Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What’s wrong with uttering “Darwin” and “Hitler” in the same breath?

Categories
Darwinism
Evolution
Expelled
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The post below appeared at UD 23Aug06, at which time it updated a still earlier post. I’m moving it to the top of the queue because of all the fuss about Ben Stein’s EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED connecting Darwin to Hitler. Get over it — there was a clear connection!

———————–

I posted these quotes (see below the fold) in May 2005 and am moving them to the top of the queue now because of the recent hubbub over D. James Kennedy’s upcoming program connecting Darwin and Nazi racism:

ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin for Hitler

NEW YORK, Aug. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ — The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.”

After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy’s project, Dr. Collins said he is “absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy’s program utterly misguided and inflammatory,” he told ADL.

ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement: “This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.

It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to “reclaim America for Christ” and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.”

The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book “Evolution’s Fatal Fruit: How Darwin’s Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions.”

A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program “features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler’s ovens.”

Source: http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71089

To be sure, there were many other streams of thought that played into Nazi racism and the holocaust, but to say that Darwinism played no role, or even an insignificant role, is absurd. Read Richard Weikart’s FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY (go here).

The Nazi emphasis on proper breeding, racial purity, and weeding out defectives come from taking Darwin’s theory seriously and applying it at the level of society. Yes, Darwin himself did not take these such steps, but Galton and Haeckel, his contemporaries, saw where this was going and did.

The outrage which says that the Nazi racial theory is a vulgarization of Darwinism is simply unmerited. The Nazis took Darwinian theory and ran with it, much as Peter Singer does these days, though Singer and his disciples are careful not to bring race into the picture — they take an equal opportunity approach in advocating the elimination of human lives they deem defective or inconvenient.

By the way, the American Eugenics Society was started in 1922 and dissolved not until 1994. Richard Lewontin, quoted below, belonged to it. Theodosius Dobzhansky was its chairman of the board in 1956. J.B.S. Haldane was a member. You think maybe their Darwinism had something to do with them being members?

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world…. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised 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 and the gorilla. [Just so there is no doubt, the author in particular is claiming that whites will exterminate blacks.]
— Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 6.

Evolution teaches that “we are animals so that “sex across the species barrier ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings. [Just so there is no doubt, “sex across the species barrier is a euphemism for bestiality.]
— Peter Singer, “Heavy Petting, 2001

Rape is “a natural, biological phenomenon that is a product of the human evolutionary heritage, akin to “the leopard’s spots and the giraffe’s elongated neck.
— Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, “Why Men Rape,” 2000

“As evolutionists, we see that no [ethical] justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will…. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding.
— E. O. Wilson and Michael Ruse, “The Evolution of Ethics,” 1991

According to Darwin, religious belief arises from ignorance of natural causes: “The tendency in savages to imagine that natural objects and agencies are animated by spiritual or living essences, is perhaps illustrated by a little fact which I once noticed: my dog, a full-grown and very sensible animal, was lying on the lawn during a hot and still day; but at a little distance a slight breeze occasionally moved an open parasol, which would have been wholly disregarded by the dog, had any one stood near it. As it was, every time that the parasol slightly moved, the dog growled fiercely and barked. He must, I think, have reasoned to himself in a rapid and unconscious manner, that movement without any apparent cause indicated the presence of some strange living agent, and that no stranger had a right to be on his territory. The belief in spiritual agencies would easily pass into the belief in the existence of one or more gods.
— Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871, ch. 3

According to Richard Dawkins “the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. Moreover, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
— Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science to free people from superstition. Lest there be any doubt about what Steven Weinberg here means by “superstition, he adds, “this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make. [Weinberg, a Nobel laureate physicist, is well-known as an ardent evolutionist. He has debated Phillip Johnson on a number of occasions on this topic. Note that the demise of religion is for Weinberg the most important contribution of science.]
— Steven Weinberg, “Free People from Superstition, 2000

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door…. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, than miracles may happen.
— Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, 1997

