Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Was It “Shameful” for Expelled to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Scholar Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler asked me to publish this essay to Uncommon Descent. You can read more from Weikart here and my review of his highly recommended book is here. (Note: If you care about this subject, don’t listen to glib excuses and misdirection; read the book.)

I am glad to say that the Expelled flapette on this subject has spiked demand for Weikart’s meticulously researched work, especially because it features the work of Darwinist Nazis who had never before even been translated into English:

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #9,259 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories: (What’s this?)
#3 in Books > Professional & Technical > Medical > Medicine > Medical Ethics
#6 in Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Discrimination & Racism
#11 in Books > History > United States > African Americans
(at 9:41 am EST)

For a while, Weikart was the target of unscholarly attacks by people determined to obscure the role of Darwinism as an underlying belief very well suited to Hitler’s Third Reich.

Anyway, here is his essay:

Was It Shameful for “Expelled” to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Atrocities?

Many critics of Ben Stein’s new film, “Expelled,” have expressed distaste—and some have gone absolutely apoplectic—over his linking of Darwinism with Nazism. In an MSNBC article bioethicist Arthur Caplan called the film immoral and even ridiculously calls Stein a Holocaust denier, because of his audacity to link Darwinism with Nazi atrocities. Scientific American calls this aspect of the film shameful.

We need to clarify first that neither Stein nor anyone else in “Expelled” ever claimed that Darwinism was the sole culprit for the Nazi program for killing the disabled or exterminating the Jews. The argument was more circumspect: Darwinism was an important—but by no means exclusive—ingredient in the Nazi worldview that motivated them to pursue death for the “inferior” as a means to foster evolutionary progress. This is irrefutable, if anyone will simply examine the evidence (just read the chapter “Nation and Race” in Mein Kampf).

If we focus on the Nazi program to kill the disabled, we find that just about all historians who have examined the evidence have concluded that Darwinism did have something to do with it. The museum in Hadamar (which Stein visited in the film) and the accompanying book for sale there both explain the influence of Darwinism on the Nazi euthanasia program.

For the Nazis killing the disabled was a radical form of eugenics, i.e., the program to improve humans hereditarily. The father of the modern eugenics movement, Francis Galton, conceived the idea while reading Darwin’s _Origin of Species_. The organizer of the German eugenics movement, Alfred Ploetz, claimed that his main ideas about eugenics were drawn from Darwinism. Ploetz also recruited the two leading Darwinists in Germany—Ernst Haeckel and August Weismann—to became honorary members of the Society for Race Hygiene when he founded it in 1905. Ploetz was on the Nazi government’s committee that framed eugenics legislation, and Hitler personally honored him in 1936 for his contributions to the German eugenics movement.

Nazis enthusiastically adopted eugenics policies, which according to the 1921 International Eugenics Congress was the “self-direction of human evolution.” Among scholars who have investigated the origins of Nazi eugenics and euthanasia ideology, the claim that Darwinism (in some form or other) influenced Nazi ideology is not particularly controversial. In their highly regarded book on the history of eugenics in Germany, Peter Weingart, Juergen Kroll, and Kurt Bayertz state, “Considered from the viewpoint of the history of ideas the fascist state was a logical consequence of that branch of eugenics which remained bound up with social Darwinist ideas of selection.” In the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s publication, Deadly Medicine, three separate essays mention the Darwinian underpinnings of eugenics.

Nazi eugenics films clearly showed the influence of Darwinism. “Expelled” showed a brief clip from “Opfer der Vergangenheit” (“Victims of the Past”), in which the narrator states: “All that is non-viable in nature inevitably perishes. We humans have transgressed the law of natural selection in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior life-forms, we have encouraged their propagation.” Michael Burleigh in his book on Nazi euthanasia explains that other Nazi eugenics films, such as “All Life is Struggle,” regularly depicted Darwinian themes, especially the struggle for existence.

If we look specifically at the history of the euthanasia movement, just about all historians who have examined it admit that Darwinism and eugenics played a key role in undermining the Judeo-Christian sanctity-of-life ethic. The first person in Germany to promote killing the disabled was the biologist Ernst Haeckel, the leading nineteenth-century German Darwinist. Almost all early proponents of euthanasia—not only in Germany, but also in Britain and the United States—were avid Darwinists who claimed that Darwinism supported their ideology, as Ian Dowbiggin, Nick Kemp, Udo Benzenhöfer, and many other historians have clearly demonstrated. Hans-Walter Schmuhl, a German historian who is an expert on the Nazi euthanasia program, states, “The race hygiene [i.e., eugenics] paradigm constituted an ethic of a new type, which was ostensibly grounded scientifically in Darwinist biology.” In his book he explains in detail the Darwinian and eugenics background to the Nazi euthanasia program.

Caplan claims that it was Hitler’s hatred of the disabled, not Darwinism, that led to these atrocities against the disabled. But this ignores the fact that Hitler made clear that his contempt for the disabled was based on Darwinian-inspired ideology. In Mein Kampf Hitler stated, “For as soon as procreation as such is limited and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which leaves only the strongest and healthiest alive is obviously replaced by the obvious desire to save even the weakest and most sickly at any price, and this plants the seed of a future generation which must inevitably grow more and more deplorable the longer this mockery of Nature and her will continues.” He continued, “A stronger race will drive out the weak, for the vital urge in its ultimate form will, time and again, burst all the absurd fetters of the so-called humanity of individuals, in order to replace it by the humanity of Nature which destroys the weak to give his place to the strong.”

No one is claiming that Darwinism leads inevitably toward the Holocaust, and no one is denying the importance of other factors, including anti-Semitism, in shaping Nazi ideology. However, only those unwilling to examine the evidence could claim that Nazism was not influenced by Darwinism.

Richard Weikart is history professor at California State Univ., Stanislaus, and author of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

Comments
Just came back from seeing Expelled this evening (I'm glad to see it is still in the theatres). A few quick observations before retiring for the evening: - A little too much juxtapositioning new interview footage with old black and white Nazi, war, and political strife footage. Seemed like every time someone made a point about the current debate it was accompanied by a few seconds of black and white footage from a particularly shameful piece of history. I think some credibility was lost with the constant juxtapositioning. - That said, generally very well done, and I think it had its effect. - The specific portion of the movie relating to the Darwinist tie to Hitler and the Nazis was, I believe, careful and measured. Berlinski was clear that Darwinism is not sufficient for Nazism, but there is a definite tie. My wife, who does not follow this debate particularly closely and accompanied me to the movie largely to humor me, remarked afterward that she hadn't been aware of the link. Good to see the message getting out. - Dawkins was definitely very clear in his views, and I can understand him being a bit perturbed about seeing it displayed larger than life on the silver screen. However, I think the movie wasn't unfair in that regard -- it just let him do his own talking. Frankly, I didn't think Dawkins came off all that bad. Prticularly in the last segment, I thought Dawkins even came off as being a rather pleasant fellow. - Eugenie Scott got off very easy. However, I know the thrust of the movie was not to focus on her particular brand of condescending acquiescence to religious folks, but instead to follow the strong Darwinistic train of thought to its logical conclusion with Dawkins, Provine, et al. Thus, not surprising that they didn't spend more time on Scott. - The cellular animation segment didn't look like it was a clear cookie cut from the "Harvard" version. I don't think there is much of a claim there. - I couldn't believe how short the "Imagine" portion was after all the flap there has been -- two phrases, that's all. My view is that Yoko Ono doesn't have a leg to stand on there. Good publicity, though! - The theatre was by no means full, but there was a decent crowd, and, to my surprise, spontaneous applause at the end. No doubt some severe self selection involved in who was in attendance. Nonetheless, interesting to see that positive reaction in my neck of the woods, which I didn't anticipate. - Finally, I almost never recommend movies as a general matter, and was particularly cautious about this one. However, I think it was generally well done, is very thought-provoking (particularly for those who aren't already deeply familiar with all the arguments and characters), and is worthy of my recommending it to others.Eric Anderson
May 3, 2008
May
05
May
3
03
2008
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
Re darwin day etc. It always seemed to me they were celebrating the perceived religious implications of darwinism (i.e. having an atheistic explanation for what had previously been inescapable evidence for theism), using the trappings of old religions (i.e. celebrating their "prophet" with "festivals" and "icons."). No other explanation seems to adequately account for the rather odd phenomenon of people running around buying trinkets celebrating a guy who repopularized the old, discredited idea of common descent by bringing a new, unfalsifiable twist to it.ungtss
May 3, 2008
May
05
May
3
03
2008
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
It is one thing to claim that Darwinism's influence on the Nazis has nothing to do with Darwinism's scientific merits, and something else entirely to claim that that influence did not exist at all. Also, like a mad scientist in a horror movie, many Darwinists seem to have morbid, sadistic and Strangelovian fascinations with the pernicious social effects of Darwinism. These Darwinists don't just regard Darwinism as a necessary evil but shamelessly worship Darwin -- there are Darwin Day celebrations, "I love Darwin" knick-knacks, "Friend of Darwin" certificates handed out at a reunion of the Dover plaintiffs, etc.. Though I don't think that being descended from monkeys is anything to be ashamed of, I don't think that it is cause for celebration, either.Larry Fafarman
May 3, 2008
May
05
May
3
03
2008
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
For more horific details see: Volume One - A Reckoning, Chapter XI: Nation and Race in Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler e.g.,
The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.
In other words Might Makes Right e.g/. The Columbine killings show a strong connection with Darwin. Contrast this with Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, The Law and the Prince i.e., Law Rules All We must choose which principles we will train our children to uphold.DLH
May 3, 2008
May
05
May
3
03
2008
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply