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

inherent in evolution is the difference of the races…and of course one race must be more ‘fit’ than another, right?? since its impossible for every race to evolve equally isn’t it??
So you keep saying, tsmith, as if your opinion binds everyone else.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

I’ve already posted several quotes of people who disagree, including prominent evolutionists.
For the bazillionth time, tsmith, some does not equal all. Some does not equal most. Does Fred Phelps speak for all Christians? Does Joe the Plumber? These are rhetorical questions. You needn't answer. It's amusing that you declare victory on the basis that not every quotation you make is answered, when you make no attempt to respond to most of what is put to you.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

The theory says nothing about a god either way. It simply has no need of such a hypothesis. The same goes for a “savior”.
miller and provine would disagree, but what do the know???tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

But to pretend that ALL people who believe in evolution must accept YOUR opinion, Mr tsmith sir, is to bear false witness.
never said that...nice lie...apparently you are good at it. you can deny history and the truth all you want...doesn't mean that history didn't happen. and yes when the subtitle is or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life of course race had NOTHING to do with the origin of the species!! sure!!
I have seen in the news this year dozens of events, programs and the like regarding the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. Have ANY of these events included celebrations or promotions of racism or eugenics
what does this matter?
Modern evolutionary understanding, accepted almost entirely (as I understand it) by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Denyse O’Leary et al. is that all humans alive today are of the species Homo Sapiens. ‘Race’ in the sense of African, European, Asian or Native American, is biologically meaningless, with the differences being superficial
but obviously the races are different..so they must be 'differently' evolved?? right? a common ancestor does NOT mean that all humans are the same race, or that they have evolved at the same rate. as I said, inherent in evolution is the difference of the races...and of course one race must be more 'fit' than another, right?? since its impossible for every race to evolve equally isn't it??tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Darwin formulated the theory of evolution to describe and explain how life on Earth has changed and developed over millions of years - nothing more, nothing less. The theory says nothing about a god either way. It simply has no need of such a hypothesis. The same goes for a “savior”.
I've already posted several quotes of people who disagree, including prominent evolutionists.
Obviously there are historians who have no better understanding of the ‘is/ought’ problem than you
because YOU say so...right.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

tsmith @ 72
and evolution was always meant to be the ‘theory of everything’, that explained all human behavior. it has consequences, no god, no right no wrong, no need for a savior…and that is not incidental to the theory…
Darwin formulated the theory of evolution to describe and explain how life on Earth has changed and developed over millions of years - nothing more, nothing less. The theory says nothing about a god either way. It simply has no need of such a hypothesis. The same goes for a "savior". As for right and wrong, it is a theory in biology not ethics.
“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).
Obviously there are historians who have no better understanding of the 'is/ought' problem than you.Seversky_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

tsmith I am not here to defend evolution.
so tell me, in evolution, are some races more fit than another? and how are they more fit? since the races must be ‘differently evolved’, right?
Modern evolutionary understanding, accepted almost entirely (as I understand it) by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Denyse O'Leary et al. is that all humans alive today are of the species Homo Sapiens. 'Race' in the sense of African, European, Asian or Native American, is biologically meaningless, with the differences being superficial. I do think you are flogging a dead horse.
racism and eugenics are INHERENT in the theory of evolution…nobody misused evolution, or twisted it…
So you say, and you are entitled to your opinion. But to pretend that ALL people who believe in evolution must accept YOUR opinion, Mr tsmith sir, is to bear false witness. I have seen in the news this year dozens of events, programs and the like regarding the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Have ANY of these events included celebrations or promotions of racism or eugenics? If not, then I suggest, sir, that your opinion that "racism and eugenics are INHERENT in the theory of evolution" is not shared by those (unlike me) who seek to promote and defend the theory of evolution. Let me make one thing clear. The argument that evolution is "mindless" and that science and all of culture therefore must be predicated on this "mindlessness" is one I would oppose. I suspect that this is the argument you wish to make, although it is not the one you are making. My point is, sir, that I do not think that modern-day evolutionists or philosophers ARE saying that culture and science should be "mindless". I think, and this is only my opinion, that those who support Intelligent Design should be making positive arguments in its favour - and not by attacking straw men.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

The arguments on this page have been of the form “some people used Darwinism to justify bad things, therefore Darwinism is bad”
you are deliberately misrepresenting the arguments on this page. is it ignorance, or a lie? why don't you answer the questions I asked before?? so tell me, in evolution, are some races more fit than another? and how are they more fit? since the races must be ‘differently evolved’, right? racism and eugenics are INHERENT in the theory of evolution...nobody misused evolution, or twisted it...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT}

Hitler hated and detested Christians as well, though not to the point of including them all in the Holocaust. Most people are not aware of his haterd for Christianity.
This isn't a contest to see who Hitler hated most. The arguments on this page have been of the form "some people used Darwinism to justify bad things, therefore Darwinism is bad". If people cannot see the logical fallacy of these arguments, then Lord help us, and Lord help the Intelligent Design community.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Olearyfan, Hitler hated and detested Christians as well, though not to the point of including them all in the Holocaust. Most people are not aware of his haterd for Christianity.DATCG_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Eugenics lives today at the Supreme Court... Just ask Justice Ginsburg. From a NYT interview online due out this weekend... "Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?" "JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of." So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. Hmmmmm... Evolutionist Progressive? Or evil right wing IDist? You decide. Repeating quote... "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of." Wonder how Sotomayor feels about this? Conflict at SCOTUS? "Populations... we don't want to many of" against "reverse racist" who supports color above test scores for Firemen? If this wasn't so sad, it would make a great SNL skit.DATCG_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

Tribune7
Then perhaps arguments-as-to-consequences are not so poor.
That depends on the context. As a general rule, they are not good arguments.
BTW, if you go back and look at my statements I noted that it is possible to accept evolution and Hitler’s immorality.
In which case, I really do not see the point of the original post in this thread. Hitler was a madman. His rise to power came out of fervent nationalism, and fed on long-standing, deeply-embedded antisemitism. To blame Darwin for that seems to me to make as much sense as blaming Pope Pius XII. But we're closer to singing from the same hymn sheet at last, Tribune7. Oh happy day.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

You have a teaching that says the purpose of life is to survive until procreation and that man is not exceptional. Neither teaching is implicit or implied in evolutionary theory or biology generally. You’re conflating “is” with “ought” by reading a “purpose” into a descriptive theory of changes in allele frequencies over time. Nor does biology teach “that man is not exceptional;” my biology classes included a number of lessons about how humans are different from other animals. Perhaps you mean that biology lacks a supernatural or metaphysical assumption that humans are fundamentally different from other organisms. You seem to have an expectation that whatever philosophy a society adopts to guide it… Are we adopting biology to guide us? Does that require any commitment above and beyond treating biology as an empirical discipline that stands or falls on its merits? Should we adopt intelligent design to guide us after it achieves scientific legitimacy, or concurrently, or adopt it as our guiding principle first, in order to help it succeed in the lab?Learned Hand_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

You seem to have an expectation that whatever philosophy a society adopts to guide it, the result will be the same. . .That is preposterous. I have never said any such thing. Then perhaps arguments-as-to-consequences are not so poor. BTW, if you go back and look at my statements I noted that it is possible to accept evolution and Hitler's immorality.tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Hoki, Common descent sometimes referred to as universal common descent is really a metaphysical dogma couched in naturalistic terms that all life on the planet descended with modification from some single celled organism in the distant past. It is the microbes to man scenario. It is the basis for the naturalistic world view. Common ancestry is nothing more than two separate species having a common ancestor. A goat and a cow could have a common ancestor. There is no implication or evidence that the ancestral tree goes back to microbes. Nowhere in either theory is there any implication that a certain mechanism for evolutionary change is preferred or likely. Because Darwin asserted the mechanism was gradualism, most people assume gradualism but there is no evidence for gradualism. The evidence is very strong for a lot of common ancestry amongst animals. Not that all are related but that many within a phyla are related. Again no evidence for the mechanism that caused this relationship.jerry_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

tribune7
You have a teaching that says the purpose of life is to survive until procreation and that man is not exceptional.
I did not come here to defend evolution as a philosophy-for-life. I commented in this thread to point out that arguments-as-to-consequences are very poor arguments, especially if one insists that ones own opinions are the only ones which are valid.
You seem to have an expectation that whatever philosophy a society adopts to guide it, the result will be the same.
That is preposterous. I have never said any such thing. tsmith
science isn’t all sweetness and light as you suppose.
I have never said it was.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT}

#156 nice try, but eugenics and racism still exists in science...sorry. science isn't all sweetness and light as you suppose.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

olearyfan --I can’t believe that you would really tell someone to reject Christianity without properly trying to understand it. But I never told that to anyone. You ignored what I said about the Spanish Inquisition. My point is that just because people commit evil acts in the name of Christianity, this does not invalidate Christianity. No, I didn't. You are missing my point. Evil has always existed. You have a teaching that says evil exists and that we must refrain from doing it. You have a teaching that says the purpose of life is to survive until procreation and that man is not exceptional. You seem to have an expectation that whatever philosophy a society adopts to guide it, the result will be the same. The death toll for the Spanish Inquisition over 300 years was 2,000 which if you want some perspective is about the same as that of lynchings in the US during the 70 years of Jim Crow. The death toll due to genocide during the 12-years of the Third Reich was 12 million.tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

To insist that “Darwinism” necessarily leads to racism and eugenics
that is true, and all the quotes that I have to support that proposition make it very clear. and your *proof* that its not so is, because you say so....right. so tell me, in evolution, are some races more fit than another? and how are they more fit? since the races must be 'differently evolved', right?
while ignoring the facts that racism and genocide existed before Darwin is, in my opinion, not a good argument
and what does that have to do with the notion that racism and eugenics are inherent in evolution??? As Gould said: "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." Stephen Jay Gould, 'Ontogeny and Phylogeny', Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128 so is Gould a liar too?? as far as 'slinging mud' whatever...continue with your lies...since its apparently all you have..tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

tsmith
...they represent a minority opinion in current scientific and cultural circles... ...these attempts have frequently been criticized as in the same spirit of classist and racist forms of eugenics of the 1930s...
Thank you for making my point for me.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

tsmith
what have I said is a lie?
To insist that "Darwinism" necessarily leads to racism and eugenics while ignoring any "Darwinists" who oppose racism and eugenics, and while ignoring the facts that racism and genocide existed before Darwin is, in my opinion, not a good argument. It may make you feel good to sling mud at those who don't believe what you believe, tsmith, but I do not think it's the right thing to do. To Bevets... Are you the same person frequently mentioned in Fark threads?olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

from wikpedia, under eugenics...
A few scientific researchers such as psychologist Richard Lynn, psychologist Raymond Cattell, and scientist Gregory Stock have openly called for eugenic policies using modern technology, but they represent a minority opinion in current scientific and cultural circles.[112] One attempted implementation of a form of eugenics was a "genius sperm bank" (1980–99) created by Robert Klark Graham, from which nearly 230 children were conceived (the best known donors were Nobel Prize winners William Shockley and J.D.Watson). In the U.S. and Europe, though, these attempts have frequently been criticized as in the same spirit of classist and racist forms of eugenics of the 1930s. Because of its association with compulsory sterilization and the racial ideals of the Nazi Party, the word eugenics is rarely used by the advocates of such programs.
tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

The creed of Eugenics is founded upon the idea of evolution. ~ Francis Galton Dedicated to the memory of MY FATHER. For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book. ~ Leonard Darwin The Need for Eugenic Reform (1926) Dedication Of all the problems which will have to be faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those concerning the treatment of the inferior races of mankind. ~ Leonard Darwinbevets_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

You have failed to convince me that you are doing that, tsmith, and I am supposed to be on your side.
really? well what do you dispute? what have I said is a lie? post your proof.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Not in the slightest. darwin made that clear Quite the opposite, as you have been shown again and again
right, all those scholars were soooo wrong..and you are right!! sure.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

And yet racism, hatred, genocide and all manner of evils existed before the time of Darwin - as tribune7 so prosaically demonstrated above.
so? those things existed before christianity too.
Do you have any evidence that evolutionary science today in any way support racism or eugenics?
the aforementioned Watson....and from wikpedia...under 'scientific racism'
The accusation of scientific racism is often levelled at those whose research claims that there are real differences in intelligence between races, particularly if those differences are claimed to be at least partly genetic in origin. Contemporary researchers who have been called scientific racists include Arthur Jensen (The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability); J. Philippe Rushton, president of the Pioneer Fund (Race, Evolution, and Behavior); Chris Brand (The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications); Richard Lynn (IQ and the Wealth of Nations); Charles Murray; and Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve), among others.[43] The critics of these authors, such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, write that their works are motivated by racist assumptions and are not supported by the available evidence. The authors respond that their work is objective, and that their critics are motivated by prejudice, political correctness or censorship. Some publications, such as the Mankind Quarterly, have been accused of systematically publishing racist research. The Mankind Quarterly is an anthropology journal that contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race. The journal publishes work they feel might otherwise be ignored, due to its controversial nature.[44]
tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

racism and eugenics are inherent…ie a central part, of the theory of evolution
Not in the slightest.
darwin made that clear
Quite the opposite, as you have been shown again and again. And now I have to go collect my daughter from school so that's it from me for the moment.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

tsmith
evolution is an all-encompassing theory, and it tries to explain all human behavior…as a religion would…the racism, the eugenics, are direct results of the theory…the word ‘eugenics’ was coined by galton, Darwin’s cousin.
And yet racism, hatred, genocide and all manner of evils existed before the time of Darwin - as tribune7 so prosaically demonstrated above. Do you have any evidence that evolutionary science today in any way support racism or eugenics?
you ’sir’ are a liar. I have amply backed up what I said with quotes from darwin, and his followers.
You have failed to convince me that you are doing that, tsmith, and I am supposed to be on your side.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

BillB: still waiting for those quotes from darwin where he rebukes Galton and his own children for supporting eugenics...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Lott and his daughters
racism and eugenics are inherent...ie a central part, of the theory of evolution...darwin made that clear...as did his followers...have you read what Watson recently said???tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply