"Don't Blame Darwinism for Hitler! Blame Christianity!"

Jewcy - What Matters Now ^ | April 30, 2008? | David Klinghoffer

[sitetest]

It was from an obsessive Darwin-defender that I learned of the Anti-Defamation League's attack on the theatrical documentary Expelled, for "misappropriat[ing] the Holocaust." This guy is constantly emailing me. He warned that the ADL had just "issued a terse press release today condemning the equation of ‘Darwinism' with Nazism in Expelled. How can you call yourself a religious Jew and still believe in such Fundamentalist Protestant Christian nonsense like Intelligent Design?"

I thanked my email correspondent for a good laugh. The idea that, having defended Expelled's thesis concerning Hitler's intellectual debt to Charles Darwin, I would now feel chastised and repentant because of a statement from the ADL, an organization for which I have not a feather's weight of respect! This was rich stuff.

Just to be clear, however: Expelled doesn't equate Darwinism and Hitler. That basic point was also missed by Professor Sahotra Sarkar, who published a confused attack piece on me here on Jewcy. Sarkar attributed to me the view, "If you believe in the theory of evolution, you are an anti-Semite" -- something that, obviously, I would have to be a fool to write or believe.

Dealing primarily with the academic suppression of Darwin-doubting scientists on campuses around the country, Expelled only spends about 10 minutes on the Hitler-Darwin connection. But it draws upon a solid, mainstream body of scholarship by the chief Hitler biographers and others.

Undeterred, the ADL wailed that "Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness."

Much the same view has been propounded elsewhere. Once again here at Jewcy, Jay Michaelson seemed to argue that all science is by definition value-neutral: "Last I checked, Hitler also made use of automobiles. Indeed, he based a lot of ideas on militarism and machines; does that mean technology is morally wrong? Should you turn off your computer right now?"

No, Jay, there are obvious differences between Darwinian theory and auto and computer technology. Most important, the latter make no claims to answering ultimate questions, like how life originated, from which ethical corollaries are naturally drawn.

Auto and computer technology are also proved reliable every day by our experience. But no one has ever reported seeing a species originate in the manner described in Darwin's Origin of Species - not now, not in the fossil record, not ever.

More interesting than these observations is the hypocrisy of the ADL's outburst: "Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan."

It's funny how when the subject of conversation is Darwinism, then Hitler needed no one particular inspiration. But when the conversation shifts from Darwinism to - oh, I don't know - Christianity? Ah, then suddenly the genealogy of Nazism becomes eminently traceable.

One of the ADL's main fundraising technique has long been to scare Jews by demonizing Christianity. The group accordingly isn't shy about tracing the genealogy of the Holocaust back to the New Testament. In an essay on the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate, for example, Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, director of interfaith affairs wrote:

"The anti-Judaism that begins in the New Testament was transformed through the admixture of political, economic and sociological prejudice into the anti-Semitism of modernity. This reached its ugly and inhuman nadir during World War II with Hitler's Final Solution for the Jewish people."

Blaming the earliest Christian writings for setting off a chain of influences resulting in the Holocaust evokes little outrage in the liberal Jewish community. Visitors to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, for instance, are greeted by a film, Anti-Semitism, purporting to uncover the "religious root of this phenomenon, the pervasive anti-Jewish teachings that evolved from overly literal readings and misreadings of New Testament texts."

Yet when Hitler successfully sold his ideology of hate to the German people in his bestselling tract Mein Kampf, he phrased his argument not in Christian terms but in biological, Darwinian ones.

Ignoring Hitler's evolutionary rhetoric, of course, some commentators brandish a famous quote from the same book -- "by defending myself against the Jews, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." They don't realize that Hitler was referring not to the God of the Bible but to Nature and her iron laws, as his preceding sentence clearly indicates.

In a curious irony, the modern paperback edition of Mein Kampf, available in any Barnes & Noble, includes an Introduction by - guess who? None other than the ADL's national director, Abraham Foxman. Did he, I wonder, even read the book?

[aruanan]

This puts the matter into pretty good perspective:

In the prestigious Journal of Modern History, the reviewer of my book stated that Weikart takes the position: "All Darwinian thinkers advocated the violation of the 'right to life' through measures such as birth control, abortion, voluntary and compulsory 'euthanasia,' voluntary and compulsory sterilization, infanticide, and genocide. And all Darwinian thought led inevitably to Auschwitz."

Robert Richards, professor of the history of science at the University of Chicago, has criticized my book thus: "They [Weikart and others] have not, for instance, properly weighed the significance of the many other causal lines that led to Hitler's behavior--the social, political, cultural, and psychological strands that many other historians have in fact emphasize [sic]. And thus that [sic] they have produced a mono-causal analysis which quite distorts the historical picture."

The biggest problem with these critiques is that I specifically denied these interpretations of Darwinism and Nazism in my book.

Concerning the first charge (that I claim that every form of Darwinism led to Nazism), I stated quite clearly in the introduction: "Obviously, Darwin was no Hitler. The contrast between the personal lives and dispositions of these two men could hardly be greater. Darwin eschewed politics, retreating to his country home in Down for solitude to conduct biological research and to write. Hitler as a demagogue lived and breathed politics, stirring the passions of crowds through frenzied speeches. Politically Darwin was a typical English liberal, supporting laissez-faire economics and opposing slavery. Like most of his contemporaries, Darwin considered non-European races inferior to Europeans, but he never embraced Aryan racism or rabid anti-Semitism, central features of Hitler's political philosophy." (p. 3) I specifically denied that Darwinist thinkers are proto-Nazi. I also explained in my introduction: "The opposing view—that Hitler hijacked Darwinism—has significant supporting arguments, for many scholars have pointed out that Darwinism did not lead to any one particular political philosophy or practice. Social Democrats with impeccable Marxist credentials were enthusiastic about Darwinism and even considered it a corroboration of their own worldview. After reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, Karl Marx wrote to Friedrich Engels, 'Although developed in a coarse English manner, this is the book that contains the foundation in natural history for our view.' Furthermore, many pacifists, feminists, birth control advocates, and homosexual rights activists—some of whom were persecuted and even killed by the Nazis—were enthusiastic Darwinists and used Darwinian arguments to support their political and social agendas. Eugenics discourse was commonplace all across the political spectrum, causing the historian Atina Grossmann to convincingly argue that the path from eugenics and sex reform to Nazism was 'a convoluted and highly contested route.' Nazism was not predetermined in Darwinism or eugenics, not even in racist forms of eugenics." It's hard for me to understand how anyone could read the introduction to my book and make the ridiculous claim that I argue that all Darwinists promoted euthanasia or genocide. These scholars apparently are unaware that I wrote a previous book, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein, in which I explained the reception of Darwinism by German socialists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. No, all Darwinism didn't lead to Nazism, and I of all people know this quite well. If my critics skipped the introduction of my book, they could also have learned my views in the conclusion, where I stated: "It would be foolish to blame Darwinism for the Holocaust, as though Darwinism leads logically to the Holocaust. No, Darwinism by itself did not produce Hitler's worldview, and many Darwinists drew quite different conclusions from Darwinism for ethics and social thought than did Hitler." (p. 232) So where did my critics get the idea that I argued that "all Darwinian thought led inevitably to Auschwitz"?

Concerning the second charge (that Nazism depends entirely on Darwinian thought), I specifically confronted this issue in my book, too, stating: "The multivalence of Darwinism and eugenics ideology, especially when applied to ethical, political, and social thought, together with the multiple roots of Nazi ideology, should make us suspicious of monocausal arguments about the origins of the Nazi worldview." (p. 4) I further clarify: "I would also like to make clear from the outset that, while stressing intellectual history in this work, I recognize the influence of political, social, economic, and other factors in the development of ideologies in general and of Nazism in particular--but these topics are outside the scope of this study." (p. 5) In a class I teach at my university on the Nazi era, I discuss many factors shaping Nazi ideology: nationalism, the effects of World War I, economic problems, Christian antisemitism, etc. I do not believe that Nazism has one cause, and in my book I overtly reject a monocausal explanation. The reason I only discussed the role of social Darwinism and evolutionary ethics in the shaping of Nazi ideology should be obvious. My book is not primarily about Nazism. It is about evolutionary ethics. I never claimed that Darwinism or evolutionary ethics is the only cause of Nazi ideology, and I specifically denied that interpretation.

Why, then, you will ask, have several scholars erred so egregiously by misinterpreting my book? I refuse to speculate on this issue, but I should note that many reviewers have understood my argument perfectly well. The reviewer on H-Ideas noted that Weikart "also itemizes the variants of Darwinism and eugenics ideology as they were applied to ethical, political, and social thought and is aware of the many roots of Nazi ideology, thus clearly refusing any monocausal explanations of Nazism." The reviewer in German Studies Review wrote: "This does not mean, Weikart insists, that Darwinism should be blamed for the Holocaust." In Science and Theology News the reviewer wrote: "Darwin’s ideas are not directly responsible for the Holocaust, Weikart claims, because the principles of evolution do not necessarily lead to Hitler’s destructive philosophy."

What I demonstrated in detail in my book is that many leading Darwinists themselves argued overtly that Darwinism did indeed undermine the sanctity-of-life ethic, and they overtly appealed to Darwinism when they promoted infanticide, euthanasia, racial extermination, etc. I specifically noted that not all Darwinists took this position, but those who did were leading Darwinian biologists, medical professors, psychiatrists, etc. They were not some fringe group of ignorant fanatics; they were mainstream Darwinists. Also, I did not simply show that leading Darwinists supported eugenics, infanticide, euthanasia, and racial extermination; I showed that they appealed overtly to Darwinism to justify their position. So, it is not Weikart who is reading Darwinism into the record. Darwinists themselves made these arguments. Therefore, critics of the position that Darwinism devalues human life should not attack me, but rather should attack those Darwinists I exposed in my work.

Darwinism didn't ineluctably lead to Naziism, but the Nazis certainly used it to justify their behavior. As the writer pointed out, there are many many people who are Darwinists who are not Nazis. However, it may be said that those people hold (generally) humanitarian views in spite of their Darwinism, views that are remnants of an earlier age and that have not yet been traded in for the logic of materialism (the followers of which had enthusiastically adopted Darwin, though not without reservations, as their scientific Rosa Parks).

[Soliton]

The best example of absolute opposites, on all levels of analysis, is seen when we compare Nazi ideology with Christian doctrine.

In an ideal world. However, historically, people claiming to be Christian, including saints and popes, have behaved very un-Christ-like.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Nazism, being a subset of fascism, has its own unique attributes apart from socialism generally. However, fascism can be legitimately viewed as a form of socialism, or at the very least, originating out of socialism and strongly related to socialism.

Lots of commies, Marxists, and socialists flocked to NSDAP rallies. Leftists like Roehm, Drexler, Goebbels, and Strasser joined the NSDAP. The Brownshirts were mostly recruited from the left. I guess these people couldn't tell the difference between NSDAP and other whacko leftist groups. Hitler was happy to see commies showing up at NSDAP events.

Julian Huxley, the Darwin Medalist, called himself a socialist and a humanist. What kind of society did he advocate? Huxley's society emphasizes biology and genetics. Eugenics would be a 'sacred duty', a national religion. The state will determine what religious beliefs are permissible. Undesirables would be sterilized. Euthanasia would be widespread. The government would distribute happy pills to make everyone happy. Under-achievers would not be allowed to have more than 1 or 2 children. If they have more, they will be sent to labour camps. And so on. What kind of socialism does this sound like? What kind of socialism is so obsessed with human biology and eugenics? Nevertheless, Huxley said that Naziism was an aberration caused by the 'belief in a personal God.'

[ketsu]

At heart, socialists and Nazis are the same. Look at what motivates them, look at what’s in their hearts.

Think about the meaning of: a hateful, narcissistic desire to control others through the use of corruption and murder.

Socialism and Nazism are superficially different but fundamentally the same.

Cut and Paste! It's easier than thinking!

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Documented history... clearly shows Nazis drew heavily from Darwinism in forming their ideology.

At the 1912 International Eugenics Congress, Leonard Darwin gave his Presidential Address. He said this:

"As an agency making for progress, conscious selection must replace the blind forces of natural selection; and men must utilize all the knowledge acquired by studying the process of evolution in the past in order to promote moral and physical progress in the future. The nation which first takes this great work thoroughly in hand will surely not only win in all matters of international competition, but will be given a place of honour in the history of the world."

So, the race was on.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Selective breeding was around before Darwin wrote his thesis.

Yes, but national and international eugenics societies run by famous Darwinians were not.

[ketsu]

Yes, but national and international eugenics societies run by famous Darwinians were not.

Eugenics didn't become a viable system of thought due to Darwinism. Eugenics came to the fore through Galton, who perverted Darwinism the same way that Nietzsche's sister perverted Nietzche's philosophy for use by the Nazis.

[Tailback]

The SS belt buckles said “God is with Us” in German

No they did not. SS buckles said "Mein Ehre Heisst True" SS officers participated in pagan rituals at the academy.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Nothing can explain Hitler's genocidal madness. His insanity defies explanation, IMHO.

Perhaps. But it may be possible to explain elements of Nazi history that are not brought up on these threads, such as Aktion T4. You see, that was not much different from what some famous Darwinians advocated.

"60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazines of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP." (about 1938)

The Darwinian philosophy about "useless eaters" even appeared in Hunter's Civic Biology (the Scopes textbook.) So, Darwinians were teaching this kind of stuff to students. You can download Darwinian books from my FR page and read what they say for yourself.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

"6. Darwinism overturned the Judeo-Christian view of death as an enemy, construing it instead as a beneficial engine of progress."

Interesting how well that quote describes Edwin Conklin's world-view:

"The religion of evolution holds forth no hope of a perfect millenium in which all evil shall be eliminated and all struggle shall cease... There can be no progress of any kind without struggle... The struggle against evil in general is thus a condition of social progress... Evolution thus offers a rational solution of the great problem of evil. It has taught us that there is all about us a great and world-wide struggle for existence; that inaction and satiety end in degeneration and that advance can be purchased only by struggle, suffering, and death. "

- E.G. Conklin, The Direction of Human Evolution, 1921.

Conklin was a Princeton biology prof, the author of several books, a president of the AAAS, a member of the American Eugenics Society, and co-founder of the Galton Society.

One thing that I find interesting in these debates is the outrage of many Darwinists at the idea of tying in Darwinism to the Holocaust.

It would outrage them even more if you tied it to Aktion T4 and other such undeniably Darwininan projects.

[reasonisfaith]

Cutting and pasting doesn’t save thinking, it saves typing!

[reasonisfaith]

I’m comparing two sets of ideas (Christian doctrine and Nazi ideology). The ideas are fixed and absolute, which makes it very easy to contrast them as I have done, pointing out the fact that they are opposites.

Meanwhile, you’re comparing an idea (Christian doctrine) with the objective world example of mankind’s violation of that idea. See the difference?

Remember this: man’s failure to live according to Christian doctrine is described in the Bible (see Genesis through Revelation) and thus the Nazi phenomenon is perfectly consistent with Christian doctrine and only validates its truth.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

Eugenics didn't become a viable system of thought due to Darwinism. Eugenics came to the fore through Galton, who perverted Darwinism

Galton won the Darwin Medal for his work. Dawkins says that Fisher was the greatest Darwinian after Darwin. Fisher was a eugenist. His main work The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is about eugenics. Karl Pearson was a eugenist. He won the Darwin Medal. Darwin's son Leonard was president of the Eugenic Society and president of the First International Eugenics Congress. Leonard's wife was also a eugenist. Poulton, Osborn, Seward, Darlington, etc., were all eugenists and they were all Darwin Medalists. Francis Darwin, Horace Darwin, Charles Galton Darwin, and George Howard Darwin (and his wife) were members of eugenical societies.

But since you believe that "everything in science is false", you might as well believe everything in history is false too.

[Youngblood]

Even if, for the sake of argument, Hitler and the Nazis would never have come to pass without the discoveries of Darwin, so what? That doesn’t make biological evolution any less true. Whether or not evolution continues to be the best explanation for the diversity of life depends on the data, not on the fact that some heinous people used it to justify their own evil deeds. The holocaust is irrelevant to the question of whether birds are part of the dinosaur clade.

[HerrBlucher]

Interesting how well that quote describes Edwin Conklin's world-view:

And Nietzche's. And, apparently, modern environmentalists:

From Michael Reagan's article at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2010673/posts?page=18#18

"Most won't say it, but here's what two of them are quoted as saying in Johah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism." "When Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund was told that banning DDT would probably result in millions of deaths he replied 'This is as good a way to get rid of them as any." And a million did die."

[Soliton]

You can separate Christian doctrine from Old Testament teachings only if you deny the Trinity.

The Old Testament is rife with tribalism, violence, bigotry, and polygamy all sanctioned by God.

[Youngblood]

Dawkins says that Fisher was the greatest Darwinian after Darwin. Fisher was a eugenist. His main work The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection is about eugenics.

Its partly about eugenics. It also has an examination of genetics in general and sexual selection that arguably provided the main foundation for the reconciliation of natural selection with genetics. That is why his influence on the field is so recognized.

[Soliton]

Plato - “would permit friendship between the sexes in his utopia, the procreation of children would be controlled by the government. Through the careful selection of mates, the race would be strengthened by improved children. Only men above the age of thirty and below forty-five, and women above the age of twenty and below forty, would be permitted to have children. Any child born in violation of the state laws would be abandoned outside the walls of the city.”

Galton- “What I desire is that the importance of eugenic marriages should be reckoned at its just value, neither too high nor too low, and that Eugenics should form one of the many considerations by which marriages are promoted or hindered, as they are by social position, adequate fortune, and similarity of creed. I can believe hereafter that it will be felt as derogatory to a person of exceptionally good stock to marry into an inferior one as it is for a person of high Austrian rank to marry one who has not sixteen heraldic quarterings. I also hope that social recognition of an appropriate kind will be given to healthy, capable, and large families, and that social influence will be exerted towards the encouragement of eugenic marriages.”

Darwin was concerned about the evolutuion of a new species from an existing one. Galton and Plato were concerned with breeding a better human within the species. Plato existed way before Darwin and Galton and Plato’s Republic was required reading for the educated class until very recently.

[ketsu]

Great rebuttal. No need for me to reply.

[reasonisfaith]

“You can separate Christian doctrine from Old Testament teachings only if you deny the Trinity.”

Of course I didn’t separate them, and wouldn’t because I view them as inseparable. In fact, I’m not aware of any examples in which Old Testament teachings are considered separate doctrine from the whole of Christian doctrine. It just isn’t done, neither by scholar nor by layman. You can relax about this.