Darwin's Dystopia : Darwinism and Hitler's Eugenics Program

tothesource.org ^ | May 8, 2008 | Dr. Benjamin Wiker

[SeekAndFind]

The folks at Scientific American are steamed at Ben Stein: (see links):

Ben Stein's Expelled: No Integrity Displayed (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-john-rennie)

Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know)

Stein's controversial movie Expelled links Charles Darwin to Adolf Hitler, the ultimate scientific hero to the ultimate manifestation of human evil. "A shameful antievolution film tries to blame Darwin for the Holocaust," shouts John Rennie's headline. Rennie then declares that its "heavy-handed linkage of modern biology to the Holocaust demands a response for the sake of simple human decency."

The problem is, that the link is quite real. In fact, undeniable. One doesn't need to see the film to make that link. Simply read Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man and Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Darwin's Descent of Man applies the evolutionary arguments of his more famous Origin of Species to human beings. In it, Darwin argues that those characteristics we might think to be specifically human—physical strength and health, morality, and intelligence—were actually achieved by natural selection. From this, he infers two related eugenic conclusions.

First, if the desirable results of strength, health, morality, and intelligence are caused by natural selection, then we can improve them by artificial selection. We can breed better human beings, even rise above the human to the superhuman. Since human beings have been raised above the other animals by the struggle to survive, they may be raised even higher, transcending human nature to something—who knows?—as much above men as men are now above the apes. This strange hope rests in Darwin's very rejection of the belief that man is defined by God, for "the fact of his having thus risen" by evolution to where he is, "instead of having been aboriginally placed there" by God, "may give him hopes for a still higher destiny in the distant future."

Second, if good breeding gives us better results, pushing us up the evolutionary slope, then bad or indiscriminate breeding drags us back down. "If…various checks…do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men," Darwin groaned, "the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule."

Now to Hitler. The first, most important thing to understand is that the link between Darwin and Hitler was not immediate. That is, nobody is making the case that Hitler had Darwin's eugenic masterpiece The Descent of Man in one hand while he penned Mein Kampf in the other. Darwin's eugenic ideas were spread all over Europe and America, until they were common intellectual coin by Hitler's time. That makes the linkage all the stronger, because we are not talking about one crazed man misreading Darwin but at least two generations of leading scientists and intellectuals drawing the same eugenic conclusions from evolutionary theory as Darwin himself drew.

A second point. We misunderstand Hitler's evil if we reduce it to anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism had, of course, multiple causes, including his own warped character. That having been said, Nazism was at heart a racial, that is, a biological political program based up evolutionary theory. It was "applied biology," in the words of deputy party leader of the Nazis, Rudolph Hess, and done for the sake of a perceived greater good, racial purity, that is, for the sake of a race purified of physical and mental defects, imperfections, and racial inferiority.

The greater good. We need to remember that, even though we rightly consider it the apogee of wickedness, the Nazi regime did not purport to do evil. In a monstrous illustration of the adage about good intentions leading to hell, it claimed to be scientific and progressive, to do what hard reason demanded for the ultimate benefit of the human race. Its superhuman acts of inhumanity were carried out for the sake of humanity.

Hitler had enormous sympathy for the downtrodden he witnessed as a young man in Vienna. "The Vienna manual labourers lived in surroundings of appalling misery. I shudder even to-day when I think of the woeful dens in which people dwelt, the night shelters and the slums, and all the tenebrous spectacles of ordure, loathsome filth and wickedness."

He believed that the social problems he witnessed in Vienna needed a radical, even ruthless solution if true change were to be effected. As he says with breathtaking concision, "the sentimental attitude would be the wrong one to adopt."

"Even in those days I already saw that there was a two-fold method by which alone it would be possible to bring about an amelioration of these conditions. This method is: first, to create better fundamental conditions of social development by establishing a profound feeling for social responsibilities among the public; second, to combine this feeling for social responsibilities with a ruthless determination to prune away all excrescences which are incapable of being improved."

The proposed ruthlessness of his solution was in direct imitation of nature conceived according to Darwinism. "Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation—which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred—and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development."

How do we secure a better road for future development? By ensuring that only the best of the best race, the Aryan race, breed, and pruning away all the unfit and racially inferior. That isn't just a theory; it's eugenic Darwinism as a political program. As Hitler made clear, "the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind." Jews have to be pruned away, but also Gypsies, Slavs, the retarded, handicapped, and any one else that is biologically unfit.

That's Darwinism in action. Does that mean that Darwin would have approved? No. Does that mean that Darwin's theory provided the framework for Hitler's eugenic program? Yes.

[wendy1946]

Fruit flies breed new generations every oher day; that was the entire point. Those experiments involved more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of humans or “proto-humans” on this planet.

[Gargantua]

"... Does that mean that gravity is "just a theory"? "

Good point, and a better simile. It implies correctly that gravity (like origins) is not understood, explained or definable by puffed-up scientific posturing.

Evolution "Science" (LOL!!!) is a platform for self-deluding imbeciles to pretend that they possess some meaningful knowledge in order to fool other imbeciles, get free drinks at the pub, and score fat chicks with no taste or sense of shame.

There exists absolutely NO EVIDENCE of evolution beyond the tortured hypothesis of a son-of-a-preacher who used his syphillus-twisted imagination to strike back at his overly strict Daddy.

And he, like all Darwinist-chimp-spawn, will burn forever in Hell for refusing to acknowlege God as their Creator and Lord.

See me smiling? Forget the sunscreen...

;-)

[Gondring]

Youngblood, you had an opportunity to give a good example of the morality of an atheist (evolutionist) and this is the best you can do?

Even if it wasn't the best, it was sufficient...thus demonstrating how weak the initial argument actually was!

(Yes, I see the pseudoparadoxical implications of that statement. :-)

[Coyoteman]

Scientific method and archaeological findings are two very different things. Since the Theory is still theory, it's not in fact science per se, it's a belief system--often in fact a religion practiced by fanatics whose origins insecurity is overcompensated by dogmatic assertions and with frauds like Piltdown Man that help perpetuate 'research' funding.

You are wrong in so many ways that it's not even worth rebutting you.

Here is a quick quote that may help your understanding:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].

[Coyoteman]

Evolution is garbage science and, as garbage science goes, a spectacularly dangerous and pernicious variety with two world wars and a couple of hundred million dead bodies lying around on account of it. The out of control arms races and isms which brought those wars and the massacres associated with communism and naziism about all began with the idea of a peson viewing his neighbor as a meat byproduct of random events rather than as a fellow child of God.

Ted?

[Coyoteman]

Meanwhile teach both origin theories side-by-side, as theories. Be scientifically and intellectually rigorous, precise and honest.

If you want to be "scientifically and intellectually rigorous, precise and honest" consider the following:

• The theory of evolution is not an origin theory
• ID and creation "science" are not scientific theories, they are religious beliefs
• The two cannot be taught "theories side-by-side, as theories" because ID/creationism, as religious beliefs, are not equivalent to the theory of evolution

[Coyoteman]

Evolution "Science" (LOL!!!) is a platform for self-deluding imbeciles to pretend that they possess some meaningful knowledge in order to fool other imbeciles, get free drinks at the pub, and score fat chicks with no taste or sense of shame.

There exists absolutely NO EVIDENCE of evolution beyond the tortured hypothesis of a son-of-a-preacher who used his syphillus-twisted imagination to strike back at his overly strict Daddy.

And he, like all Darwinist-chimp-spawn, will burn forever in Hell for refusing to acknowlege God as their Creator and Lord.

Is this your personal opinion, or is this the dogma of some particular religion?

Or are you trying to win a bad writing contest of some kind?

In either case, it would qualify here.

[RobbyS]

If the principle is established that the “weak” should not reproduce as freely as the strong, what is to prevent the strong from imposing their will? We can see what society can do to make people stop smoking. More to the point, we can see how a gentle totalitarianism can persuade people from having children at all.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Coyoteman: Facts are wonderful! Theories that honestly seek to connect those facts, without hidden agendae, are to be expected from genuine scientists. They can be tested, revised, discarded as appropriate.

Meanwhile, there are those who try first to draw the lines, then plot the points afterwards. Everything has to fit the worldview premise, or it’s deliberately ignored, discarded or attacked. Hopefully that isn’t you, unless you are a religious person after all.

Here’s a challenge: Prove macroevolution without grasping at alleged ‘microevolution’ straws and without public tax dollars funding your religion, that’s all I ask. And prove by your calm dispassionate ignorance of the latest popular anti-God theories that you are not an anti-God religious nut.

Until then, Good Day.

---

---

---

NOTE TO MYSELF:

If Coyoteman is a true scientist, he will dig into true openminded research with renewed intensity, to seek to prove or disprove macro, that is to say actual, evolution.

On the other hand, IF he’s a prejudiced pedantic armchair atheist religionist demagogue with a fossil fetish, he will write me back without new hard evidence.

Hopefully this post won’t trigger a Pavlovian reply.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

LOL!

[Coyoteman]

Coyoteman: Facts are wonderful! Theories that honestly seek to connect those facts, without hidden agendae, are to be expected from genuine scientists. They can be tested, revised, discarded as appropriate.

Meanwhile, there are those who try first to draw the lines, then plot the points afterwards. Everything has to fit the worldview premise, or it’s deliberately ignored, discarded or attacked. Hopefully that isn’t you, unless you are a religious person after all.

Here’s a challenge: Prove macroevolution without grasping at alleged ‘microevolution’ straws and without public tax dollars funding your religion, that’s all I ask. And prove by your calm dispassionate ignorance of the latest popular anti-God theories that you are not an anti-God religious nut.

Given your superb grasp of science, you of course realize that no theory can be proved; theories can be supported, or they can be contradicted, by the evidence.

Second, why should you put a pre-condition on any field of science requiring that it not be supported by public tax dollars?

The rest of your post seems to be inspired more by religious zeal than any interest in science.

But the one thing I glean is that you are asking for evidence of macroevolution. OK, here you go:

Here is a detailed article on the evidence for the evolution of the horse (I have linked to the summary as I know creationists are loath to read too much science; I think they are afraid of being exposed to anything contrary to their beliefs).

First paragraph of the Summary: For many people, the horse family remains the classic example of evolution. As more and more horse fossils have been found, some ideas about horse evolution have changed, but the horse family remains a good example of evolution. In fact, we now have enough fossils of enough species in enough genera to examine subtle details of evolutionary change, such as modes of speciation.

Take a look at the article and let me know what you think.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

That’s nothing new, Sir. Wilbur would say, a horse is a horse, of course, of course.

I’m looking for missing links. The title of the old TV series Lance Link, Secret Chimp was a spoof about missing links. Think of Get Smart except with chimpanzees, narrated.

Now back to macroevolution. Show me the proof in the fossil record that we came from lesser creatures.

[bezelbub]

With the single exception of the 30-years war, European wars prior to 1900 were basically gang-fights between royal houses and in 1913, Europe had just gone for an entire century without a meaningful war.

The Crimean War springs to mind...

Conversely, to find anything comparable to the wars of the last century, you need to go straight back to Chengis Khan.

And - of course - there is the American Civil War. (You may say that it wasn't European, but most of Chengis Khan's wars weren't neither...)

[Coyoteman]

That’s nothing new, Sir. Wilbur would say, a horse is a horse, of course, of course.

I’m looking for missing links. The title of the old TV series Lance Link, Secret Chimp was a spoof about missing links. Think of Get Smart except with chimpanzees, narrated.

Now back to macroevolution. Show me the proof in the fossil record that we came from lesser creatures.

What is your specific objection to the details of horse evolution that I posted?

Your quip "a horse is a horse, of course, of course" does not disprove one piece of the very large and detailed page of evidence that I posted. Your quip, and the rest of your post, just shows that you are not serious about evaluating the evidence; you are prepared to deny anything I post.

Sorry, that does not cut it in science. If you have specific problems with the details of horse evolution let's hear them. No jokes, no hand-waves, no creation "science" -- just specific problems you have which can stand up to the rigors of science.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

The ‘speciation’ among various horses, moths etc. is not evolution.

Like begets like, we are told in the Bible.

In this case, ironically faith plays out pragmatically with scientific predictability.

Replicability. A horse begets a horse, of course, of course.

Show me major links with the scores of extant inter-species fossils that must be there. Tell me what first cause triggered the chains of events. Then, explain the preconditions to the first cause, and what made those possible.

[Coyoteman]

The ‘speciation’ among various horses, moths etc. is not evolution.

Your hand-wave is insufficient to dismiss the evidence.

Show me major links with the scores of extant inter-species fossils that must be there.

I already provided that. You attempted to deny it with a simple hand-wave. The lurkers are well aware who is presenting evidence and who is peddlin' religion.

But I'll play the game one more time. Here is another article, this one written from a religious perspective. Are you going to hand-wave it away also?

Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth, a Catholic Perspective

[RobbyS]

I think he also forgot about the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, which were propelled by the quasi-religious fanaticism of the Jacobins as well as the ambition of Napoleon. It left France stunned, so that between 1815 and 1914 its population increased from 25 million to just 40 million, while Germany’s and Britain’s populations exploded. The War of 1914-1918 really demoralized the country. Casualties and property damage were relatively more than that than of the American Southland during the Civil War. And Yankees —and American blacks—don’t really appreciate how terrible the efects of that war were.

[dr_lew]

What about those who treat Evolution as a kind of demiurge? Sometimes we see the term “Mother Nature,” used the same way. It is a kind of neopaganism for many people. Men seem to be naturally religious.

Yes, I think this common way of speaking represents our tendency towards animism, which attributes all events and conditions to the acts of an agent. Galileo even spoke this way: "I want them to see that just as nature has given them eyes with which to see her works, so she has also given them brains capable of penetrating and understanding them." - from a letter to a friend, cited and translated by Stillman Drake.

I've always been a little surprised at that, seeing as how the charge of heresy was so easy to stumble into, but I guess this sort of language did not represent a challenge to any particular Church doctrine.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Several posts back, I asked for proof and indicated I preferred not to hear back from you until you could provide it.

But, as if I had rung Pavlov’s bell, Coyoteman immediately claims to have provided evidence, among horses, a specific kind of animal. That is not macro, in other words bona fide, evolution. (A Minotaur skeleton? Hey, then you’d have something.)

Then I point that out and you call it a handwave.

It is a kind of hand motion, actually.

It’s a thumbs down on your little game.

You have no proof of macroevolution. No major layers found of in-between fossils leading from non-legged animals to apes to humans. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis.

At long last, you prove nothing but your fervor for your assertions. Kind of like a religion, except minus the Bible.

Good night.

[Coyoteman]

Several posts back, I asked for proof and indicated I preferred not to hear back from you until you could provide it.

I provided links to several good pages containing evidence on the evolution of the horse. Sorry you are unwilling to read it -- I have included a graphic (below) which may help.

As far as preferring not to hear back from me? I'll just bet you prefer not to hear from me because I post good solid evidence. And I'll keep on posting evidence. You can keep on pretending it doesn't exist, but you're just making yourself look pretty silly.

But, as if I had rung Pavlov’s bell, Coyoteman immediately claims to have provided evidence, among horses, a specific kind of animal. That is not macro, in other words bona fide, evolution. (A Minotaur skeleton? Hey, then you’d have something.)

I did provide the evidence. You hand waved it away.

Then I point that out and you call it a handwave.

Yup.

It is a kind of hand motion, actually.

Whatever.

It’s a thumbs down on your little game.

Whatever.

You have no proof of macroevolution. No major layers found of in-between fossils leading from non-legged animals to apes to humans. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis.

See the graphic below, and the links I provided. I have provided evidence, good solid science, while you have provided nothing but denial.

At long last, you prove nothing but your fervor for your assertions. Kind of like a religion, except minus the Bible.

Wrong, I have provided links to good evidence. And here is another good link:

Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years

You seem typical of the science-deniers we are seeing a lot of lately. You can't handle science, or the evidence it provides, nor can you refute that evidence--so you just pretend it doesn't exist. Nice try, but that won't make it go away.

And now, the graphic I promised: