler that critics of evolutionary theory have." I'm attempting to help him understand why it very important to recognize the influence Darwin had on Hitler (and Stalin and Trotsky and Sanger etc. if we should start discussing them). You are not thinking the implications through when you say that the extent Hitler got his inspiration from Darwin has nothing to do with the validity of the ToE. If the ToE is right -- man is not a special creation, existence can be explained without recourse to the supernatural hence no eternal judgment -- why is what Hitler did wrong? If what Hitler did was wrong, the ToE (man descending from less complex life solely via natural processes) is also wrong. And what Hitler did was very, very, very wrong.tribune7_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Tribune, you're quotemining:
[W]hy bring up that Hitler’s ethics were greatly influenced by Darwinian evolution?
Here is what ppb actually wrote (emphasis mine):
To whatever extent Hitler got his inspiration from Darwin, it has no impact on the validity of the Theory of Evolution, or even the Theory of Intelligent Design for that matter.
I see no "greatly influenced" or anything remotely equivalent either there or in anything else ppb has written here. Would you care to amend your description?dbthomas_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

ppb -- the point you are trying to make is that since evolution is "true" -- namely and directly that man is not a special creation -- why bring up that Hitler's ethics were greatly influenced by Darwinian evolution? If man is not a special creation with a soul that transcends biology to which is ultimately accountable to a judgment that transcends the physical, how did Hitler do anything wrong?tribune7_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

ppb --If the “facts” are irrelevant why point them out? Why would facts be irrelevant?tribune7_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

One has to wonder at what point historical exposition becomes political propaganda. If Weikert's thesis is that the theory of evolution was primarily responsible for the rise of the Nazis in Germany and the eventual Holocaust then it raises serious doubts. If it downplays or ignores the anti-Semitism that has been embedded in European society for a thousand years, and which was given a particularly vicious expression in what was to become Germany by Martin Luther, then we have to lean towards propaganda. In any event, as many others have already pointed out, the eugenics movement or the Nazis have no bearing on whether evolution is a good theory. As for this mantra that ideas have consequences, well, yes, of course they do. So what? Should we abandon the search for new insights just because some people might pervert them to a harmful use? Should ID proponents call off the search for evidence of design because they might discover that, far from being God's chosen people in all the Universe, we were actually genetically-engineered by little green men who have fetish for conducting rectal examinations on us and having sex with us in flying saucers?Seversky_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

bevets @ 12
National Socialism is nothing but applied biology. ~ Rudolph Hess
Interesting to track down the source of that quote: THE NAZI DOCTORS: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert J. Lifton Specifically, it comes from interviews with a "Dr. Johann S.", a Nazi physician, and S. attributes it to a speech Hess gave at a 1934 meeting. S. had interesting views on the origins of the "Jewish Problem":
Clearly a fierce anti-Semite at least during the Nazi era, S., upon learning that I was Jewish, declared unctuously, “The Jewish question became our tragedy and your tragedy.” He explained that it was initiated “by the flood [of Jews] from the East”, and by Darwinian principles enabling Jews to become especially able “through such a hard selection during these two thousand years” to take so many medical positions that German doctors were excluded from; but he added, “Nowadays we know that all of us, Jews and Germans, belong to the same cultural community” and must stand together against the “adverse cultural community,” including China and Russia but especially the expanding numbers of the people of Islam, which “is where the danger comes from.” Except for rearranging his cast of characters, Dr. S. had not changed much.
Yeah, you read that right: he said Jews were so successful, especially in the medical profession, because of natural selection. Lifton also addressed the purported Nazi embrace of Darwinism:
It was a religion of the will — the will as “an all-encompassing metaphysical principle”; and what the Nazis “willed” was nothing less than total control over life and death. While this view is often referred to as “social Darwinism,” the term applies only loosely, mostly to the Nazi stress on natural “struggle” and on “survival of the fittest." The regime actually rejected much of Darwinism; since evolutionary theory is more or less democratic in its assumption of a common beginning for all races, it is therefore at odds with the Nazi principle of inherent Aryan racial virtue. Even more specific to the biomedical vision was the crude genetic imagery, combined with still cruder eugenic visions (see pages 23-24). Here Heinrich Himmler, as high priest, spoke of the leadership’s task as being “like the plant-breeding specialist who, when he wants to breed a pure new strain from a well-tried species that has been exhausted by too much cross-breeding, first goes over the field to cull the unwanted plants." The Nazi project, then, was not so much Darwinian or social Darwinist as a vision of absolute control over the evolutionary process, over the biological human future. Making widespread use of the Darwinian term “selection,” the Nazis sought to take over the functions of nature (natural selection) and God (the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away) in orchestrating their own “selections,” their own version of human evolution. In these visions the Nazis embraced not only versions of medieval mystical anti-Semitism but also a newer (nineteenth- and twentieth-century) claim to “scientific racism.” Dangerous Jewish characteristics could be linked with alleged data of scientific disciplines, so that a “mainstream of racism” formed from “the fusion of anthropology, eugenics, and social thought.” The resulting “racial and social biology” could make vicious forms of anti-Semitism seem intellectually respectable to learned men and women.
and later:
The Nazi ethos thus came to contain a sacred biology, whose logic was taken on and actively promulgated by the Auschwitz self. For the claim of logic and rationality was part of the larger Nazi claim of direct outgrowth from the biological laboratory. To be sure, other movements, Marxism and Soviet Communism, for instance, have also claimed scientific validity. But only the Nazis have seen themselves as products and practitioners of the science of life and life processes — as biologically ordained guides to their own and the world’s biological destiny. Whatever their hubris, and whatever the elements of pseudo science and scientism in what they actually did, they identified themselves with the science of their time. They drew upon that, science, however, in an apocalyptic, wildly romantic fashion. Hence the merging of the death-haunted, Wagnerian “twilight of the gods” with the most absolute positivism. Whatever the visionary absurdities in projected killing and. healing, the logic of science was always, at least in Nazi eyes, close at hand. This combination, apparently manageable in the abstract, required considerable mental effort when acted upon in places like Auschwitz. That combinatory effort was an important struggle of the Auschwitz self, a struggle made possible by the claim of return to the solid ground of science from the most far-flung, romantic stratosphere. The insistence upon rationality and science was as vehement as it was precarious.
This was not science, but rather the distortion and abuse of science under the direction of a fundamentally unscientific ideology with very deep historical roots. A national exercise in self-deception. Aren't actual sources fun?dbthomas_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

PaulN-25
If you acknowledge the theory of evolution to be true, then you also believe that blacks are closer to their ape-like ancestors, making them less “evolved” than say white Europeans who are further developed.
I don't believe that having darker skin makes you less evolved, and there is nothing in the MET to suggest this either, not even remotely. Remember Paul,those assertions about black people you just made are yours, not mine.
This is the logical objective conclusion one comes to when adopting the theory of evolution to be true, regardless of one’s own opinion on racial equality.
...? Why? Why black people and not people with ginger hair? Remember paul it is you who are making these claims that black people are 'less evolved', not me, or anyone I have ever met in the scientific community.
The theory of evolution entails that blacks are more primitive than whites,
Please explain...where does it say this? Making an assertion is not a fact, repeating again and again that black people are inferior will not make it so, trying to blame your own prejudices on others is shameful.BillB_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

hdx, You continue to assert that he is simply alluding to civil development when he clearly relates races to their ape-like counterparts, providing specific analogies between blacks, aboriginals, and their respective evolutionary proximity to gorillas. It's clear that he is referring primarily to evolutionary development, and its respective civilizational development. He prefaces this with what he believed to be the impending deliberate extermination between these distinctive developmental stages of evolutionary castes.PaulN_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Hdx, In regards to Eugenics, please read Darwin's own descendents use of Eugenics and Darwin's beliefs. See: Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin. Here is an example of a recepient of a Darwinian medal awarded to Karl Pearson... not far removed from Darwin, appointed by Darwin's cousin. "No degenerate and feeble stock will ever be converted into healthy and sound stock by the accumulated effects of education, good laws, and sanitary surroundings. Such means may render the individual members of a stock passable if not strong members of society, but the same process will have to be gone through again and again with their offspring, and this in ever-widening circles, if the stock, owing to the conditions in which society has placed it, is able to increase its numbers." To cleanse the human race of "feeble stock," he advocated “war with inferior races.” "Pearson was appointed as the first Galton Professor of Eugenics at University College, London in 1911 and remained in that position until his retirement in 1933. He was nominated for the position by Francis Galton himself, who was Charles Darwin’s cousin and a passionate Darwinist and eugenicist." "Pearson’s eugenic ideology was a natural consequence of his Darwinian ideology. In 1898, in the midst of his eugenic advocacy, Pearson was awarded the Darwin Medal by the Royal Society of London. He was the 5th recipient of the biannual award. Other Darwin Medal laureates included Francis Galton and fellow eugenicist Ernst Haeckel." Why were Eugenicist awarded medals by a Eugenics society created on the back of Darwinism, supported by his family? ok... this time, must go... check in later.DATCG_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

PaulN, although I don't believe you are correctly characterizing Darwin's views, it doesn't matter. As I pointed out, the science of evolution does not stand or fall based on something written in 1871, and no one reveres Darwin except in the minds of creationists.Anthony09_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Are global warming "deniars" like Nazis? Al Gore speaking at Oxford..., sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore says: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.” So is this OK? To invoke WWII? Nazis? For Global warming? He continues: “We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource.” Haha... yes and so to is Communism, Nazism and Socialism, as well as Eugenics. "Mr Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat from Nazi Germany." Go figure, at least some in the public understand the difference between an imminent threat and that of theory - failed in fact the last few years. “The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshold where political leaders feel that they must change. “The only way politicians will act is if awareness raises to a level to make them feel that it’s a necessity." Interesting, so creating a crisis like the left is oft to do, or creating a scientific conclusion as factual, like the left is oft to do is the way to make people feel its a necessity. How does one do that? Promote global warming as an enemy like Nazis? Promote other races as amoral, savages, below European races, as "undersirables" Hitler certainly used Darwins teachings, so did Darwin's own descendents utilize it for their own Eugenics beliefs. That is uncontroversial. But the Al Gore thing, haha.. wow.DATCG_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

In your quote he is talking about culture and civilization which Darwin says that people can acquire and lose through time. Without some of these things we get through knowledge habits and religion is what makes us different than the apes. But in terms of biological differences of humans here is an expanded quote.
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate. He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattoing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers. The same observation has been made by archeologists with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments, such as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs and customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic structures. I remember observing in South America, that there, as in so many other parts of the world, men have generally chosen the summits of lofty hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a record of some remarkable event, or for burying their dead. Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man. As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters. - The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin; 1871
Show me any creationist of the time with anything remotely close to this.hdx_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

@32 Common ancestry from a single (group) of humans. As I mentioned, the fact that humans interbreed (and he mentioned studies) and there is no single feature to distinguish the races. People who argued against common ancestry stated that human races could not interbeed well and their were too many differences between the races. In regards to eugenics. Please read previous comments Darwinian theory involved natural selection and common descent, not artificial selection. @37 Expanding the quote
My wife has just finished reading aloud your 'Life with a Black Regiment,' and you must allow me to thank you heartily for the very great pleasure which it has in many ways given us. I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed. When you were here I did not know of the noble position which you had filled. I had formerly read about the black regiments, but failed to connect your name with your admirable undertaking. Although we enjoyed greatly your visit to Down, my wife and myself have over and over again regretted that we did not know about the black regiment, as we should have greatly liked to have heard a little about the South from your own lips. * Letter to Thomas Higginson (27 February 1873)

Darwin also wrote of them as savages whom he thought would go extinct.
In many cases natives were killed off by Europeans. Darwin was not condoning it, just making a prediction. Savages just means 'wild and uncivilized', and is not necessarily appropriate to various native populations that did not have the same degree of science art and culture in the mid 1800s. It was a common term at the time.
It was the Christians in England and America who rose up against slavery, putting their lives on the line. Not Darwin.
Darwin abhored slavery while the Christian captain of the Beagle approved of it. And the Christians who opposed the slavery were matched by the Christians who supported it.
On the lawfulness of holding slaves ... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. - Rev. Richard Furman; President, Baptist State Convention, 1822
hdx_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

I think it is interesting, even laudable, that a site devoted to Intelligent Design is one that mentions a book that in effect admits that Hitler's theory of racial biology was in fact a theory of the intelligent design of humanity. (For the slower readers here, ID advocates are very quick to point out that the breeding of animals and plants is more akin to design that natural selection. Eugenics and "theories" such as Hitler's are exactly the breeding of humans. Thus, in every real and accurate sense, Hitler was the ultimate ID proponent. He carried ID to its logical, if twisted, conclusion.)Arthur Hunt_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Anthony, You and Hdx must have missed the quote from the "Descent of Man" 2nd edition written by Charles Darwin in 1887. Again:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which allegedly look like people] … will no doubt be exterminated.
Who do you suppose he refers to as "the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which allegedly look like people]," and to which "people" is he comparing them to? His personal opinion of negroes might not follow his own scientific assessment according to his theory. In other words, the objective "facts" of his theory may not support his personal feelings. Even so, according to the quote above, it's hard to believe that he considered black men to be equivalent to whites in any sense.PaulN_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

PaulN, Thanks, didn't see your quote from Darwin. It is worth repeating... "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races(whites) of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races(blacks in Africa) throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which allegedly look like people] … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aboriginal] and the gorilla’ Darwin considered the "negro" and aborigional closer to the ape. Not much scientific thinking at this point of his life. Seeing as how he failed in math miserably, it is understandable how he conjectures and fails in other areas so easily and clumsily.DATCG_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Hdx, Please provide context of your quote, what time, which publication? Darwin also wrote of them as savages whom he thought would go extinct. It was the Christians in England and America who rose up against slavery, putting their lives on the line. Not Darwin. OK, i must go, will check back later.DATCG_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

jerry:
Today it is still speculation though common ancestry is strongly supported for a high number of organisms using genomic data but not common descent.
I never realised there was a difference between common descent and common ancestry. What is it?Hoki_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Hdx said, "Of course Darwins evidence for a common descent of all humans destroyed Gobineau’s views" Making an assertion is not a fact. First, Darwin did not provide any evidence at all, only conjecture and hypothesis. Second, Common descent from a single organism? This TOL theory is being chopped up by secular evolutionist today into small bushes and forest of trees. But, maybe you can point to Darwin's evidence for us? Also, Please review history of Eugenics, including Darwin's own descendents that utilized Darwin's interpretations of history and science, plus Margaret Sanger, et al., that utilized Darwinian eugenics programs to kill the innocent, the colored, the "feeble" minded, the unwanted of society. It is hardly a Nazi thing, or Hitlarian, as Americna scientist were caught up in the Darwinian Eugenics movement as well. Planned "parenthood" was started by the racist Sanger. From her Darwinian beliefs, 50 million American babies have died, including a majority of blacks which she despised. I'll check back in later tonight. Seems a promising commentary.DATCG_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

@26 Darwin did believe that European culture was “summit of civilization”. But he does not think that this has anything to do with race. Instead this came from influences such as education, morals and religion. He states that “all civilised nations are the descendants of barbarians” and “that savages are independently able to raise themselves a few steps in the scale of civilisation, and have actually thus risen.” He states “that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps, from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him in knowledge, morals and religion.” Darwin also writes that civilizations can rise and fall. Darwin states “The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible.” But my quote in @22 shows that Darwin believed that there were very little mental differences in the races. In fact of Africans he wrote (as previously quoted)
I always thought well of the negroes, from the little which I have seen of them; and I have been delighted to have my vague impressions confirmed, and their character and mental powers so ably discussed.
hdx_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

ppb @ 14 I am not aware of any nazi politicians who had advanced degrees in Biology, however you may have noticed that I also linked to Ernst Haeckel Ph.D., M.D., LL.IX, Sc.B., Professor at the University of Jena, and recipient of the Darwin-Wallace Medal. Anthony09 @ 27 Instead of shrugging your shoulders, how about refuting the logical and historical connection?bevets_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Jerry @24: I am not sure where you have been getting your information, but there has been a lot published on the subject over the last few centuries. You could start here for some pointers.ppb_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Sorry for the double post, but you do realize that book was published in 1871. You also realize the current year is 2009. Why are you acting like the science of evolution hasn't progressed since 1879 (I mean besides because it supports the polemical point you hope to make)?Anthony09_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

PaulN, that's silly. The theory of evolution doesn't claim that blacks are closer to their apelike ancestors than whites. It doesn't claim anything like that. You need to read the actual science and not creationists' biased summaries of the science.Anthony09_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

From the descent of man, 2nd edition, page 156:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [that is, the ones which allegedly look like people] … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [Aboriginal] and the gorilla’
PaulN_{July 8, 2009
July
07
Jul
8
08
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply