Posted on 05/27/2009 8:24:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust
by Jerry Bergman
Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
related:
The Godfather of American Liberalism [HG Wells]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2258827/posts
Thanks for the heads up...I’ll give it a read!
Thanks for the ping!
John Locke is the Father of Liberalism. Would you want to do without his work?
Not sure what you mean. Can you explain?
For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that the BS that you post here suggesting that Hitler’s atrocities might not have happened had it not been for Darwin’s ideas is true.
The fact remains that it has no bearing on the scientific validity of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.
It is merely an exercise in guilt by association...one of the most common logical fallacies.
John Locke is the Father of Liberalism. Would you want to do without his work?That's just......sad.To: Borges Not sure what you mean.
The “extermination” of the native peoples can be seen as an example of the survival of the fittest, since disease carried away most of the Indians who died. But disease is also responsible for the failure of Europeans to colonize most of Africa, Certain places, such as West Africa, were known as the white man’s graveyard.
I agree in part, people are also products of their time period and shouldn’t be judged by our own time period.
But with regard validating the theory of eugenics, the influence was catastophic for millions of people, so not inconsequential or “off-handed” in the least.
I don’t think we can let some people totally off the hook for their ‘influences’, even if they did not know where their influence would lead.
History is a harsh judge.
What is sad?
I think the point is that the evidence had a great deal of effect on Hitler's motivations.
Creationists may be using Hitler to discredit Darwin, that is true. But the evidence suggests that Darwin's ideas DID influence Hitler and a lot of other eugenicists ... even to this day.
This is not an attack on the validity of Darwin's ideas. But it is one of MANY disturging outcomes from them. Biological determinism has proven to be a dangerous concept in practice.
Stating so isn't all that controversial.
Rule #1......in the end, always try to pin your opponent to the Nazis.
Hillary is Hitler
Bush is Hitler
Those that believe in Evolution are Hitler
Let’s see....the “logic” here is that the Theory is “bad” because Nazis used notions of it to make policy and killed millions of people....right?
So....GUNS are “bad” because people use them and kill millions of people......right?
No no no....you’re not a REAL Christian....not the right KIND of Christian.
Lemme guess.....you don’t believe the Earth is only 6000 years old? You don’t believe that Man survived in a time of a hundred species of man-eating dinosaurs?
YOU’RE NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN....OFF WITH YER HEAD!!!
It’s exactly this “you’re not the right brand of ‘religion X’” mentality that is and always has been the ruination of a civil society that has the belief in god(s).....this mentality is one machete away from cutting off heads in front of a camera....one law away from forced conversion....one lunatic away from religious-based genocide.
Perhaps so.
Right.
Hitler was a vegetarian ... ergo, vegetarians are Nazis.
Marx was born in 1818, over a century after Locke's death. If Locke was a materialist, it had nothing to do with Marx's influences, or those of those who immediately influcencd Marx, notably Feuerbach and Hegel.
Where do you get that????
The conquistadors were basically in it for the money and the only protection the Indians ever had was the church people who came along with. Prior to the white man landing in the Americas of course, the biggest problem most central and south Americans had in life was getting cooked and eaten by Aztecs and Mayas. Christians put a stop to that sort of crap in the bargain.
I phrased my statement badly. I meant you could trace Marx’s thought partially to Locke.
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.