Nazis, Darwin And Evolution

[Cheerful Charlie]

At least he's not an Einsteinist.

Neither were the Nazis. No Jewish science for the Nazis.

 

[bilby]

At least he's not an Einsteinist.

He is relatively Einsteinist. Which is appropriate, given the gravity of the situation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In recent years, we have had some people such as Richard Weikart and Dinesh D'Souza writing books to blame Darwin and evolution for being the basis of Hitler's holocaust. Weikart's book is "From Darwin To Hitler". Feeding lurid lies to the creationist true believers. Some years ago, I ran across an odd little item about the status of evolution to Nazis Scientists. I had saved it to a hard disk and have just found it again on an old hard disk of mine. Did Nazi scientists think evolution was true and an inspiration for national Socialism? Emphatically no.
-------

Evolution Under Attack By Nazis in Germany
Source:The Science News-letter Volume 39 Number 4
Jan 25 1941, Page 54
Published by: Society for Science & the Public
JSTOR URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/3918195

Evolution Under Attack By Nazis In Germany

"Evolution is under violent attack in Germany, primatily
because Darwinian teachings deviate from the Nazi "party line"
states states Dr. Otto Haas of the American Museum of Natural
History. (Science, Jan. 10) Dr. Haas cites a German
"semi-scientific" publication entitle Natur und Kultur, in
which ten different authors make violent attacks on evolution,
especially with regard to the origin of man from apelike
ancestors.
Dr. Haas calls particular attention "to a fact most striking to
a scientific reader: nowhere are the conclusions derived from
the results of research; on the contrary, the former are tested
as to whether or not they agree with the nationalist socialist
racial theory ('Rassenlerhe'). If they do not they have to be
rejected...Its no less striking to see that the adversaries of
evolution reproach its advocates, alleging that the latter made
them politically suspect".
One author, H. Weinert, rejects all these arguments as
"pseudoscientfic objections against the descent of the human
descent", but even he apparently tries to bolster up his
scientific argument with an appeal the party line, "asserting
that, should the origin of man be questioned, the adversaries
of national socialist 'racial hygiene' tendencies should
cite the uncertainty of science.

Science News Letter, January 25, 1941
-----

Because of the crap of Weikart and D'Souza peddle , I think this little item needs to be spread around a bit.

There is also Heather Pringle's "The Master Plan - Himmler's Scholars And The Holocaust". Himmler, head of the SS started a 'scientific' organization, the Ahnenerbe to prove Nazi racial theories scientifically. When one of Himmler's favorite scientists wrote an article taking evolution as true, Himmler gave him a sharp dressing down. Evolution, the idea that man evolved from monkey's was not acceptable to National Socialism. Himmler, head of his Ahnenerbe, banned writings supporting evolution. Himmler and national Socialism's official scientific organization were officially creationists.

The rancid little idea that Darwin can be blamed for the Holocaust is still an article of faith to many anti-evolutionists and creationists.

I later tried to track down more about this letter I am posting here, but found nothing. Some place in Germany, there is probably a dust collection of microfiches with copies of Natur Und Kultur insome dusty stacks, but I had no luck finding out how to access to any of that.

That's like saying that Niels Bohr is responsible for the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.

But keep in mind that Charles Darwin was himself a social Darwinist. He himself held beliefs that were pretty Nazi. Charles Darwin was also a Lamarckian. So he was wrong about stuff. He's not the grand pope of atheism. He's also the route of what became Freudianism and later psychoanalis and the psychological revovolution. That's a good thing. He was also the inspiration of Nietzsches thought. Who incidentally also was a source of Nazi thought, even though Nietzsche wasn't to blame. They just didn't understand what Nietzsche was saying.

So I'm pretty cool with the idea that Darwin's thought was partly responsible for the holocaust.

But do you know what was even more responsible for the holocaust? Christianity. Christianity teaches intolerance of thought and hatred of Jews. It's nice that Christians today often are more liberal about their faith. But that's because they're deviating from core doctrine. Christian thought is all you need to get a totalitarian police state going. Genocide on an industrial scale happened before the Nazis. What makes the Nazis special is access to modern machinery.

Charles Darwin was never a social Darwinist. His book "Descent Of Man" pointed out mankinds success was based on mutual cooperation. Darwin himself hated Slavery and was a member of the English anti-slavery movement.

https://orbitermag.com/how-darwin-felt-about-slavery/

There is absolutely no sign at all that Darwin was a social Darwinist at all. Anti-evolutionists based that claim on the fact Darwin knew Herbert Spencer, but Darwin never spoke approvingly of any of Spencer's more radical later ideas. Darwin died in 1882, Spencer in 1902. the rise of social Darwinism was diametrically opposed by Darwin's emphasis on mutual cooperation.

Further more, Spencer's political ideas were somewhat contradictory and often far more humane, even radical, than his reputation is reputed to be as far as Social Darwinism is concerned.

I googled this and found an amazing array of articles defending every possible position. I think the man's legacy is so contentious that it's hard to trust the stuff out there. There's support for either side.

I have read plenty about Darwin. In his letters he's clearly a social darwinist.

I think it's just a product of his time. The Christian tradition "the great chain of being" where God has made the world hierarchical based on ability, just assumed that those rich and powerful deserved being rich and powerful. Darwin would see no reason to challenge this. He himself came from a rich and priviliged family. Why would he challenge his own family's awesomeness?

The BBC radio show In Our Time they have a show they have a bunch of leading experts on Charles Darwin's life discussing. At some point the interviewer asks if he was a social Darwinist. All the experts agree he was. This show focuses on Charle's Darwin's person, rather than his work.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0...the story of,from religion to natural science.

Darwin was also a Lamarckian. Which is wrong. We cannot pass along acquired traits to our children.

I think it's a question of atheists want Darwin to be the font of goodness. While Christians want him to be the antichrist. When in reality he was mostly just a regular guy who held beliefs common for his day.

Darwin being an abolationist doesn't make him any less racist. Nearly all the abolationist were horrendously racist. They often saw blacks as our stupid cousins we shouldn't exploit because of their intellectual deficit. A bit like trying to prevent bullys from picking on the handicapped kid at school. That's what the poem "white man's burden is about".

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I have read plenty about Darwin. In his letters he's clearly a social darwinist.

So Charles Darwin considered himself a darwinist? Does such a statement even make rational sense? Was Harriet Tubman a social tubmanist?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I have read plenty about Darwin. In his letters he's clearly a social darwinist.

So Charles Darwin considered himself a darwinist? Does such a statement even make rational sense? Was Harriet Tubman a social tubmanist?

Social Darwinism wasn't coined by Charles Darwin. It was coined by Herbert Spencer. Names for movements often get their own lives and soon it's instigator loses control. Darwin is not unique. Karl Marx is famously quoted with saying that he wasn't a Marxist.

Whether Darwin himself would be for Eugenics is up in the air. He's quoted with both saying that through evolution and social welfare we're messing with natural selection, and breeding in weakness. Implying that we should do something about that. He's also quoted with saying that charity and sympathy was evolved characteristics in highly evolved humans, implying that by caring for the weak we are breeding in those characteristics (no, that's not how evolution works) and should therefore being preserved. So an argument against eugenics. It seems to me like he was on the fence about it.

But he was undoubtedly a rabid racist assuming that whites were the superior race and that races struggle against eachother for dominance. He thought that it was white people's superior genes that had made them rule the world. A pretty uncontroversial belief in his day. It was taken as so obvious back then I doubt the thought that it wasn't true ever crossed his mind.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But he was undoubtedly a rabid racist ....

Racist? Yes. Rabid? No.

Rabid racists are people like Nazis who exterminate other people and have an overpowering, maybe even irrational, sense of superiority and empowerment. That's not Darwin. Most everyone I knew when I lived in the south was racist, but they didn't all belong to the KKK, burn crosses and lynch blacks.

The more common sentiment is that we all feel a sense of personal importance and superiority wrt others, including other species. Many of us take that to the extreme by inventing magic beings that personify our ideals, believing that if everyone would just follow our personal feelings the world would be a utopia. My personal take is that such behavior is a mild form of bipolar, psychosis or some other similar condition. It also indicates that we're not particularly good observers of behavior, including our own.

 

[skepticalbip]

......

Whether Darwin himself would be for Eugenics is up in the air. He's quoted with both saying that through evolution and social welfare we're messing with natural selection, and breeding in weakness. Implying that we should do something about that. He's also quoted with saying that charity and sympathy was evolved characteristics in highly evolved humans, implying that by caring for the weak we are breeding in those characteristics (no, that's not how evolution works) and should therefore being preserved. So an argument against eugenics. It seems to me like he was on the fence about it.
.....

Or maybe not. It could be simply an objective analysis of what the results of those human behaviors would be. Understanding the likely outcomes does not imply there must be a personal opinion on "what should be done".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At least he's not an Einsteinist.

Oh? I submitted a bug report about the Firefox spell checker not recognizing Einsteinian when it recognizes Newtonian.

 

[bilby]

At least he's not an Einsteinist.

Oh? I submitted a bug report about the Firefox spell checker not recognizing Einsteinian when it recognizes Newtonian.

And I wrote an angry letter to Nabisco, demanding that they make a biscuit called the Fig Einstein.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Does anybody think Darwin would approve Nazi policies of slavery and forced labor as practised in WW2? Or the genocidal extermination of Jews, Gypsies and Poles as practiced in WW2. The German "Hunger Plan" to kill millions more in occupied territory? The "New World Or5der Plan" to turn Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia et al into a slave colony, helots to Germany's Sparta? Killing crippled children?

Darwin was not in any way responsible for any of that. The roots of this were planted long before Darwin lived. Despite the propaganda of the likes of Richard Weikart, and the slimy Dinesh D'Souza and similar bottom feeders.

 

[Lion IRC]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

What is "Darwinism" anyway? Darwin was describing how things work, not advocating anything.

It's like blaming Newton because you were hurt in a fall.

I agree, its a nebulous word. But that's the thing.
Cheerful Charlie is trying to defend Darwin[ism] and keep him/it out of the hands of the Third Reich in the same way as I might try to argue that the bible doesn't support slavery.

Yes, the greedy, pro-slavery, empire uber alles racists, might have tried to use the bible to justify their might-makes-right world view. And yes, Darwin might not have approved of the Holocaust. But that's not the argument.

Its not about whether Darwin[ism] and natural selection justifies what the Nazis did. Nor is is about whether the bible supports slavery.

The question is, did the Nazis expropriate Darwinian ideas about natural selection and survival of the strongest to justify their cause?

 

[Lion IRC]

Does anybody think Darwin would approve Nazi policies of slavery and forced labor as practised in WW2? Or the genocidal extermination of Jews, Gypsies and Poles as practiced in WW2. The German "Hunger Plan" to kill millions more in occupied territory? The "New World Order Plan" to turn Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia et al into a slave colony, helots to Germany's Sparta? Killing crippled children?

This is a logical fallacy.
The Nazis can use Darwinism to justify actions which Darwin would not automatically agree with in the same way as people use the bible to justify actions Jesus wouldn't agree with.

Darwin was not in any way responsible for any of that.

Not intentionally, no.

The roots of this were planted long before Darwin lived.

D'Souza would agree that Darwin cant claim sole credit for Darwinism. Nor should he take all the blame.

Despite the propaganda of the likes of Richard Weikart, and the slimy Dinesh D'Souza and similar bottom feeders.

Argumentum ad hominem. #potkettle

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The people who put the Nazis in power - and let them stay in power - embraced Darwinism. Nuff said.

What is "Darwinism" anyway? Darwin was describing how things work, not advocating anything.

It's like blaming Newton because you were hurt in a fall.

I agree, its a nebulous word. But that's the thing.
Cheerful Charlie is trying to defend Darwin[ism] and keep him/it out of the hands of the Third Reich in the same way as I might try to argue that the bible doesn't support slavery.

Yes, the greedy, pro-slavery, empire uber alles racists, might have tried to use the bible to justify their might-makes-right world view. And yes, Darwin might not have approved of the Holocaust. But that's not the argument.

Its not about whether Darwin[ism] and natural selection justifies what the Nazis did. Nor is is about whether the bible supports slavery.

The question is, did the Nazis expropriate Darwinian ideas about natural selection and survival of the strongest to justify their cause?

And the answer is a resounding "NO!". Every element of Nazi policies were created long before Darwin and Nazi leaders like Hitler do not mention evolution as a basis for any such policies. All the ideas the Nazis used to justify their policies predate Darwin and Evolution.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This is a logical fallacy.
The Nazis can use Darwinism to justify actions which Darwin would not automatically agree with in the same way as people use the bible to justify actions Jesus wouldn't agree with.




Not intentionally, no.

The roots of this were planted long before Darwin lived.

D'Souza would agree that Darwin cant claim sole credit for Darwinism. Nor should he take all the blame.

Despite the propaganda of the likes of Richard Weikart, and the slimy Dinesh D'Souza and similar bottom feeders.

Argumentum ad hominem. #potkettle

Slime. Not an ad hominem. Just an observation of D'Souza's propaganda.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Slime. Not an ad hominem. Just an observation of D'Souza's propaganda.

Remember that to Lion, any insult is ad hominem. It's another term he uses with an idiomatic definition he prefers over the real one.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Does anybody think Darwin would approve Nazi policies of slavery and forced labor as practised in WW2? Or the genocidal extermination of Jews, Gypsies and Poles as practiced in WW2. The German "Hunger Plan" to kill millions more in occupied territory? The "New World Or5der Plan" to turn Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia et al into a slave colony, helots to Germany's Sparta? Killing crippled children?

Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe. Forced labour was common all over the empire. I think the only thing he would have objected about what the Nazis did was the fact that they were German. The British empire treated their subjects incredibly brutaly. Especially the brown ones.

Don't forget the massive swing in popular opinion FOLLOWING WW2. Before WW2 common Germans and common Brits had very similar opinions on race and nation. The fact that Great Britain was opposed to the Germans in WW2 made the Brits talk themselves into being against whatever it was the Germans were for. Creating the illusion of a great divide in popular opinion even before the war.

There's no reason to believe Darwin held beliefs radically different than that of people in general in the UK. So I think it's on you to prove the opposite.

As I mentioned above, Darwin didn't think keeping crippled children alive through medical intervention and welfare was necessarily a good idea. He had argued against it. But also for it.

Darwin was not in any way responsible for any of that. The roots of this were planted long before Darwin lived. Despite the propaganda of the likes of Richard Weikart, and the slimy Dinesh D'Souza and similar bottom feeders.

Obviously Darwin was not responsible for any of that. It's no secret that Germany's imperial plans to subjugate Eastern Europe is nothing but an attempt to copy what France, Britain, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal already had been doing for 400 years in the rest of the world. Are you going to blame those empires also on Darwin? Hitler just wanted to join the club. Are you going to blame Isabella's expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 also on Darwin?

Blaming Germany's actions under the Nazis on Darwin is idiotic.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Slime. Not an ad hominem. Just an observation of D'Souza's propaganda.

Remember that to Lion, any insult is ad hominem. It's another term he uses with an idiomatic definition he prefers over the real one.

D'Souza is the clown who wrote a book "The Big Lie - Exposing he Nazi Roots Of The Left". D'Souza is about on the level of the worst QAnon right wing conspiracy peddler. He makes Ann Coulter look calm and reasonable by comparison.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Germany had tried to establish colonies in Africa, which were lost after WWI. It was a horror. Genocide and concentration camps.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/German-Herero-conflict-of-1904-1907

German-Herero conflict of 1904–07, the conflict between the Herero people and German colonial troops in German South West Africa in 1904 and the ensuing events of the next few years that resulted in the deaths of about 75 percent of the Herero population, considered by most scholars to be genocide.

 

[Bomb#20]

I agree, its a nebulous word. But that's the thing.
Cheerful Charlie is trying to defend Darwin[ism] and keep him/it out of the hands of the Third Reich in the same way as I might try to argue that the bible doesn't support slavery.

That's not really the same thing unless you can produce explicitly pro-Nazism quotes from Darwin. The Bible actually contains explicitly pro-slavery passages.

The question is, did the Nazis expropriate Darwinian ideas about natural selection and survival of the strongest to justify their cause?

Why is that the question? Suppose the answer is yes. What of it? The Communists expropriated Christian ideas about the rich and the poor to justify their cause; do you think that reflects negatively on Christianity?

The Nazis can use Darwinism to justify actions which Darwin would not automatically agree with in the same way as people use the bible to justify actions Jesus wouldn't agree with.

But do you have evidence that Jesus wouldn't have agreed with slavery? The OT endorses slavery and Jesus famously said not a jot or tittle shall pass from the law. Jesus appears to have been more concerned with saving slaves' souls than with freeing them.

 

[Bomb#20]

Does anybody think Darwin would approve Nazi policies of slavery and forced labor as practised in WW2? Or the genocidal extermination of Jews, Gypsies and Poles as practiced in WW2. The German "Hunger Plan" to kill millions more in occupied territory? The "New World Or5der Plan" to turn Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia et al into a slave colony, helots to Germany's Sparta? Killing crippled children?

Darwin was in favour of the British empire enslaving countless millions of people across the globe.

No he wasn't! Darwin was an abolitionist. Well-known for it. The circumstance that you come from a culture saturated in political correctness and consequently you've probably heard about ninety million woke people equate having a country's government staffed by foreigners with having that country's people prevented from quitting their jobs by means of flogging does not make those situations equivalent. Imperialism is not slavery. Lack of "self-determination of peoples" is not the same thing as lack of self-determination of people. The average (West) German was a lot better off when his country was ruled by Britons and Frenchmen and Americans than a few years earlier when it was ruled by Germans.

Forced labour was common all over the empire.

And you have evidence Darwin was in favor of that?

I think the only thing he would have objected about what the Nazis did was the fact that they were German.

The Germans didn't just conquer other countries; they also rounded up civilians and used beatings and murder to make them work in their factories. You have evidence Darwin was in favor of Britain doing that?

There's no reason to believe Darwin held beliefs radically different than that of people in general in the UK.

And people in general in the UK were against slavery, at least later in Darwin's life. It's why Britain was one of the first countries to abolish slavery, and why Britain took such a lead in suppressing the world-wide slave trade. As for earlier, Darwin was an early-adopter of abolitionism. His arguments about it soured his relationship with the Beagle's captain.

A bit like trying to prevent bullys from picking on the handicapped kid at school. That's what the poem "white man's burden is about".

The thing to keep in mind about the "white man's burden" is that it's intended to be a burden on the white man.