Comments
Hi Poul, Your game appears intriguing until weighed down by facts. As you've read over on the page about Blyth, there is nothing new under the sun, and that certainly applies to Darwin's contribution to empirical science. Absolutely he was building upon and borrowing from other theories and philosophies popular in his day. However, what makes Darwinsim different from Blythism is that Darwin and his supporters/promoters (notably Haeckel and Huxley) applied to the science a necessary and self-conscious metaphysic. These supporters were particularly influenced by Darwin himself. It was Haeckel, of course, who quit his practice as a physician to study comparative biology after reading Darwin in 1859.
Ernst Haeckel was a German biologist who lived from 1834 until 1919. He is primarily remembered today as a fierce proponent of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Together with Englishman Thomas Henry Huxley, Haeckel persuaded a generation of scientists to accept the new paradigm, and fought those who opposed it on religious or other grounds.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ID1wFnilvf4J:www.everything2.com/index.pl%3Fnode_id%3D1372041+haeckel+huxley+applied+biology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=safari T.H. ""no rational man...believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man"" Huxley:
Huxley's Scientific Thought As the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" would suggest, Huxley was an outspoken defender and advocate for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Perhaps surprisingly, he was at first an opponent of any evolutionary change at all, believing that the living world had stayed much the same for as far back as its history could be traced, and that modern taxa would eventually be found in the oldest rocks. But he came to accept evolutionary views: his reaction to reading the Origin of Species was "How stupid of me not to have thought of that. ... Huxley's support for natural selection is perhaps surprising when contrasted with his earlier attacks on the evolutionary theories put forth by Lamarck and Robert Chambers. ... Huxley's most famous writing, published in 1863, is Evidence on Man's Place in Nature. This book, published only five years after Darwin's Origin of Species, was a comprehensive review of what was known at the time about primate and human paleontology and ethology. More than that, it was the first attempt to apply evolution explicitly to the human race."
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:7XKPXPCvrTEJ:www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/thuxley.html+darwin%27s+influence+on+huxley&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&client=safari They were profoundly influenced by Darwin and believed, with him, that sociology and politics must be informed by our knowledge of biology, and that, as Haeckel said, "politics is applied biology ". In their system man had no choice but to live according to natural law and that natural law was defined by Darwin's theory- theory which owed nothing to the divine, nothing to transcendent morality, which, through chance and necessity, was determined by the struggle to exist. The idea that evolution entailed a certain metaphysic was not an accidental grafting later on, but was intrinsic to Darwin’s own belief.
"'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).
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html#drwnsmwslwysntnddtxplnhmnscty Darwin's son Leonard, of course, became a eugenicist himself and stated that he was only doing with the theory what his father would have wanted. As well:
Darwin ’s son Francis, who edited the notebook material, commented significantly concerning his father’s speculations: “He had at this early date visions of the far reaching character of the theory of evolution” ( Autobiography 121). Francis spoke of the following notebook passage from his father: “My theory would give zest to recent and fossil comparative anatomy; it would lead to the study of instincts, heredity, and mind-heredity, whole [of] metaphysics , it would lead to closest examination of hybridity & generation, causes of change in order to know what we have come from & to what we tend, to what circumstances favour crossing & what prevents it, this & direct examination of direct passages of structure in species, might lead to laws of change, which would then be main object of study, to guide our speculations. (122) “ From these early notes , we can see that Darwin eagerly anticipated the day when evolutionary thought would infiltrate other realms of science and even the “whole [of] metaphysics .”
Darwin, in fact, was following the example of Lyell in doing a "real good" by making a side attack on religion (ie: freeing man's existence from purpose and transcendent morality, making it only accountable to survival of the fittest.) “”Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the deluge far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible than if he had acted otherwise … I have read lately Morley's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the powerful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect; real good seems only to follow silent side attacks. (qtd. in Himmelfarb 387) “”
Have a nice day as well. Say "hi" to the fellas at ATBC.
Charlie
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
In post #9 BarryA wrote: Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation: Or The Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes. A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of Evolution in General, and of that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in Particular, translated by E. Ray Lankester, 6th English ed., First German Publication... What is worth noting in the title of Haeckel's book is that he mentions not only Darwin, but also Goethe and Lamarck. To me a somewhat odd threesome. A source of confusion when disccussing evolution and Darwinism is that these words mean different things to different people, and apparently Haeckel had brewed up his own version. Let's play a little game, shall we? If you ask any wellinformed YEC about who came up with the idea of natural selection, you will be told that it was Edward Blyth, a creationist. Blyth's version was a bit different, however, in that it weeded out the unfit; that is, rather than supporting adaptation to a changing environment it simply kept a species the way it was. Yet, the YECs claim that Darwin stole his idea from Blyth without giving Blyth credit. So, shouldn't we give Edward Blyth the credit he's due now? Our game therefore has the following rule: the words "(theory of) evolution" and "Darwinism" are not allowed, it's to be called "Blythism", and everything bad ever said about evolution and Darwin has to said about Blyth. The first person to break this rule must write a post to admit to have defamed Charles Darwin by calling him names that more properly should have been applied to other persons. What's ya all think? My point here is that, for some reason everything bad in this world has come to be associated with the name Darwin, although Darwin wasn't the only one to come up with a theory of evolution, and in many cases ideas very foreign to Darwinian evolution are associated with Darwin's name. The works of Lamarck and Spencer predated The Origin of Species, so Darwin can hardly be blamed for, what these two wrote. There is little scientifically won by accusing a person of having written things he didn't write. have a nice day! - pwePoul Willy Eriksen
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
Various streams of influence lurk behind the Holocaust—centuries of Christian anti-Semitism, a perverted take on Indo-European linguistics, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/) . . . but there was one rather unique feature of the Holocaust . . . it was all about BIOLOGY. Jews were declared unfit biologically . . . the Nazis were not interested in conversion . . . just in the extermination of the biologically unfit . . . what do you suppose influenced that kind of thinking?Rude
August 26, 2006
August
08
Aug
26
26
2006
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
OK, Barrett :-)tribune7
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
Tribune7, Yes! You are absolutely right! Now, we are down to the subjective. We can quibble forever about who created the mess in the first place or whether the judiciary in the 1950s played a significant in advancing civil rights. We will soon find ourselves in the same position as the Darwin/Hitler connection. History is by definition behind us, and we all look back with different prescription glasses. Your interpretation of history suits you. And mine as well. We can disagree and still be friends.Barrett1
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
And this whole business about slavery being a legacy of the English and Europe is just plain bizarre. Of course it was a legacy of the English and Europe. Where do you think white Americans came from? Concerning our Founders, Hamilton came from Nevis in the West Indies. Most of the rest were born here. Does that mean that Americans during that time were any more or less culpable? I don’t get it. Then I will explain. The United States of America didn't become a sovereign nation until July 4, 1776. Black slavery was introduced in 1619. One is much less culpable being born into an existing circumstance than creating a new one.tribune7
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Anyway, Jim Crow laws were never voted out of existence by anyone. The federal judiciary had to strike them down as unconstitutional. And then the federal government had to send in the military to enforce the judicial decision. Barrett, my friend, you are quite wrong. Now, federal judges in the 1950s did strike down Jim Crow laws concerning inter-state transport and public schools BUT segregation in public facilities (and on intra-state transportation) remained in effect until . . . The Civil Rights Act of 1964 approved by a vote of 290-130 in the House and 73-27 in the Senate . It took activist, elite, pompous, self righteous judges to overturn the Jim Crow laws. Again noting, of course, that they never even came close to overturning most Jim Crow laws, those pompus SOBs were the ones responsible for the mess in the first place Note how Plessy made a mockery of the words in the 14th Amendment (also passed by popularly elected legislators)tribune7
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
It was Jews, of course, who bequeathed to the world their Scriptures, and the result was Christianity and then Islam. The problem is that both Christianity and Islam subscribed to forms of supersessionism wherein the continued presence of the Jews presented a problem. And for this reason Christianity—and currently Islam—have proven to be more dangerous enemies to the Jews than, say, Hinduism. So I guess the question is—would the Nazi’s ever have done what they did had it not been for Christianity? I think the answer is more complicated than some think. First we must not forget that the soil of Europe was saturated with centuries of Christian anti-Semitism, just as the soil of the Middle East still seethes with irrational hatred for the Jews. But there is another reason the radical children of the Enlightenment would hate the Jews. The radicals weren’t just passive about biblical religion—they declared war. It’s the same culture war that currently rages in the United States. Because the biblical buck ultimately stops with Judaism, haters of the Torah's God--religious or secular--always end up hating the Jewish people and/or the Jewish State. The Enlightenment spawned statist whose purpose was to seize power and remake the world. The approach inspired by Darwin was biological, to improve the race, and the Jews were classed among those judged biologically inferior (because of the anti-Semitism inherited from the Church, a perverted take on Indo-European studies, and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini - see http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19064 and http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/). Thus Darwinism inspired a new kind of anti-Semitism. The Church was not against Jews biologically—those who converted might escape persecution, even be feted. Not so for Nazis who were fixated on biology for which conversion is impossible. The other side of the radical statist coin was Communism. It too would remake the world and annihilate anyone who got in the way. But like Christendom, Communism was internationalist—international socialism (as opposed to national socialism which was called Nazism). The communists accepted conversion—or else! But as radical secularists they knew the ultimate source of their hate—it was the people of the Book—and so they were destined after an initial infatuation to stir up the Middle East and seek the destruction of the Jewish state. Not to be forgotten is the Purim of Stalin’s demise (http://www.jewishmag.com/65mag/stalin/stalin.htm; http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0914481797/002-4948383-5464867?v=glance&n=283155). The Jewish people have resisted conversion and assimilation and survived—like no other people—and this in the face of terrible persecution. But let me suggest one ideology perhaps less feared but subtle and dangerous nevertheless: radical materialism/secularism. Many Jews in the East were drawn to this heresy—some perhaps out of rebellion against their own heritage, most no doubt just wanting acceptance in modernity. I have friends in Haifa who express far more anger at religious Jews than at radical Islam. They have sought acceptance and safety with the Left, but let me suggest that the Radical Enlightenment and its modern incarnation in the Radical Left is not to be trusted, not by those of us who support Intelligent Design nor by the Jews.Rude
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Darwin's theory is merely a manifestation of what man naturally feels; hatred. The difference, however, is that while Christianity was abused to justify racism (belief that we all come from two people makes us all the same race, Paul's multiple discourses on racism in Romans, and other issues make it impossible to justify racism from the Bible and it can only be abused), Darwin's theory adds logical reasoning as to why racism exists. Killing weaker species (which Hitler refered to the Jews as multiple times) is a justifiable act. That is what is being pointed out; not that racism suddenly came about with Darwin, but that it provided an intellectual justification for racism and actions upon racist thoughts.Joel
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT
And this whole business about slavery being a legacy of the English and Europe is just plain bizarre. Of course it was a legacy of the English and Europe. Where do you think white Americans came from? Does that mean that Americans during that time were any more or less culpable? I don't get it.Barrett1
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
Tribune7, you see, this is the kind of thing that drives me crazy. Sometimes I think you guys are reading from a script. Which isn't fair by the way. I'm over struggling to find words and you guys have got a cheat sheet of some kind. Anyway, Jim Crow laws were never voted out of existence by anyone. The federal judiciary had to strike them down as unconstitutional. And then the federal government had to send in the military to enforce the judicial decision. Am I the oldest person on this computer thread? Does anyone remember this besides me? These laws were incredibly popular in the south and the rest of the country could care less. I know, I was around then. Is this going to be another film by this Kennedy fella? It took activist, elite, pompous, self righteous judges to overturn the Jim Crow laws.Barrett1
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
So slavery was due to what again, predominance of the white Christian man? Actually it was a legacy of Europe and the English. It took the deaths of a lot of white Christian American men to end it. Why did the majority of caucasian Americans think until the mid 1950s that they could use and oppress people with a different skin color and treat them as second-class citizen. While racism and prejudice were pervasive in this country, Jim Crow never was the law of the land in most places here and most Americans pretty much despised the Jim Crow states. And of course, the majority of caucasian Americans eventually voted it out of existence.tribune7
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT
Hispanics was the politically correct term for Mexicans. My bad if I offended anybody of hispanic heritage! BTW is anybody a historian here?tb
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT
Somehow Americans love to talk about Hitler and Germans history at that time! Why? Cause they ain't got so much of their own :)! So slavery was due to what again, predominance of the white Christian man? Why did the majority of caucasian Americans think until the mid 1950s that they could use and oppress people with a different skin color and treat them as second-class citizen. Well why not hang a n....... from the next tree if he stole something, why should he be tried in a court of justice? These thoughts are still very vivid in the USA (some places more some places less), be it against Afro Americans, Mexicans, Arabs or any other not so white nation! Does that also stem from Darwinian thought?tb
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
02:42 AM
2
02
42
AM
PDT
Grumpy's points are well taken, if perhaps a little hyperbolic (mother's milk). I think they are a little off, however, even though there is no denying the racism that already existed. With Grumpy I do think Hitler used the label of "Christian" as a disguise for his evil. He did claim, in many public instances to be a Christian, especially early on, as Grumpy's 1922 quote demonstrates. Note that at the time Hitler was a fairly insignificant politician trying to garner as much support BY LYING as possible. I do not agree that his evolutionary views were a cloak, however, but rather a justification as well as an inspiration. His true feelings about Chrisitianity can be explored at some of these sites: http://www.bedfordgaol.com/part3-2.html
Some assert that Hitler got his antisemitism from the church - as if the church ever taught that the blond-haired blue-eyed Aryans were the master race and needed to get rid of the Jews to preserve their racial purity. These people should read a little about Gobineau, Lagarde, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Wagner, or Haeckel if they want to know about the origins of modern racial antisemitism. Significantly, in all of the quotes attempting to link Hitler to Christianity, put together after diligent search by the enemies of Jesus Christ, there is nothing about forgiveness for sin through the blood of Christ shed on the cross; nothing about eternal life in heaven or eternal punishment in hell; nothing about the Trinity or the virgin birth; nothing about the bible as the divinely inspired and infallible word of God, or about any other of the most basic doctrines of Christianity. In the book (Table Talk, quoted below), Hitler makes a number of fiercely anti-Christian statements that reveal his contempt for Christianity. These statements closely parallel Nietzsche, who described Christianity as nothing other than a Jewish plot, a sickly religion of weakness and decadence - and Hitler's admiration for Nietzsche is well-known. They (those who point to Hitler's "Christianity") do not know or want to know about the deep affinities between Hitler and Wagner, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Nietzsche, Haeckel , or other earlier German thinkers and writers. They won't comb through Mein Kampf hunting for anything suggestive of Darwinism or evolution, of Entwicklung or the struggle for survival. No, they will only take and misrepresent some vague references to God and Christianity, all of which are totally void of any real Christian doctrine, many of which were designed solely for self-serving political purposes, and have as much validity as Hitler's promise at Munich, "This will be my last territorial demand."
Bormann's Circular on God and Christianity, revealed at Nuremberg http://www.thirdreich.net/Bormann_by_Fest.html:
National Socialist and Christian conceptions are incompatible. The Christian churches build upon men's ignorance; by contrast N[ational Socialism] rests upon scientific foundations. When we National Socialists speak of a belief in God, we do not understand by God, like naive Christians and their spiritual opportunists, a human-type being, who sits around somewhere in space...The force of natural law, with which all these innumerable planets move in the universe, we call Almighty or God. The claim that this world force is concerned about the fate of every single being, of every smallest earth bacillus, or can be influenced by so-called prayers or other astonishing things, is based on a proper dose of naivety or alternatively on a commercial shamelessness.
http://answers.org/history/hitquote.html
"I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch in the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." Hitler (p 278)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
You see, its been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness? (Quoted by Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pg. 115) Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers – already, you see, the world had fallen into the hands of the Jews – so gutless a thing was Christianity! – then we should in all probability have been converted to mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies heroism and which opens the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so. (Table Talk, 28th August, 1942) But Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless — A negro with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation. (Table Talk, 13th December 1941) As soon as the idea was introduced that all men were equal before God, that world was bound to collapse. (Table Talk, 26th February, 1942) It is Christianity that is the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself.(Table Talk, 14th October 1941) Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it is the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries. ... The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity. Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. (Table Talk, 19th October, 1941) It is not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity. (Table Talk, 14th October, 1941)
And to what science did Hitler refer?
That's in accordance with the laws of nature. By means of the struggle, the elites are continually renewed. The law of natural selection justifies this incessant struggle, by allowing the survival of the fittest. Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure. (Table Talk, 10th October, 1941)
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/Radical%20Ecology.htm Hitler referred to Haeckel's ideas almost tot he point of plagiarism:
"[It is] useful to know the laws of nature - for that enables us to obey them.  To act otherwise would be to rise in revolt against heaven." -- Adolf Hitler Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 116. "Sparta must be regarded as the first völkisch state.  The exposure of the sick, weak, deformed children, in short, their destruction, was more decent and in truth a thousand times more human than the wretched insanity of our day which preserves the most pathological subject." -- Adolf Hitler Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Secret Book (New York: Grove Press, 1961, p. 18. "For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned." -- Adolf Hitler Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 4. "Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality. On the basis of this recognition it feels bound in conformity with the eternal Will that dominates the universe, to postulate the victory of the better and stronger and the subordination of the inferior and weaker. And so it pays homage to the truth that the principle underlying all Nature’s operations is the aristocratic principle and it believes that this law holds good even down to the last individual organism." -- Adolf Hitler Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 13. "Difference which exists between the lowest, so-called men, and the other higher races is greater than between the lowest men and the highest apes." -- Adolf Hitler Source: Hitler quoted in Heinz Bruecher, Ernst Haeckels Bluts- und Geisteserbe (München: Lehmann, 1936), p. "Man has discovered in nature the wonderful notion of that all-mighty being whose law he worships.  Fundamentally in everyone there is the feeling for this all-mighty, which we call god (that is to say, the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe)." -- Adolf Hitler Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Secret Conversations, 1941-1945 (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953), p. 5. "The leadership of our National Socialist state and our conception of a people [Volk] is penetrated and inspired by foundations in biology.  Legal provisions are derived from the laws of life.  Their worth proceeds from the degree to which they are thought through in biological terms and on biological foundations." -- Walter Greit, Chief of Reichsbund für Biologie Source: Klaus Fischer, Nazi Germany: A New History (New York, Continuum, 1995), p. 233. Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation – which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred – and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development." -- Adolf Hitler Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 2. "I desire a violent, domineering, fearless, and ferocious upcoming generation.  It must be able to bear pain.  It must show no signs whatsoever of weakness or tenderness. The free and magnificent predator must once again glint from their eyes." -- Adolf Hitler Source Hitler quoted in Hermann Rauschning, Gespräche mit Hitler (New York, 1940), p. 237. "At the end of the last century the progress of science and technique led liberalism astray into proclaiming man's mastery of nature, and announcing he would soon have dominion over space ... In any case, we shall learn to become familiar with the laws by which life is governed, and acquaintance with the laws of nature will guide us on the path of progress." -- Adolf Hitler, 11 July 1941 Source: Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944.  tr. N. Cameron & R.H. Stevens (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), pp. 5-6. "The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature." -- Adolf Hitler Source: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter 3.
"[Hitler] stressed and singled out the idea of biological evolution as the most forceful weapon against traditional religion and he repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to the teaching of evolution . . For Hitler, evolution was the hallmark of modern science and culture, and he defended its veracity as tenaciously as Haeckel."—*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of Modern Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (1971), p. 188. "Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary thinking—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas, quite undisguised, lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf and in his public speeches. A few quotations, taken at random, will show how Hitler reasoned . . [*Hitler said:] ‘He who would live must fight; he who does not wish to fight, in this world where permanent struggle is the law of life, has not the right to exist.’ "—*Robert E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.
‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).’ 20
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c19b.htm A couple of other essays on Hitler and the churches. http://kevin.davnet.org/essays/hitler.html http://boundless.org/2001/regulars/kaufman/a0000541.html Or best yet, for an overview of the rise of (and Jewish involvement in) the German eugenics movement, the Christian resistance, the evolutionary thought behind Hitler's ambitions, etc. http://www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.asp#f27Charlie
August 25, 2006
August
08
Aug
25
25
2006
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT
Grumpy If I call myself a horse, whinny like a horse, put on a bit, bridal, and saddle, and run around on four legs - does that make me a horse????? no - closer to a lunatic actaully. Which what Herr Fuhrer Hilter was. That little tirade you quoted proves nothing except Hilter can twist being a 'Christian' to his own definition and then kill 6 million Jews. He played the music to the crowd, added a bit of Spiritual emphasis to win over any doubters then executed his darwinian policies. Aren't Christian supposted to love their enemies? Also I recall you weren't going to waste your valuble time at this blog?lucID
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
whoa, Grumpy. Time for you to back off of your extremist generalizations about Germans and anti-semitism. Your ignorance is obvious, and you might have been reading a little too much Daniel Goldhagen recently! I suggest you do two things: One, ask yourself the question "Before the horrific events of the holocaust, where in Europe did Jews WANT to live because they enjoyed the greatest degree of liberality and acceptance?" You can get back to me for the answer if you are stumped. Two, you should check out a little tome called "A Nation on Trial" by Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn. This book is a devastating critique of the Goldhagen thesis, and sets the record straight about German antisemitism in the pre-war years. Thanks.tinabrewer
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
BarryA:
Ofro, isn’t killing your competitor a very efficient way of eliminating competition for common resources? Nothing in the logic of Darwinism precludes a “kill your competitor” strategy for survival. The strategy could even be called an “adaptation” that was “selected for.”
Ernst HAeckel:
"The whole of organic nature on our planet exists only  by a relentless war of all against all. ... The raging war of interests in human society is only a feeble picture of an unceasing and terrible war of existence which reigns throughout the whole of the living world." -- Ernst Haeckel, Father of German Ecology Source: Ernst Haeckel, Monism: The Confession of Faith of a Man of Science.  Tr. J. Gilchrist (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895), pp. 73-74.
Charlie
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
The Nazi hid their evil in both Christian and Darwinist disguises. Nationalism also blamed the Jews for the defeat and hardships of WW1. None of the ideas used thusly should remove the onus of the Holocaust from the perpetrators,the German people themselves!!! Hatred of the Jews was absorbed with their mother's milk, it was taught in their schools and in their churches. It was codified in their laws and in their daily lives. Neither Darwin nor Christ would have approved!!! GrumpyGrumpy
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
Evil does not need an excuse to manifest itself. Darwinism provided the "scientific" framework that dressed evil with legitimacy, by replacing the obvious idea that nature is infinitely diverse by design and all creatures have intrinsic value, with the concept that some creatures are BETTER adapted than others and that BETTER creatures are more deserving of surviving than others. The opposing view is that each creature is deserving and was designed to thrive. In a designed nature, different is not good or bad, just different, interesting, ingenious, creative and valuable, in different ways. In a darwiniam world, different means better or worse, deserving or not, valuable or worthless. --FNdSfnds
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Even if Darwinism is true, that is no reason to avoid examining Darwinism's social consequences. We know that there has been something called "Social Darwinism," and it is fair to examine the influence it might have had on Nazism, letting the chips fall where they may. The study of history benefits from the presentation of different viewpoints, even if some of those viewpoints are biased. While condemning linkage of Social Darwinism to the holocaust, the hypocritical ADL has no problem about linking Christianity to the holocaust. A speech published on the ADL website says of the holocaust, "The motivation was ideological. The racist-antisemitic ideology was the rational outcome of an irrational approach, an approach that was a cancer-like mutation of the Christian antisemitic ideology that had sullied Christian-Jewish relations all through their two millennia of coexistence." (from a speech that Yehuda Bauer gave to the German House of Representatives in 1998). See http://www.adl.org/education/dimensions_18_2/issue2.asp The ADL's Foxman has apparently not even seen the TV program but has already passed judgment on it. His opposition to the program is just "political correctness."Larry Fafarman
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Persecution and slaughter of the Jewish people was occurring long before Hitler or Darwin (or even before so-called "materialism" took hold). From Wikipedia: In 1348, because of the hysteria surrounding the Black Plague, Jews were massacred in Chillon, Basle, Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, Dresden, Strasbourg, and Mainz -- 12,000 in Mainz alone. A large number of the surviving Jews fled to Poland, which was very welcoming to Jews at the time (another source for this: http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/1340.htm).Linda Slater
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
"The outrage which says that the Nazi racial theory is a vulgarization of Darwinism is simply unmerited." Why? It seems to me that the Nazi racial theory was indeed a vulgarization of Darwinism, and, as a result was *not* Darwinism. The primary mistake made in interpreting Darwin's theory is to use the word "superiority" when defining the process of selection. Darwin's theory of natural selection does not indicate some absolute concept of superiority, rather, the selection parameters are defined by an entity's environment. "Only the strong survive" is incorrect, from the perspective of natural selection; the correct interpretation is "only those best suited to their environment survive." Thus Hitler and the Nazi party hijacked Darwin's theory via selective interpretation - by arbitrarily assigning the characteristic of superiority to a particular race. To blame Darwin or his theory for this misinterpretation, and any subsequent acts thusly justified by this misinterpretation, is tantamount to blaming God for the Inquisition (as it was caused by a misinterpretation of, and fallacious justification via, His revealed word) . It was ultimately Hitler's disrespect for humanity that gave him the justification to attempt to breed people like dogs - not Darwin. Thus, outrage at the "vulgarization" is well placed, in much the same way as outrage at the misuse/misinterpretation of any theory or philosophy is misplaced, most particularly Christianity. A selective reading of the Bible infuriates me, personally, especially when people seem to disregard the commandment "thou shalt not kill."EricH
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
Grumpy, you wrote: "My point is it was no more Darwinists/Atheists fault for the Holocaust than it was the Christians fault." Okay, but my point is that "who's responsible for the Holocaust" isn't the theme of the thread. The thread is "Some of my favorite quotes by Darwinists." That's why I was wondering, since you quoted Hitler, whether you were seeing him as a Darwinist at heart, who papered over his agenda with a veneer of "Christianity" which would be more appealing to the people. I'm inclined to agree with StephenA: "In my veiw the idea that the Jews were inferior came from pre-existing anti-semitism. The idea that inferior races should be wiped out came, primarily, from Darwinism." (Thus Goebels, in his propaganda efforts, could twist Matthew 25 into the opposite of what it says. His wording might be endorsed by racial hygienists and social Darwinists, but not by Christians...and certainly not by Jesus, who allegedly spoke the words in the first place.)Lutepisc
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
It’s interesting in this whole discussion that everyone, regardless of their specific views, seems to assume that morality is both real and binding. Even those who defend the idea that Darwin didn’t inspire the Nazis use words like "atrocity" and "evil" to describe the holocaust. But how can anything be evil or atrocious when "Morality... is merely an adaptation" (Wilson and Ruse, quoted in the original post above)? Even if Darwin didn’t directly inspire the Holocaust, what basis is there in the materialist framework to label anything as right or wrong, evil or good, atrocious or virtuous when all that we have and all that we are is a collection of mere adaptations, selected from a pool of random mutations by an unthinking, indifferent, blind watchmaker? And so the naturalist is in a bit of a tight spot, to say the least. On the one hand, he claims that "ethics is an illusion, without external grounding" (Wilson and Ruse, again); on the other, he expects his moral arguments to be binding on those with whom he disagrees. Pretty tough sell.SteveB
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
My point is it was no more Darwinists/Atheists fault for the Holocaust than it was the Christians fault. Anti-semitism was rampant in Europe in the 20's and 30's and Darwin had nothing to do with it. Martin Luther advocated burning the Jew's places of worship 250 years before Darwin was born.The people of Germany did not need to be convinced to murder the Jews, they had been doing so for centuries on a smaller scale(pograms). It was preached from the pulpits of the German Orthodox churches since the 1600's. To blame it on Darwin is to bear false witness. GrumpyGrumpy
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
"Christianity is the invention of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler The above quote (which I believe comes from Mein Kampf) shows Hitler's true feelings towards Christianity when he wasn't under any political pressure to say things to appease his people. Grumpy's quote of Hitler was one in which he used the religion of his people to make his cause popular. The difference between that and Darwinism is that the vast majority of his people were not Darwinists. Thus, why would he use Darwinism as a vehicle for popularity? Christianity was used (or shall I say, abused) as a mask whereas Darwinism was the true ideology which he got from Nietzche to fuel the Holocaust.Ryan
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
As unpleasant Eugenics may seem to some, the sobering fact is that we are accumulating deleterious genbes at an alarming rate in civilzed society especially due to the intervention of modern mendicine which permits many of us to live long enough to reproduce. I am a living example. I would have died as an infant from chronic strep throat infections which were finally prevented through tonsilectomy. Since my tonsils were removed when I was very oyung they regenerated and the same strep throats would hav killed me "again" when they recurred at eighteen and had to be removed again! In the meantime I would have died at ten of a ruptured appendix which my uncle, a surgeon removed in the nick of time when alerted by my mother, an ex surgical nurse recognized the symptoms. Man am I one lucky guy eh? All due to modern medicine. I am not recommending any solutions as I don't want to get banned. I grow weary of bannishment so I will just say that our animal and plant breeders employ eugenic principles without restraint to keep out animals and plants genetically healthy. We are, after all, animals don't you know. You can't beat inbreeding to get rid of lethal genes of which we all carry several. The homozygotes are die. Good riddance I say. I have nothing more to say on this controversial subject. "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."John A. Davison
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
It seems like Grumpy is making a substantive contribution by illustrating the ways in which charismatic statesmen can publicly twist religion in defense of evil ends. In the speech here quoted, Hitler shamelessly conflates Christ's anger at a small group of Jews with some kind of generalized fight against Jews as a race. He uses emotive and passionate language, and his speech contains the teensiest little figments of truth wrapped in a mass of lies, with a general interpretation which is a total lie. Take a people who are living in hopeless conditions, provide them with a scapegoat, and whip them up into a frenzy using lofty and noble sounding language and we all know where this can lead.tinabrewer
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
What is most surprising to me is all the debate about it. Why are darwinists so offended? It's not like they have a moral imperative to be offended ... they are only offended because they are conditioned to be offended. Maybe they should grow up?faithandshadow
August 24, 2006
August
08
Aug
24
24
2006
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply