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
Ofro writes: “I think one can argue in the same way that a centuries-old antisemitic attitude and its proponents were the driving force behind the holocaust, not Darwin’s ideas. Darwin’s writings were just misused as a convenient means to justify the atrocities.” First, as I mentioned in my previous comment, Darwin’s theory is not the sole culprit. Perhaps worse than the theory was the triumph of materialism (and the concomitant rejection of objective morality) made possible by his theory. Second, using Christianity to support slavery is absurd. Christianity supports the opposite of slavery. Conversely, using Darwinism to support the proposition that it is only natural for the strong to kill the weak is only a logical extension of the theory (or maybe it’s not even a logical extension; maybe that IS the theory).BarryA
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
"Religion" has been used to shed blood as well, so singling out Darwinism as being THE "kindling wood" for holocausts is rather one-sided.apollo230
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
Linda Slater The distinctions between the propositions posited by a scientific theory and the implications of those propositions comes up over and over again on this site. You write: “So maybe Hitler was an evolutionist. So what? Does that automatically mean that the science of evolution is now somehow tainted because Hitler used this information and twisted and subverted it for his own evil ends?” The answer to your rhetorical question is obviously “no.” Anyone who would argue otherwise would be committing the genetic fallacy. The same is true of ID. Frequently people commit the genetic fallacy when they say something like, “There are a lot of Christians pushing ID; therefore ID must be a religious belief and not science.” That said, let us consider not what Darwinism and ID posit but the implications of the theories if they are true. One implication of blind watchmaker Darwinism is that nature is sufficient to create all there is. If this is true, there is no need for a God who creates. If there is no need for a God, maybe God does even not exist. If God does not exist Will Provine is undoubtedly correct and there is no firm foundation for ethics, and “Good” and “Evil” are artificial constructs. (Thus, Nietzsche’s “Beyond Good and Evil”). What do you get when for the first time previously universally accepted moral norms are widely rejected after the triumph of materialism made possible by Darwin? You get over 100 million dead bodies in the 20th century’s wars of materialism. What about ID? ID posits there is a designer. It posits nothing about the nature of the designer. Such questions are metaphysical/religious. But if ID is true and there must be a designer, then maybe that designer is God. Perhaps the notices of His death were issued too hastily. Maybe He has been there all along, and the transcendent ethical standards He established bind us after all. Maybe the holocaust was bad not only because I disagree with it (which is all a materialist can say). Maybe it was bad in an absolute sense because it transgressed God’s law. Does the fact that the metaphysical implications of ID are more sanguine than the metaphysical implications of Darwinism mean that ID is more probably true than Darwinism? No. But it is good to know that ID is out there competing with Darwinism and we need not assume, as so many of our ancestors sadly did, that Darwinism and all it implies are NECESSARILY true. That, I think, is the point.BarryA
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
17. BarryA: "You ask (and here is where the equivocation comes in) whether Christianity was the driving force behind slavery. ..(snip)....Evil statements made by people who call themselves “Christians” is not the same as “Christianity.” The former was indeed a force supporting slavery; the latter was not." I think one can argue in the same way that a centuries-old antisemitic attitude and its proponents were the driving force behind the holocaust, not Darwin's ideas. Darwin's writings were just misused as a convenient means to justify the atrocities.ofro
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
I wonder if the ADL has forgotten that the whole reason that William Jennings Bryan got involved in the Scopes trial was precisely because he feared "social Darwinism."PaV
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
We're no better than bacteria! Eric Pianka
We assume that cannibalism is always an aggressive, barbaric and degrading act...But that is a serious over-simplification, one that has kept us from realizing that cannibalism can have positive meanings. Beth A. Conklin associate professor of anthropology at Vanderbilt University
scordova
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
There seems to be some disagreement on how clearly the "Social Darwinism" and "Nazi" dots connect. Given that, what's below is argubly not a "Social Darwinist" quote. This past Fall, the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. had a fascinating but appalling exhibit on eugenics-driven, Nazi-oriented medicine in Germany in the 1930s and 40s, entitled "Deadly Medicine." Probably many of you saw it. It spoke of the necessity for “racial hygiene” due to the costs on society of maintaining the “less fit.” The ultimate goal, of course, was to apply scientific methods in creating a super race. I was especially struck by a 1938 quotation from Goebbels, which echoed in a distorted way the Gospel of Matthew, the 25th chapter: "Our starting point is not the individual, and we do not subscribe to the view that one should feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, or clothe the naked...our objectives are entirely different. We must have a healthy people in order to prevail in the world."Lutepisc
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
So maybe Hitler was an evolutionist. So what? Does that automatically mean that the science of evolution is now somehow tainted because Hitler used this information and twisted and subverted it for his own evil ends? I think what is distasteful about this documentary is the inference that the logical conclusion of 'Darwinism' results in something like Nazism(OK, I haven't seen it but I think that is not an unreasonable inference, given the institution that sponsored it). That is similar to saying that the inventors of the nuclear bomb are personally responsible for Hiroshima. Nobody would make that conclusion -- neither would they claim that the science behind nuclear bombs is somehow 'evil'. Tracing the influences of thought and idea in history is a tricky business - we are all influenced (whether we know it or not) by many ideas that have gone before us. The idea that Darwin is directly linked to Hitler is at best an extremely simplistic reading of history at best, particularly as in this case we are talking not about biological evolution but 'social Darwinism' (a very different animal that arguably has little to do with Darwin himself). But unfortunately this simplistic and ultimately emotional approach will no doubt be popular, particularly to those who have already decided "Darwinism" is some kind of social evil that has to be extirpated. I suspect that the History Channel will probably not be broadcasting this anytime soon.Linda Slater
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
scordova: respectfully, it sounds to me like what he is doing is not so much advocating for using humans as he is attempting to throw into relief the coldness and cruelty of using animals for experimentation. Our skin crawls when we read about the use of 'human imbeciles' for such purposes. Why does it not crawl at the thought of using chimps? (actually, mine does crawl. why doesn't everyone's?)tinabrewer
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
If you wanted to kill members of a particular people group, wouldn't Darwinism provide the best justification? It's scientific, and therefore impartial; It's proved by overwhelming evidence; It says that the only way to improve the species, and nature in general, is to let superior animals survive and multiply, while allowing inferior animals to become extinct. Furthermore, it's silent (even hostile) on the idea of a God who judges. It's seems far superior to Biblical justifications which are hindered by admonitions to help the weak and infirm, and to treat aliens and strangers with kindness. The Bible also limits killing in very specific situations, and provides an accountability mechanism (afterlife judgement).russ
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Peter Singer is advocating the use of humans rather than animals for medical experiments.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL If the experimenter is not prepared to use an orphaned human infant, then his readiness to use nonhumans is simple discrimination .... In any case, this argument still gives us no reason for selecting a nonhuman, rather than a human ... as the subject for our experiments. The experimenter, then, shows a bias in favor of his own species whenever he carries out an experiment on a nonhuman Peter Singer Darwinist, animal rights activist
Singer is complaining that experimenters are being discriminatory in their cruelty to animals, that they should spread the cruelty by experimenting on humans.
It is significant that the problem of equality, in moral and political philosophy, is invariably formulated in terms of human equality. The effect of this is that the question of the equality of other animals does not confront the philosopher, or student, as an issue itself—and this is already an indication of the failure of philosophy to challenge accepted beliefs.
He is complaining about the lack of a apperciation for what the equality of humans with animals.
if equal consideration depended on rationality, no reason could be given against using [human] imbeciles for research purposes, as we now use dogs and guinea pigs.
He is advocating use of sickly humans much as we use dogs and guinea pigs for medical experiments. Reminds me of the Nazi medical experiments on the Jews.scordova
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
that the Darwinian world view must look upon the present sentimental conception of the value of the life of a human individual as an overestimate completely hindering the progress of humanity. The human state also, like every animal community of individuals, must reach an even higher level of perfection, if the possibility exists in it, through the destruction of the less well-endowed individual, for the more excellently endowed to win space for the expansion of its progeny...The state only has an interest in preserving the more excellent life at the expense of the less excellent. Robby Kossmanm, German Zoologist,1880
The new world view actually rests on the theory of evolution .... On it we have to construct a new ethics.… All values will be revalued. biologist Arnold Dodel, 1904
A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called humaneness of individuals, in order to make place for the humaneness of nature, which destroys the weak to make place for the strong. Adolf Hitler
Salvador PS By the way, when I had dinner with Richard Weikart and friends a couple months ago in DC, Weikart pointed out that its an urban myth that Hitler was a YEC. That myth relies on unpublished versious of Mein Kampf.scordova
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
OK, fellas. We may agree on the merits of ID. But all of this has a bizarre (and uncharacterically sophomoric) quality to it. I'm bowing out.Barrett1
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
Btw, I've always found that quotation of E. O. Wilson and Michael Ruse in "The Evolution of Ethics" to be telling. Replace all references to "morality" and "ethics" in it with "reason" and see what you get. As for the connection between Darwin and the Third Reich, it would be a fallacy to take it as an argument against the theory, of course. At the same time, to honestly look at history and pretend that there wasn't a very strong influence there is really PC historical revisionism of the worst sort.Deuce
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Barrett1 writes: “I could find you a hundred quotes from Christians in America during the 18th century and 19th century who used the Bible in support of Indian genocide and slavery. But was Christianity the driving force behind slavery and Indian genocide? Hardly” Your argument fails because it is a subtle example of the “equivocation fallacy.” Slavery was preached from thousands of pulpits in the slave states. The shameful failure of these preachers to realize and apply the fundamental ethical teaching of the New Testament (love God; love your neighbor and treat him as you want to be treated) was in fact a pillar upon which the peculiar institution stood. You ask (and here is where the equivocation comes in) whether Christianity was the driving force behind slavery. The answer is, properly understood, Christianity cannot be the driving force behind slavery, but you conflate (equivocate) the preaching you describe in your first sentence with the word “Christianity” in your second sentence. Evil statements made by people who call themselves “Christians” is not the same as “Christianity.” The former was indeed a force supporting slavery; the latter was not. The essence of Christianity, properly understood, provides no support for evil of any kind. The essence of Darwinism, properly understood, supports a false conclusion that good and evil do not exist as real categories, and has led to untold evil.BarryA
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
While racism in general – and anti-Semitism in particular – certainly predates Darwin’s theory of evolution, that is not the point being made in the documentary under discussion. If it can be shown that Hitler was influenced by it, or even just used it to justify his acts, that connection is worth exploring, is it not? Would it be “trivializing” the suffering of the poor during the Great Depression to discuss the part that stock market greed played in bringing it about? The purpose behind this documentary may in fact be to vilify Darwinism, but so long as it sticks to historical fact, the producers have the right to present their own conclusions as to whether or not Darwin’s Theory has done more harm the good to society. I would make the following observation when comparing Darwinism to Christianity: Evil people have indeed used their (perverted) understanding of the Christian religion to justify evil acts. Nonetheless, the teachings of Jesus Christ have served as a moral compass to those who oppose the Hitlers of the world, that extend mercy to the defeated, and a hand to the poor and downtrodden. Personally, while I can see the evil that has been justified under the banner of Darwinism, I find it hard to identify much good that has come out of it (exaggerated and/or unjustified claims of its impact on science and medicine notwithstanding).sabre
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
The evidence is overwhelming that the moral and intellectual climate of the early to mid 20th Century was heavily influenced by Darwin and his intellectual progeny. There is even a name for the phenomenon: Social Darwinism. It is utterly absurd to suggest that Social Darwinism did not exist, and it is just as absurd to suggest that there is no connection between that phenomenon and the holocaust, the gulag, the cultural revolution, and the killing fields. Some of the comments on this post remind me of Miracle Max in Princess Bride running around with his hands over his ears yelling “nah nah nah, I’m not listening, nah nah nah.”BarryA
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
Barrett One, What are you trying to say—that ideas don’t have consequences? That everything emerges from “society” apart from agents with agendas? Of course you’re right—Christendom is not guiltless (anti-Semitism and all the rest)—yet with the Puritans and Roger Williams the yoke of Christian tyranny was broken in America and Judeo-Christian ethics bloomed and slavery and racism were defeated—not by the secularists but by Judeo-Christians. As far as the Indians, there was an interesting article in COMMENTARY a year or so ago (titled something like "Was it Genocide?") that concluded this was pretty much a clash of cultures and infectious disease and not so much an official policy of government—nothing like Hitler’s holocaust. But I believe things got worse post Darwin, and wasn’t it Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood fame who loved having Indians sterilized? As far as I can ascertain people did not speak of “primitive” languages before Darwin, for didn’t the missionaries believe they could translate the Scriptures into any language? A friend of mine used to say—somebody should do some research here—that it was not until after a certain Communist Party conference that the materialists decided to embrace the third world—this only after rejection by “the workers of the world”.Rude
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Mats, I'm afraid this is all weak speculation. I could find you a hundred quotes from Christians in America during the 18th century and 19th century who used the Bible in support of Indian genocide and slavery. But was Christianity the driving force behind slavery and Indian genocide? Hardly. And Darwin wasn't the driving force behind the holocaust. As someone already pointed out, the hatred of Jews in Europe goes back a long, long time and has deep roots in tribal and religious conflict. The killing of the Jews in Europe was a populist movement, just like the killing of Indians in America. The people wanted it and elected and supported a government to carry it out.Barrett1
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
A Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, writing for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, said this: "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible." -*Edward Simon, "Another Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January 7, 1983, p. 248.
Mats
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Biological arguments are one thing. The practice of slavery and genocide is quite another. Don't you agree?Barrett1
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Can slavery or the genocidal Indian policies of the US government be attributed to Darwin as well?
"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 (1977), p. 127.Mats
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Here are some more along the same lines: [As natural selection] has been more and more thoroughly assimilated and understood by the general mind, it has destroyed, quietly but entirely, the belief in human equality which is implicit in all the ‘Liberalising’ movements of the world . . . it has become apparent that whole masses of human population are, as a whole, inferior in their claim upon the future to other masses, that they cannot be given other opportunities or trusted with power as the superior peoples are trusted, that their characteristic weaknesses are contagious and detrimental in the civilising fabric, and that their range of incapacities tempts and demoralizes the strong. To give them equality is to sink to their level, to protect and cherish them is to be swamped in their fecundity. H.G. Wells, Anticipations of the Reactions of Mechanical and Scientific Progress Upon Human Life and Thought (Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1902; reprinted, Mineola, NY: Dover, 1999), 162-63. “Since Darwin’s death, all has not been rosy in the evolutionary garden. The theories of the Great Bearded One have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social reformers – and scientists – to support racist and bigoted views. A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement – Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton – to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” M. Brookes, “Ripe Old Age,” review of Of Flies, Mice and Men, by Francois Jacob, New Scientist, January 1999, 41. The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect . . . In bodily as well as in mental qualities, no other human species can equal the Mediterranean. This species alone (with the exception of the Mongolian) has had an actual history; it alone has attained to that degree of civilization which seems to raise man above the rest of nature. 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 1868, (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1914), 2:321 (emphasis added); available on the web at: http://www.geology.19thcenturyscience.org/books/1876-Haeckel-HistCrea/Vol-II/htm/doc321.html “If one must draw a sharp boundary between them [i.e., higher mammals and man], it has to be drawn between the most highly developed and civilized man on the one hand, and the rudest savages on the other, and the latter have to be classed with the animals.” Haeckel, Ibid., Vol. II, 365. “The new creed [i.e., Christianity] was thus thrown open to all mankind. Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti evolutionary in its aim?” Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Van Rees Press, 1947), 72; available in full text online at: http://reactor-core.org/evolution-and-ethics.html. “We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Human Equality as a Contingent Factor of History,” Natural History (November 1984): 28, 26-32. “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.” T.H. Huxley, Lectures and Lay Sermons (1871; reprint, London: Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent, 1926), 115.BarryA
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science.”
You know, Darwinists are still using their creation myth against religion (Christianity in particular) to this very day! The musicians have changed, but the song is the same. Reading Galton's words was like reading the words of Dawkins, Dennett, Ruse or Provine. They all sing the same anti-God song.Mats
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Can slavery or the genocidal Indian policies of the US government be attributed to Darwin as well?Barrett1
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Great going Bill, Mats, Jehu and others! How unfortunate that Catholics and Jews have given Darwin a pass when both should have stood in the forefront of those exposing the fraud and danger of his pseudoscience. It’s frustrating to read the Orthodox Rabbi Natan Slifkin, for example, because he comes so close to the exact same stance as ID and then distances himself from it with obfuscation and irrelevancies. My sense is that the Jews harbor a historic fear of Christendom, mainstream Christendom is cowed by science, and science desires liberation from philosophy and religion. Liberal Judaism is no longer Judaism—and I say this as a Gentile—it has joined the Church of Darwin-Secularism—which explains Foxman’s hysteria. But ID needs more believing Jews—it should not be an evangelical thing. But if that’s how it turns out then so be it—and shame on the others!Rude
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Darwin may have publicly distanced himself from eugenics but you wonder how he felt about it privately. I found the following quote from his son, who became President of the British Eugenics Society. [blockquote]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 made the following dedication in his book “The Need for Eugenic Reform” [/blockquote] It is also interesting that the founder of the British Eugenics Society was Francis Galton, who was Darwin's cousin from Erasumus Darwin, Darwin's grandfather and an early evolutionist. Galton testified that he was heavely influenced by Darwin’s book. Galton once wrote: [blockquote]“The publication in 1859 of The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made a marked epoch in my own mental development, as it did in that of human thought generally. Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science.”[/blockquote]It appears the entire Eugenics movement was birthed by people close to Darwin and his theories.Jehu
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
who in the heck are these "Christian Supremacists"?tinabrewer
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Btw, Bill, you may want to add the following quote in your list, after verification:
The atheistic evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith wrote:
The German Führer … has consistently sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (NY: Putnam, 1947), p. 230. I find Mr Foxman's words interesting:
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.
How on earth can someone call "trivilization" the enterprise that aims to reveal the link between Darwin and Hitler? Would it be "trivialization" if the link had been between Martin Luther and Hitler? Or is it trivialization when it's linked to Darwin's myth?
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people.
Perhaps not. But then again the TV program is not about what Hitler *needed* but what he *did*.
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.”
In other words, he is just a misguided fundie, who aims to overturn democracy and implant a Taliban-like theocracy in the USA. Oh, now were are getting into Foxman's REAL motives behind his "upset" words. I wonder why is someone whose organization aims to fight "anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry" feels disturbed that a TV program will reveal more of the foundation philosophies behind Hitler's actions. Is it bkz it is done by Christians? Is it bkz Darwin is attacked? Maybe both?Mats
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
Here's my opinion on this. Breeding and even racial breeding was done long before Darwin. Hatred of the Jews was around long before Darwin. (ie Martin Luther's book "The Jews and their Lies".) I do think it's a little overboard to blame something else besides Hitler for what Hitler did. This also goes both ways. You have an equal amount of extremists on the other end saying that the Bible led to historic atrocities. (even the long held hatred of the Jews) To be fair to Darwinism, while early adopters of this theory thought it verified their already held beliefs of seperate races that range from animal to supreme, Darwinism has ultimately shown that there is no such thing as race (as it was defined back then) and it's done away with the concept of some ladder of progression in the human species. (the ladder of progression among races was a concept that was around long before Darwinism) In the US the only people who still believe in some ladder of races (usually the white supremists) use the Bible to support their stance.Fross
August 23, 2006
August
08
Aug
23
23
2006
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply