They were not based, as far as I know, on theories about racial superiority. They were just groups that couldn't get along, the stronger was taking advantage of the weaker, etc. So that's irrelevant.
I perfectly understand cause and effect, and the difference between that and guilt by association. But blaming Nazi Germany on Darwin is even a ridiculous guilt by association argument, since it wasn't even mentioned by Hitler, and every esteemed historian that I've read never blamed it on Darwin.
So you've read every "esteemed historian" that ever wrote anything about Hitler? You're very well read!! Here's a book by Richard Weikart, professor of modern European history at California State University.
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
"Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of public policy and 'racial hygiene'. Without over-simplifying the lines that connected this body of thought to Hitler, he demonstrates with chilling clarity how policies such as infanticide, assisted suicide, marriage prohibitions and much else were being proposed for those considered racially or eugenically inferior by a variety of Darwinist writers and scientists, providing Hitler and the Nazis with a scientific justification for the policies they pursued once they came to power." -- Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge, and author of The Coming of the Third ReichAs I understand it, the Darwin-holocaust theory is like Wright's AIDS conspiracy theory."This is one of the finest examples of intellectual history I have seen in a long while. It is insightful, thoughtful, informative, and highly readable. Rather than simply connecting the dots, so to speak, the author provides a sophisticated and nuanced examination of numerous German thinkers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who were influenced to one degree or another by Darwinist naturalism and their ideas, subtly drawing both distinctions and similarities and in the process telling a rich and colorful story." -- Ian Dowbiggin, Professor of History, University of Prince Edward Island and author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America
"This is an impressive piece of intellectual and cultural history--a well-researched, clearly presented argument with good, balanced, fair judgments. Weikart has a thorough knowledge of the relevant historiography in both German and English." -- Alfred Kelly, Edgar B. Graves Professor of History, Hamilton College, and author of The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914
"This is truly a well-crafted work of intellectual history, and one directly relevant to some of the most consequential ethical discussions of our present time. Christians and all people of good will would do well to ponder these arguments, recognizing how easily the best and brightest can commit the worst and darkest under the progressive banner of biological 'health and fitness.' The book should provoke much debate and discussion, not only among historians but among ethicists and scientists too." --Thomas Albert Howard, Associate Professor of History, Gordon College, author of Protestant Theology and the Making of the Modern German University (forthcoming)
"The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed. Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively explains." --Phillip Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance
"If you think moral issues like infanticide, assisted suicide, and tampering with human genes are new, read this book. It draws a clear and chilling picture of the way Darwinian naturalism led German thinkers to treat human life as raw materials to be manipulated in order to advance the course of evolution. The ethics of Hitler's Germany were not reactionary; they were very much 'cutting edge' and in line with the scientific understanding of the day. Weikart's implicit warning is that as long as the same assumption of Darwinian naturalism reigns in educated circles in our own day, it may well lead to similar practices." --Nancy Pearcey, author of Total Truth and co-author of The Soul of Science and How Now Shall We Live
"Richard Weikart's masterful work offers a compelling case that the eugenics movement, and all the political and social consequences that have flowed from it, would have been unlikely if not for the cultural elite's enthusiastic embracing of the Darwinian account of life, morality, and social institutions. Professor Weikart reminds us, with careful scholarship and circumspect argument, that the truth uttered by Richard Weaver decades ago is indeed a fixed axiom of human institutions: 'ideas have consequences.'" --Francis J. Beckwith, Associate Director, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, and Associate Professor of Church-State Studies, Baylor University
"Richard Weikart has provided bioethicists with an excellent resource in From Darwin to Hitler." --Center for Bioethics and Culture Newsletter
If I had said either of those things, it would be fair to comment on them, but you made them up. You certainly do not speak for me.
I didn't mean you had said the first thing. I meant that's your only valid argument. Your original post asserting that the holocaust theory was some kind of attack on science seemed to imply the second part. You can disagree with the holocaust theory certainly, but not on the grounds of defending science.
lasereye: "They were not based, as far as I know, on theories about racial superiority. They were just groups that couldn't get along, the stronger was taking advantage of the weaker, etc. So that's irrelevant."
I'm speechless. Historical revisionism knows no bounds.
And by the way, Weikart's book, underwritten by the Discovery Institute in furtherance of its Wedge strategy, is itself a fine example of the historical dissembling engaged in by ID proponents.
There's just no polite way to say this, so I'll say it bluntly:
You are an ignoramus.
Belief in the inherent superiority of one's own tribe/nation/race/whatever has been nearly universal throughout human history. In fact, it's only under the influence of modern Western Enlightenment thought that a portion of humanity has rejected the concept.
I’ll finish reading the rest of your post to me, but I had to stop right here.
Me: “and every esteemed historian that I’ve read never blamed it on Darwin.”
You: “So you’ve read every “esteemed historian” that ever wrote anything about Hitler? You’re very well read!!”
Why do you have the need to twist what I said? I have not read every esteemed historian’s writings, nor did I claim to. I did get a BA in history in undergraduate studies, so I’ve probably read more than most.
Now, either you can’t understand the plain meaning of my words, or you’re going to be consistently trying to twist them in a deceiptful fashion and then attack a proposition I never made. You are not entitled to make crap up, claim that I said it, and then attack it.
Now I will go finish reading the rest of the post.
I don’t know how esteemed Richard Weikart is a historian. It seems as if he’s made the focus of his short academic career writing about “Darwinism” and the Nazis.
But the whole concept is flawed. Let’s say some of the freaks in the Nazi Party were intent on creating the Super Race. They wouldn’t look to Darwin. They would look to Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. And perhaps they did.
Mendel was an Augustinian Priest, though.
The Nazis were not trying to craft the Super Race through random mutations and natural selection of the effects of that.
So Ben Stein picked the wrong villain. You can’t smear evolution with a sideline story between Nazis and a priest completely unrelated to either Darwin or evolution.
Well, you can, because Ben Stein tried.