Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin and the Nazis

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Richard Weikart summarizes his devastating research into the Darwinian foundations of Nazis – and the continuation of those themes by modern evolutionists.
———————————————
Darwin and the Nazis
By Richard Weikart Published 4/16/2008 12:07:03 AM American Spectator

Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and some other Darwinists are horrified that the forthcoming documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, will promote Intelligent Design to a large audience when it opens at over a thousand theaters nationwide on April 18. Ironically, their campaign to discredit Ben Stein and the film confirms its main point, which is to expose the persecution meted out by Darwinists to those daring to criticize Darwinian theory.

One aspect of Expelled that troubles Dawkins and some of his colleagues is its treatment of the ethical implications of Darwinism, especially its discussion of the historical connections between Darwinism and Nazism. Isn’t this a bit over-the-top, suggesting that Darwinism has something to do with Nazism? After all, Darwinists today are not Nazis, and Darwinism has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.

However, what is most objectionable about the Nazis’ worldview? Isn’t it that they had no respect for human life? Their rejection of the sanctity of human life led the Nazi regime to murder millions of Jews, hundreds of thousands of Gypsies, and about 200,000 disabled Germans. Where did the Nazis get the idea that some human beings were “lives unworthy of life”?

As I show in meticulous detail in my book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, the Nazis’ devaluing of human life derived from Darwinian ideology (this does not mean that all Nazi ideology came from Darwinism). There were six features of Darwinian theory that have contributed to the devaluing of human life (then and now):

1. Darwin argued that humans were not qualitatively different from animals. The leading Darwinist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, attacked the “anthropocentric” view that humans are unique and special.

2. Darwin denied that humans had an immaterial soul. He and other Darwinists believed that all aspects of the human psyche, including reason, morality, aesthetics, and even religion, originated through completely natural processes.

3. Darwin and other Darwinists recognized that if morality was the product of mindless evolution, then there is no objective, fixed morality and thus no objective human rights. Darwin stated in his Autobiography that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.”

4. Since evolution requires variation, Darwin and other early Darwinists believed in human inequality. Haeckel emphasized inequality to such as extent that he even classified human races as twelve distinct species and claimed that the lowest humans were closer to primates than to the highest humans.

5. Darwin and most Darwinists believe that humans are locked in an ineluctable struggle for existence. Darwin claimed in The Descent of Man that because of this struggle, “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”

6. Darwinism overturned the Judeo-Christian view of death as an enemy, construing it instead as a beneficial engine of progress. Darwin remarked in The Origin of Species, “Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.”

These six ideas were promoted by many prominent Darwinian biologists and Darwinian-inspired social thinkers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All six were enthusiastically embraced by Hitler and many other leading Nazis. Hitler thought that killing “inferior” humans would bring about evolutionary progress. Most historians who specialize in the Nazi era recognize the Darwinian underpinnings of many aspects of Hitler’s ideology. . . .

See Full Article at the American Spectator

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

Comments
BTW, Christians comprise about 76% of the American population, but according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, they comprise about 87% of the prison population. Atheists, by contrast, comprise about 8 to 10% of the American population, but only 0.2% of the prison population. Again, I strongly suspect that this pattern is also mirrored by the percentages of evolutionary biologists that wind up incarcerated. So every assertion made by the majority of the posters in this thread are not only wrong, they are as wrong as they could possibly be. But don't let that stop you; this isn't about facts, it's about politics, isn't it?Allen_MacNeill
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
"The Darwinian theory of evolution IS an incitement to crime: that is simply a fact."
This "fact" explains why evolutionary biologists are over-represented in prisons, whereas Christians and Muslims are under-represented, right? Oh, sorry, I guess it's the other way around (Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons): Religion / Number / Percentage Catholic / 29,267 / 39% Protestant / 26,162 / 35% Muslim / 5,435 / 7% American Indian / 2,408 / 3% Nation / 1,734 / 2% Rasta / 1,485 / 2% Jewish / 1,325 / 2% Church of Christ / 1,303 / 2% Pentecostal / 1,093 / 1% Moorish / 1,066 / 1% Buddhist / 882 / 1% Jehovah Witness / 665 / 0.9% Adventist / 621 / 0.8% Orthodox / 375 / 0.5% Mormon / 298 / 0.4% Scientology / 190 / 0.3% Atheist / 156 / 0.2% * Hindu / 119 / 0.2% Santeria / 117 / 0.2% Sikh / 14 / 0.02% Bahai / 9 / 0.01% Krishna / 7 / 0.01% *Yes, I realize that not all atheists are evolutionary biologists (nor are all evolutionary biologists atheists). However, that means that the proportion of prison inmates that are also evolutionary biologists is probably smaller than this number.Allen_MacNeill
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
Hello, I am new here, and new to learning about ID, so I have an admittedly naive question. In previous posts it has been suggested that when humans are the selective force it is always artificial selection, and that artificial selection has nothing to do with Darwinism. So, wouldn't Hitler's activities be strictly considered 'artificial selection' and thus have nothing to do with Darwinism? Thank you for any explanation. Jorde Student of the Intelligent Design Institute of Theoretical ScienceJorde
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT
Is everyone aware that the Anti-Defamation League objects to the point that Darwinism a necessary condition for Holocaust?mathstudent
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
If Darwinism is being used to overturn our cherished ideals... Modern proponents of Darwinian thinking want things both ways when it comes to cherished ideals. They like talking or writing about how Darwinism is a "universal acid" which dissolves traditional notions of anthropocentrism, they will even argue that people oppose Darwinism only because of it undermines cherished ideals. Yet, when anyone points out that the application of their ideas would be misanthropic and really would undermine cherished ideals (as illustrated in eugenics/Nazism) then they are outraged and pretend that they've been supporters of traditional values all along. The philosopher David Stove dealt with the way that many Darwinists try to hide in their own emotional reactions on the topic by reiterating basic facts and logic:
...it is perfectly obvious that accepting Darwin's theory of a universal struggle for life must tend to strengthen whatever tendencies people had beforehand to selfishness and domineering behavior towards their fellow humans. Hence it must tend to make them worse than they were before, and more likely to commit crimes: especially crimes of rapacity, or of cruelty, or of dominance for the sake of dominance. These considerations are exceedingly obvious. There was therefore never any excuse for the indignation and surprise with which Darwinians and neo-Darwinians have nearly always reacted whenever their theory is accused of being a morally subversive one. For the same reason there is, and always was, every justification for the people, beginning with Darwin's contemporaries, who made that accusation against the theory. Darwin had done his best to separate the theory from the matrix of murderous ideas in which previously it had always been set. But in fact, since the theory says what it does, there is a limit, and a limit easily reached, to how much can be done in the way of such a separation. The Darwinian theory of evolution IS an incitement to crime: that is simply a fact.(Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove :109)
In my opinion all one need do is keep focusing on facts and logic even if one does have a negative feeling about them. Emotional reactions like outrage and indignation can be conditioned by those around you, facts and logic rooted in reason can stand on their own.mynym
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
“can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” You are certainly not quote mining, but a fuller version is certainly more interesting. “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation he will then not receive; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience.” For the whole thing see: - http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htmduncan
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
“Ironically, their campaign to discredit Ben Stein and the film confirms its main point, which is to expose the persecution meted out by Darwinists to those daring to criticize Darwinian theory.” Not really, surely? It would confirm the point if they were trying to get the film banned, or falsely accusing Ben Stein of some heinous crime or other in order to try and discredit him. They are evolutionists – what do you expect them to say? They’re only being consistent.duncan
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
You know this article has a good point. One side wants to silence and eliminate the other and it aint ours.Frost122585
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Why can't they just admit that Darwinism can and actually did inspire horrors like the Holocaust? Admitting it is the first step in preventing it from ever happening again.jinxmchue
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
If Darwinism is being used to overturn our cherished ideals, then it deserves to be scrutinized with much greater care than, say theories in physics.Leo Hales
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
Dennis Prager conducted a great interview about Expelled with Ben Stein yesterday. They discussed the Darwinism/Nazi/eugenics link. http://dennisprager.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?ContentGuid=fec5769a-64bd-47a9-b8dd-ef10e7bff616&RadioShowId=3GilDodgen
April 16, 2008
April
04
Apr
16
16
2008
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
1 4 5 6

Leave a Reply