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

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.

Very persuasive. All that red. And the growing font sizes following the strong ALL CAPS lead with a nice foreshadowing use of bold. You came very close to convincing me.

But unfortunately, without any exclamation points, your argument ultimately falls flat.

Darwin however, gave cover to practices generally condemned by Victorian societies as “uncivlized.” He had a totally wrong notion of inherited charactristics, on which the Eugenecists —and the Nazis—used uncritically. Eugenics is, ironically, quite anti-evolutionary. Research with viruses etac. show that darwinism processes are more efficient that process directed by humans. Eugenics is, in fact, more line line with socialist thinking, which is hostile to economic liberalism.

Rather those who wished to carry out uncivilized behavior sought cover under the rubric of “Science” and the theory of Evolution through natural selection; just as they also sought cover under the auspices of “Religion” (Hitler directly said he was “avenging my savior's blood upon the cross”).

Darwin had a completely correct notion of inherited characteristics, in that they are passed down as a complete and undiluted in units of heredity.

Selective breeding is more efficient than natural selection to derive the characters you wish (rather than those favored by nature). If we used natural selection to make the best rabbit digging dog we might well end up with a dachshund; but it wouldn't be as efficient as selective breeding.

Yes, Eugenics is well in line with Socialist thinking. They wish to circumvent natural selection based upon human desire and supplant it with government control. Socialism at its finest, no doubt.

Hitler was most certainly not an atheist, unless he was in the deepest darkest part of his heart. The Nazi's were decidedly anti atheist and cracked a few skulls to prove the point. As a movement the Nazi party was anti-Atheist and publicly “Christian” as they (mis)understood the term.

“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out”. Adolf Hitler

“For their interests [the Church's] cannot fail to coincide with ours [the National Socialists] alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against a Bolshevist culture, against atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for a consciousness of a community in our national life”. Adolf Hitler

Of course a dog is a tool.

We have hunting dogs, tracking dogs, pointing dogs, digging dogs, guarding dogs, and companionship dogs. All selectively breed for our use and enjoyment.

Myself I like my “diving into cold water to retrieve a downed duck” dog, although i usually only use him to fetch tennis balls and to be my best buddy.

Darwin had a completely correct notion of inherited characteristics

Darwin made no distinction between germinal and somatic variations. Even Darwinians--at least the ones who aren't totally blind to Darwin's faults--have admitted so.

What difference do you think Somatic mutations make on evolution? They make no difference. You understand very little of the theory if you think somatic mutations are involved in evolution. Only germ line mutations have an effect on succeeding generations.

Please explain to me how you think this was a flaw in Darwin’s notion of inherited characteristics that he didn’t get into somatic mutations which are NOT inherited characteristics.

Darwin also failed to posit the double helix. The man was obviously a hopeless idiot.

ps — you might find this site and its accompanying links educational: http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/evolutio.htm

In much of the world, dogs are scavangers. When Gutenberg was looking for some material to apply ink to his type, he hit on dog skin. The streets of Mainz were full of these mangy animals. Their skin has no pores. The same feature made dog skin a popular material for gloves. Even today Muslims do no share our sentimental regard for pooches. The problem arises when one thinks of human beings as tools. The eugene ists had an Aristotelean view of much of humanity, which had it that some men were natural slaves. The biologists who experiment with human embryos and mouse embryos with sovereign indifference, evidence the same view.

You ought to argue that Darwin’s principle stands despite his ignorance of genetics. Adhere to his authority in this matter did slow down acceptance of Mendel and other more advanced thinkers.

What does the use of dog pelts or their scavenger nature have to do with anything?

Biologists who do experiments with human or mouse embryos are not working from the assumption that some humans are natural slaves, they are working from the assumption that all humanity might benefit from their research.

How was Mendel's thinking “more advanced” than Darwin's?

Mendelian genetics agrees with Evolution through natural selection in that both posit that biological inheritance is done by passing along discrete units of inheritance.

Darwin didn't know about DNA or genetics, but he did know that traits are inherited (something humanity has observed from the beginning), and he assumed that they were passed along in a Mendelian (discrete)rather than a Lamarckian (amorphous)manner. Darwin and Mendel were both correct and Lamarck was wrong.

The Nazi inner circle despised religion. If you read Goebbels, one sees how he viewed Christianity. For propoganda purposes, they would use “spiritual” languages. This “public” religion resembled in form the national Protestant Church doctrine. But in fact the regime tolerated religious practice for purely pragmatic reasons: they were in power only six years before the war and they dared not suppress beliefs and practices long established in the nation if they were to maintain the nationality unity they needed to maintain the regime. However, they were quickly moving to suppress religious education, which is why there was mandatory enrollment of the youth in the Hitler organization, whose object was to instill Hitler worship in the youth.

What does the use of dog pelts or their scavenger nature have to do with anything?

We think of animals as organic machines,beingg radically different from us. which is why we treat them with indifference.

I gather you assume that human embryos are not human beings. That is a useful assumption for biologists who want to use their living bodies for their experiments. I do not share that view. As to motive, the Nazi scientists were similarly convinced that all humanity would beenfit from their research.

Darwin didn't know of Mendel's research so he could hardly be called a Mendelian. Moreover nothing in Mendelian genetics has anything to do with catastrophe or geology or gradualism; it has to do with the mechanism of inheritance in discrete units and darned if Darwin didn't posit that variations within species could be passed along to descendants in discrete units.

I know my dog is an organic “machine”. I know he is different from us (although he does share a common ancestor) however this difference is not at all “radical” but one of degree, that is why we use dogs to test drugs, because they are NOT radically different than us. I hardly treat him (or other dogs) with indifference.

Compare that with the theological idea that dogs do not have a soul and you will find your “radical” difference.

Biologists acknowledge the common ancestry of all life. It is not Science that seeks to claim that a dog has no spiritual existence merely a physical one.

As to motive, the Nazi scientists were similarly convinced that all humanity would beenfit from their research.

I think that's pretty much true of all scientists. What conclusion should we draw from that?

“As to motive, the Nazi scientists were similarly convinced that all humanity would benefit from their research.” RobbyS

Nazi Scientist thought the Reich would benefit from their research, and one of the goals of the Reich was elimination of a majority of human life on the planet, all those who were not “Aryan” the “image of God” according to Nazi propaganda.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.