0
   

From Darwin to Hitler

 
 
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 10:16 am
There are four things the average person needs to know about evolution:

1. It's junk science, which has been massively disproven over the last century.

2. As junk science goes, it's dangerous junk science. It was the major philosophical corner stone of naziism, communism, and the various eugenics programs in western countries.

3. It is utterly incompatible with Christianity or any other meaningful religion.

4. It is part and parcel of certain agendas which may or may not be of any use to you; individual mileage may vary.

Newt Gingrich once described the problem with evolution and ethics very succinctly, noting that the question of whether a man viewed his neighbor as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random events, simply has to affect human relationships.

Serious and thoughtful evolutionists like Sir Arthur Keith have noted that evolution and Christianity are utterly incompatible:

http://www.designeduniverse.com/evolutionandethics.htm

And now, new printed material on the topic is beginning to emerge:

From Darwin to Hitler, by Richard Weikart:

http://www.nrbookservice.com/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6573

http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/weikart.html

Quote:

From Darwin to Hitler
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany

By Richard Weikart

Review by Johannes L. Jacobse

We know Hitler was evil, writes historian Richard Weikart in From Darwin to Hitler, but how do we explain why Hitler's diabolical genocide was widely accepted by the Germans, including intellectuals, scientists, and other cultural leaders? What allowed this evil to flourish and why was there so little outcry against it?

To most Germans, Hitler never appeared to be an evildoer, and thus subsequent attempts to portray him as a fanatical madman betray a misunderstanding of the epoch in which he ruled, Weikart argues. Instead, Hitler was very much a man of his age. The moral justifications for the evil he unleashed were developed long before he rose to power.

Weikart writes that the moral antecedents of Nazi genocide rest in the Darwinism that swept the German academies nearly a century before the Nazi period. The road from Darwin to Hitler, however, is crooked with many twists and turns. Many early Darwinists would have recoiled at Nazi brutality, and there were many political, social, and economic factors unrelated to Darwinian thinking that contributed to Hitler's rise. Even so, Weikart notes:

...while remaining ever cognizant of the multiple potentialities of Darwinian, eugenic, and racist discourse in the pre-Nazi period, we should not close our eyes to the many similarities and parallels with later Nazi thinking either.

These "similarities and parallels" were the ideas about social progress that were derived from Darwin's theory of evolution that would later be appropriated by the Nazis.

Early Darwinists were intoxicated by the scientific character of evolutionary theory and accepted it at face value. Weikart chronicles in considerable detail how Darwinism grew from a theory about biological evolution to become the dominant interpretive paradigm of history, sociology, and anthropology in German intellectual life.

Darwinists believed that natural selection was the force that governed everything in creation - including human society. Their naturalism could not be reconciled to the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, since precepts like the Golden Rule or care for the weak violated the way that the natural order functioned. According to their philosophy, any defense or care of the weak represented human regress since only the strong were preordained to survive:

Darwinists insisted that morality was not fixed, but historically changing, and though many emphasized the relativism of morality, one factor remained constant: the evolutionary process itself. Thus many writers on evolutionary ethics exalted evolutionary progress?-and everything that contributed to it?-to the status of highest moral good. Health and sickness became criteria for making moral judgments, since they influence evolutionary progress.

This emerging moral relativism redefined the value of life and death:

Darwinism...offered a secular answer to the problem of evil and death... The Darwinian idea of death as the natural engine of evolutionary progress represented a radical shift from the Christian conception of death as an unnatural, evil foe to be conquered. This shift would bring in its train a whole complex of ideas that would alter ways of thinking about killing and "the right to life."

Weikart provides an exhaustive account of how this secularized morality took root in German thinking. It began by applying natural selection to the study of heredity, spawning the pseudoscience of eugenics. The killing of the defenseless, weak, and infirmed through abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia was touted as a social good since it conformed to the principles of nature:

By the early twentieth century Darwinian inegalitarianism was becoming manifest through the increasing use of the German term "minderwetig"; (properly translated as "inferior," but literally meaning "having less value") to describe certain categories of people. Aside from non-European races, two overlapping categories of people were generally targeted as "inferior" or "unfit": the disabled (especially the mentally ill) and those who were economically unproductive.

Once the moral barriers fell against killing the defenseless and weak, Darwinists expanded their thinking to include non-European people. If natural selection governed human history, then nations with the highest culture (primarily Germanic) were ordained by nature to prevail over the weaker and less developed ones. The Malthusian doctrine - that as populations grow, resources become scarce - provided strong justification for this emerging racism. The seeds of Hitler's Lebensraum were sown here.

By the time Hitler rose to power, the Darwinian ethic penetrated German culture so deeply that the received Judeo-Christian moral tradition was effectively overthrown. Hitler was not an "immoral opportunist" or an "amoral nihilist," Weikart argues, but a principled utopian visionary for whom "war and genocide were not only morally justifiable but morally praiseworthy." He writes:

One cannot comprehend Hitler's immense popularity in Germany without understanding the ethical dimension to his worldview and his political policies...Hitler embraced an evolutionary ethic that made Darwinian fitness and health...and the Darwinian struggle for existence...the only criteria for moral standards.

Why were the Jews the target of Nazi genocide? Weikart says the historical evidence is inconclusive, although it appears that Hitler drew more from a popularized street Darwinism than from the scholarly tracts of intellectuals. Although anti-Semitism was always a feature of Darwinian social dogma, Hitler made it the centerpiece of Nazi social policy.

Weikart concludes by reiterating that Darwinism alone does not explain the German descent into Nazi darkness. Political and social factors come into play, as well as the nihilism of Nietzsche and others. Nevertheless, the dependence of the Nazi social vision upon Darwinian ethics is so great that Hitler cannot be properly understood apart from it.
From Darwin to Hitler is a valuable work of intellectual history. It is well written, cogently argued, and thoroughly engaging. Read it to understand how the Nazi darkness penetrated the heart of Europe. But be forewarned: many of the arguments that devalued human life in pre-war Germany are the same that we hear in America today.

Johannes L. Jacobse is a Greek Orthodox priest and edits the website www.orthodoxytoday.org.


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 4,486 • Replies: 57
No top replies

 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 12:36 pm
Did you ever finish elementary school? No wonder this country is in trouble! Anyone denying the obvious, like evolution, ought to lose his privilege to vote. No wonder global warming and pollution are denied as realities: just too subtle for people like this.

Of course, we all know the snake just wants to rattle our chains. he's probably some kid in a special needs class, logging on to a computer while the teacher is working with another student. Either that, or he's someone from the WWII generation who never understood why time in school is wasted on science.

Hope bi-polar bear is tuning in to this one!
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 12:37 pm
If evolution doesn't exist, then how do animals adapt? Magic?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 12:52 pm
plainoldme

Quote:
Either that, or he's someone from the WWII generation who never understood why time in school is wasted on science.


Hey watch your mouth. First you insult the people of the greatest generation by implying they were stupid and then even more of an insult try to equate the snake with them. Hey he is your burden don't try to shift the blame.. Evil or Very Mad
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:04 pm
Re: From Darwin to Hitler
gungasnake wrote:
There are four things the average person needs to know about evolution:


Oh brother, here we go *AGAIN* with this nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Etruscia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:11 pm
"It is utterly incompatible with Christianity or any other meaningful religion. "

you say this like its a bad thing.

" It's junk science, which has been massively disproven over the last century."

disproven, then reproven, then disproven, then reproven. Im waiting for the results. Considering that they have created proto-life in the lab, and are able to predict that very simple forms of life would eventually form is quite promising.

http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~sci_info/News_from_ICTP/News_106/features_Origins.html

And if you think evolution is "junk science" whats your alternative?? Creation Science. Thats a laugh.

Major philosophical cornerstone of Communism?

Considering that it was corrupt and bloodthirsty leaders, which killed many people, not communism the ideal itself, i dont think negative connotation on it is neccessary.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:12 pm
plainoldme wrote:
Did you ever finish elementary school?


Violation of A2K TOS reported.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:16 pm
Bella Dea wrote:
If evolution doesn't exist, then how do animals adapt? Magic?


There IS such a thing as MICROEVOLUTION, or adaptation, in which animals adapt in order to better function in their normal way. The includes the familiar cases of moths changing colors, the differences Darwin noted in various kinds of finches etc. etc. Nonetheless no such change involves a change into a new KIND of animal.

Aside from that there is evidence that new kinds of animals HAVE arisen at various points in the past, nonetheless in all cases they arose suddenly from nowhere with no tracable ancestry involving other kinds of animals, and the evidence indicates they were either created from scratch or retro-engineered somehow or other, i.e. that intelligent processes were at work and not the mindless kinds of processes which evolutionists believe in.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:18 pm
au -- Don't take it personally. There are many older men who have trouble speaking properly (e.g., pronounce the second person plural as "youse") who launch into tirades against the current education system at the drop of a hat.

belladea -- These people think change is a bad thing!

Oooh! The snake has me shaking in my boots! If the snake were an adult male, he would not consider a simple little statement like


plainoldme wrote:
Did you ever finish elementary school?

a violation of anything. Balanced with the rant about Hitler and whatever, he just makes himself look foolish and simple.
0 Replies
 
Etruscia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:21 pm
"arose suddenly from nowhere"

could you give me some examples. Intelligent design, sure. The thing about that is you cannot offer any sort of proof. Even if evolution is completely disproven (which it wont be) we can just assume intelligent design, because there is no proof and no way to quantify it.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:22 pm
snake,
They are still discovering life; in the rainforest, in the ocean..... They are finding species they have never seen before. How can you say they can't find traceable ancestry? It might be there, just hasn't been discovered.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:24 pm
they arose suddenly from nowhere with no tracable ancestry involving other kinds of animals

Oh! I forgot about that! Did you know that if you put a dirty rag into a jar, added some grain, covered the jar and waited a week or two, you'd make mice?

Do you know that if you leave meat on the counter for a few days, that you will make flies?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:31 pm
When I was in sixth grade (academic 1958-59) in a Catholic School in Dearborn, Michigan, a member of my class asked our teacher, Sister Thomasine, if it was alright to believe in evolution. She said, "As long as you believe that at some point, God took the smartest male ape and breathed a soul into him and the most beautiful female ape and breathed a soul into her, of course it is alright."

Well, her answer, while sexist (okay, it was the 1950s), answered what he meant to ask, which was, "Is it alright to believe men descended from apes?" For a traditionally religious person, it is an appropriate and, if the person is at all sensible, a comforting answer.

That people today are still in a tizzy about evolution and human descent from apes is nuts. Just unbelievable to me.

I read parts of Descent of Man and Origin of the Species shortly thereafter.

When I saw the PBS show about kids at Wheaton College worrying about losing their immortal soul if they study biology, I was dismayed and saddened.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:31 pm
Etruscia wrote:
"arose suddenly from nowhere"

could you give me some examples.


All life forms are examples of this:

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with
gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the
same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a
species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its
ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977
0 Replies
 
Etruscia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:43 pm
I meant some animal exapmles . . . regardless;

Sudden Appearance, what does that mean. In geological terms, sudden appearance could mean over a 100, 000 years, which is completely believable. As for the stasis, i quesiton whether certainc changes which may have happened can be derived from the fossils.

I assume that the fossils we find exponentially less, than the number of animals that existed. In that effect, i would suggest that we only have a small number of pieces in the puzzle as a whole.

One could suggest that animals evolve faster than anticipated when in certain conditions. That a sudden appearance only seems like a sudden appearance, but is in fact a rapid adaptation to changing conditions.
0 Replies
 
Rex the Wonder Squirrel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:49 pm
Thanks a lot snake. Basically you've flushed yourself down the toilet on this one, spouting off with really no facts and just adding fuel to the evolutionists' fire. No wonder they all laugh at "Creation science" and stuff-- guys like you and Bib are the ones trying to back it up.

Just to the evolutionists in this thread, you know there are Creationists out there, like me, who actually can carry an intelligent discussion about Creation vs. Evolution using science and hard facts. rosborne'll tell you-- we've had some relatively nice conversations in the "Evolution- Who wants to know?" thread, haven't we? Aside from Bib. Razz
0 Replies
 
Etruscia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:55 pm
hmm, well. Evolutionist is a loose term at best, i dont believe in it. I just accept it as the best, well proven explanation for how things are as they are.

Anyways, i have found little to nothing of unrefutable creationist evidence supporting they're view, and most of it is supported by their own dogma. So it is only self-serving.

Ps. " Guns don't kill people; Abortion kills people"

This makes no sense. If guns dont kill people, then in effect abortion doesnt kill. Both are only a means to kill. I say means to kill, not kill people because whether an abortion is killing a person is another debate which i wouldnt like to get into.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 01:58 pm
Etruscia, I was thinking that the two can't be connected in any way. Except that they are means. It doesn't make any sense to me either.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 02:05 pm
Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:
Just to the evolutionists in this thread, you know there are Creationists out there, like me, who actually can carry an intelligent discussion about Creation vs. Evolution using science and hard facts. rosborne'll tell you-- we've had some relatively nice conversations in the "Evolution- Who wants to know?" thread, haven't we? Aside from Bib. Razz


If I remember correctly, you do seem to have a better grip on reality than many other "creationists" I've heard from. But I'm not sure we ever actually agreed on anything Smile

I prefer discussions which contain actual fact, rather than the rhetoric and cut/paste tactics we've seen from Gunga and Bib, so if you have a claim you want to debate, I will look forward to it.
0 Replies
 
Etruscia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2005 02:10 pm
Same here, same here.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » From Darwin to Hitler
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 06:25:38