[BroJoeK]

Referring to post #403:

In other posts mdmathis6 has expressed perplexment that somehow evolution and Holocaust keep getting entangled with each other, what do Holocaust deniers have to do with anti-evolutionists, he asks?

The answer, as Kalamata is so eager to point out, is that he thinks Darwin was integral to Hitler's beliefs and the Holocaust.
So here we go again:

Danny Denier: "This is Hitler's Mein Kampf on natural selection:"

"...Nature herself tends to check the increase of population in some countries and among some races, but by a method which is quite as ruthless as it is wise.
It does not impede the procreative faculty as such; but it does impede the further existence of the offspring by submitting it to such tests and privations that everything which is less strong or less healthy is forced to retreat into the bosom of tile unknown.
Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold..."

Danny Denier: "This is Hitler' Mein Kampf on the evolution of man:"

"Only after subjugated races were employed as slaves was a similar fate allotted to animals, and not vice versa...
Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to take place in order that man might reach that degree of civilization"

So let's start here: Darwin himself didn't use the word "evolution" even though it was a valid word in his day, it simply meant "change".
Hitler's use here of "evolution" doesn't mean he'd magically become a Darwinist, since evolution was not Darwin's word.
And the context, context, context here is clear that Hitler meant simply "change" in social conditions, not biological descent with modifications.

Also in Hitler's version of "natural selection", it has nothing to do with biological evolution, from one species to another, but rather with the practice of any ancient agriculture in weeding out the weak so the strong can grow stronger.
That's not evolution, it's just nature's way of farming.

Point is: none of Hitler's words here originated with Darwin, none are credited by Hitler to Darwin, and none represent Darwin's ideas on origins of new species through descent with modifications and natural selection.
Indeed as pointed out by Robert Richards (post #465):

Richards, 2014: "...Careful examination shows that Hitler’s racial views had no connection with Darwinian ideas; indeed, he held to the fixity of species and thought descent of human beings from animal forbearers absurd.
Hitler’s anti-Semitism comes mostly from Houston Stewart Chamberlain and political sources..."

Danny Denier: "I have never heard of the Christian Workers Party, Joey.
I have heard of the Christian Social Workers Party which was a left-wing Socialist organization that supposedly disbanded in the early 1900's.
You cannot be a Christian and be a socialist, Joey; so don't be fooled by a label."

Please reread my post #465 for a detailed discussion of political party influences on young Adolf Hitler.
Bottom line: Hitler's anti-Semitism did not begin with Darwin but with political parties who called themselves Christian.
As to whether Christians can be socialists, you might want to discuss that with the Catholics' current pope.
If I understand correctly, he sees things differently.

Danny Denier: "That may be true, Joey, but where are your references?"

I've now posted many, especially #465 above.

Danny Denier: "Dr. Jerry Bergman, a Jew, disagrees with you, Joey:"

Bergman, 1999: "...Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps, and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars."

Well... your Dr. Bergman makes a somewhat valid point here, however, notice his weasel-words and logic: "Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain & others...".
"As modified by"??!
If we tolerate such sloppy logic, we could also say, with straight faces: "Christ's teachings, as modified by Marx, Hitler & Stalin killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century alone!"

"As modified by" is a total complete absolute nothing.
You can't sanely blame Christ for His teachings as modified by devils and you can't blame Darwin for his modest & reasonable scientific theory as modified by lunatics!

Danny Denier quoting Bergman, 1999:

"..."Terms such as 'superior race', 'lower human types', 'pollution of the race', and the word evolution itself (Entwicklung) were often used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders....
...Hitler's views were [quoting George Stein]: " … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true...."

Once again: Darwin himself never used the word "evolution" and Darwin was no "social Darwinist".
All that cr*p came later and should not be blamed on Darwin's modest scientific theory.

Danny Denier quoting Stein, 1988:

"National socialist "biopolicy," a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in racial inequality, a monistic, anti-transcendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection, is what national socialism is all about (Jackel 1972). "

The fact is that insane people can take any perfectly reasonable idea and twist it to their own nefarious purposes.

[Kalamata]

>>Joey the History Denier said: "Referring to post #403: In other posts mdmathis6 has expressed perplexment that somehow evolution and Holocaust keep getting entangled with each other, what do Holocaust deniers have to do with anti-evolutionists, he asks? The answer, as Kalamata is so eager to point out, is that he thinks Darwin was integral to Hitler's beliefs and the Holocaust.

I am one of many, Joey.

****************

>>Joey the History Denier said: "So here we go again:"
>>Danny Denier: "This is Hitler's Mein Kampf on natural selection:"
>>"...Nature herself tends to check the increase of population in some countries and among some races, but by a method which is quite as ruthless as it is wise. It does not impede the procreative faculty as such; but it does impede the further existence of the offspring by submitting it to such tests and privations that everything which is less strong or less healthy is forced to retreat into the bosom of tile unknown. Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold..."
>>Danny Denier: "This is Hitler' Mein Kampf on the evolution of man: "Only after subjugated races were employed as slaves was a similar fate allotted to animals, and not vice versa... Such people fail to recognize that this evolution had to take place in order that man might reach that degree of civilization"
>>Joey the History Denier said: "So let's start here: Darwin himself didn't use the word "evolution" even though it was a valid word in his day, it simply meant "change"."

No, Joey. Darwin used the word evolution extensively. For example, in this passage, from a book published a decade after "Origin," Charlie specifically uses the phrase, "theory of evolution":

"We can further see why a great amount of modification in some one character ought not to lead us to separate widely any two organisms. A part which already differs much from the game part in other allied forms has already, according to the theory of evolution, varied much; consequently it would (as long as the organism remained exposed to the same exciting conditions) be liable to further variations of the same kind; and these, if beneficial, would be preserved, and thus be continually augmented." [Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex." Hurst & Company, New Ed, 1870, Chap.VI, p.165]

In this passage Charlie labels himself and others who believe in common descent as "evolutionists." Make note that Charlie also praises Ernst Haeckel's fraudulent recapitulation theory:

"He who wishes to see what ingenuity and knowledge can effect, may consult Prof Hackel's works. I will content myself with a few general remarks. Every evolutionist will admit that the five great vertebrate classes, namely, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, are descended from some one prototype; for they have much in common, especially during their embryonic state." [Ibid. p.174]

In this passage Charlie uses the phrase "principle of evolution," while admitting he may have exaggerated the power of natural selection (You think?):

"I was not, however, able to annul the influence of my former belief, then almost universal, that each species had been purposely created; and this led to my tacit assumption that every detail of structure, excepting rudiments, was of some special, though unrecognized, service. Anyone with this assumption in his mind would naturally extend too far the action of natural selection, either during past or present times. Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." [Ibid. Chap.II, p.77]

This wouldn't be complete unless there was a reference to "gradual evolution," as found in this passage where Charlie, like a good politician, uses his gift of rhetoric to correlate his theory to the Law of the Lord:

"The half-art, half-instinct of language still bears the stamp of its gradual evolution. The ennobling belief in God is not universal with man; and the belief in spiritual agencies naturally follows from other mental powers. The moral sense perhaps affords the best and highest distinction between man and the lower animals; but I need say nothing on this head, as I have so lately endeavored to show that the social instincts —the prime principle of man's moral constitution—with the aid of active intellectual powers and the effects of habit, naturally lead to the golden rule, "As ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise;" and this lies at the foundation of morality." [Ibid. Chap.IV, p.142]

**************

>>Joey the History Denier said: "Hitler's use here of "evolution" doesn't mean he'd magically become a Darwinist, since evolution was not Darwin's word. And the context, context, context here is clear that Hitler meant simply "change" in social conditions, not biological descent with modifications. Also in Hitler's version of "natural selection", it has nothing to do with biological evolution, from one species to another, but rather with the practice of any ancient agriculture in weeding out the weak so the strong can grow stronger. That's not evolution, it's just nature's way of farming."

Hitler used it exactly like Darwin presented it in his later works, and even in "Origin." Remember, Charlie's cousin and "founding father" of eugenics, Francis Galton, claims he got his ideas from "On the Origin of Species". This is Jerry Bergman, author of "Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview" and "The Darwin Effect""

"Galton's lifelong eugenic crusade began with his acceptance of macroevolution (Bynum 2002, 379). The publication of Darwin's Origin of Species transformed Galton's life and removed 'any lingering religious sentiments' he had had before reading Darwin (Bynum 2002, 379). Galton wrote in his autobiography that reading"

"the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin made a marked epoch in my own mental development, as it did in that of human thought generally. Its effect was to demolish a multitude of dogmatic barriers by a single stroke, and to arouse a spirit of rebellion against all ancient authorities whose positive and unauthenticated statements were contradicted by modern science (1908, 287)."

[Bergman, Jerry, "The Darwin Effect." Master Books, 2014, Chap.3]

Charlie wrote a letter to Galton praising Galton's book that promoted eugenics:

"I have only read about fifty pages of your book (to the Judges),¹ but I must exhale myself, else something will go wrong in my inside. I do not think I ever in all my life read anything more interesting and original. And how well and clearly you put every point! George, who has finished the book, and who expressed himself just in the same terms, tells me the earlier chapters are nothing in interest to the later ones! It will take me some time to get to these later chapters, as it is read aloud to me by my wife, who is also much interested. You have made a convert of an opponent in one sense for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference."

1. Hereditary Genius: an Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences, by Francis Galton, London, 1869. "The Judges of England between 1660 and 1865" is the heading of a section of this work (p. 55). See Descent ofMan (1901), p. 41.

[Letter to Francis Galton, Dec 23, 1870, in Francis Darwin, "More Letters of Charles Darwin, a Record of His Works in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters Vol II." John Murray, 1903, p.41]

On Charlie's contribution to the Holocaust:

"An example of the racism that Darwin produced is illustrated in the following quote from a widely used zoology text in the 1920s:

"The gulf between the most highly civilized and capable races of Europeans and the degraded brute-like African pygmies is so vast that some authorities are impelled to conclude that they belong to distinct species, or at least to subspecies (Newman 1925, 403).

"This tragic application, some would argue misapplication, of Darwinism eventually contributed to the Nazi Holocaust and other destructive social movements such as eugenics (Proctor 1988). A critically important player in this movement was Francis Galton (1822–1911), the nephew of Erasmus Darwin, and the younger cousin to Charles Darwin. Galton was independently wealthy and never held a scientific or teaching post. Best known for his work as the founder of eugenics, he argued that it was largely genetics ('nature') that determined human intellect. Thus, our destiny was fixed at conception and, in the belief that certain people were superior, he strongly advocated controlled breeding to maintain the finest ruling classes (Taylor 2001)"

"A central plank in Nazism, communism, and other totalitarianism movements was eugenics (Bergman 2012). Eugenics, the 'science' of improving the human race by scientific control of breeding, was viewed by a large percentage of all life scientists, professors, and social reformers for over a century as an important, if not a major, means of accomplishing the goal of producing paradise on earth (Sewell 2009). The formal founder of this new science was Sir Francis Galton, a cousin and close associate of Charles Darwin. Galton's work was critical in providing the foundation for a movement that culminated in contributing to the loss of tens of millions of lives, and untold suffering of hundreds of millions of people. The now-infamous eugenics movement grew from the core concepts of biological evolution — primarily those ideas expounded by Charles Darwin (Gould 1996; Himmelfarb 1959; Shannon 1920; Haller 1971; Barzun 1958). In fact, all the leading figures in the eugenics movement, including Pearson, Davenport, Forel, Ploetz, Schallmayer, etc., not just Galton, consistently maintained that Darwinism was central to their eugenics." [Ibid.]

[Bergman, Jerry, "The Darwin Effect." Master Books, 2014, Chap.3]

**************

>>Joey the History Denier said: "Point is: none of Hitler's words here originated with Darwin, none are credited by Hitler to Darwin, and none represent Darwin's ideas on origins of new species through descent with modifications and natural selection. Indeed as pointed out by Robert Richards (post #465): >>Joey quoting Richards, 2014: "...Careful examination shows that Hitler’s racial views had no connection with Darwinian ideas; indeed, he held to the fixity of species and thought descent of human beings from animal forbearers absurd. Hitler’s anti-Semitism comes mostly from Houston Stewart Chamberlain and political sources..."

I have four of Richard's books by the University of Chicago Press, Joey, and he is not a very reliable historian. This is from a 3-part rebuttal of Richard's 2014 work:

"Apparently my two books, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, and Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, caused Robert J. Richards of the University of Chicago to pop a fuse. His fifty-page essay,"Was Hitler a Darwinian?" in his new book of the same name, published by the University of Chicago Press, aims primarily at refuting my works. He also snipes at David Berlinski, Stephen Jay Gould, Larry Arnhart, even Peter Bowler, along with unspecified "members of the Intelligent Design crowd."

"Unfortunately his analysis is marred by the following problems:

1) Richards misquotes and/or ignores the context of quotations, sometimes making them say the opposite of what is intended.

2) Richards ignores mountains of evidence, much of which is already contained in my books and articles.

3) Richards caricatures the positions of those he disagrees with (especially me, since I'm the main target of his essay).

4) Richards conflates certain key concepts.

5) In addition to ignoring specific lines of evidence, Richards totally ignores many of the most salient points I set forth in my books about what connects Darwinism and Hitler.

6) At one point Richards even creates a new historical "fact.""

[Richard Weikart, "Was Hitler a Darwinian? Reviewing Robert Richards." Evolution News & Science Today, Jan 6, 2014]

This is the entire 3-part series of Professor Weikart's rebuttal, which contains a great deal of useful information:

Part 1: "Was Hitler a Darwinian?" Reviewing Robert Richards

Part 2: Ignoring Evidence, Caricaturing Critics: Robert J. Richards’s Was Hitler a Darwinian?

Part 3: Is Robert Richards Right to Deny that Hitler Was a Darwinian?

**************

>>Danny Denier: "I have never heard of the Christian Workers Party, Joey. I have heard of the Christian Social Workers Party which was a left-wing Socialist organization that supposedly disbanded in the early 1900's. You cannot be a Christian and be a socialist, Joey; so don't be fooled by a label."
>>Joey the History Denier said: "Please reread my post #465 for a detailed discussion of political party influences on young Adolf Hitler. Bottom line: Hitler's anti-Semitism did not begin with Darwin but with political parties who called themselves Christian."

Many politicians and charlatans, in general, name-drop "God," "Christian," and "Constitution" for political expediency. These days, fascists even call themselves "anti-fascists."

This is a short video on the nature of Hitler's anti-semetic views:

Did Hitler base his anti-Semitic views on Christianity?

**************

>>Joey the History Denier said: "As to whether Christians can be socialists, you might want to discuss that with the Catholics' current pope. If I understand correctly, he sees things differently."

Again, Christians cannot be socialists.

**************

>>Danny Denier: "That may be true, Joey, but where are your references?"
>>Joey the History Denier said: "I've now posted many, especially #465 above."

Not good enough, Joey. My question was based on this statement by you from #388:

[Joey in #388] "Nonsense, the fact is that Hitler never mentioned Darwin, natural selection or evolution as natural selection in Mein Kampf. He did claim to have first learned anti-Semitism in the anti-Semetic Christian Workers Party. By his own telling of it, Hitler came to anti-Semitism through politics not science. In reality, there were other strong influences as well, but none had anything to do with Darwin. So blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate."

That is a red-herring, Joey. You name-drop "Christian" like a sleazy politician, and you persist in keeping Hitler confined to a little box in Vienna. I need concrete references that Hitler came to his later form of hard-racial anti-semitism in the manner in which you claim.

**************

>>Danny Denier: "Dr. Jerry Bergman, a Jew, disagrees with you, Joey:"
>>Bergman, 1999: "...Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps, and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars."
>>Joey the History Denier said: "Well... your Dr. Bergman makes a somewhat valid point here, however, notice his weasel-words and logic: "Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain & others...". "As modified by"??!"

There are no weasel words in that quote, Joey. Here it is again:

"Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role. Darwinism justified and encouraged the Nazi views on both race and war. If the Nazi party had fully embraced and consistently acted on the belief that all humans were descendants of Adam and Eve and equal before the creator God, as taught in both the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, the holocaust would never have occurred. Expunging of the Judeo-Christian doctrine of the divine origin of humans from mainline German (liberal) theology and its schools, and replacing it with Darwinism, openly contributed to the acceptance of Social Darwinism that culminated in the tragedy of the holocaust. Darwin's theory, as modified by Haeckel, Chamberlain and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps, and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars. Furthermore, the primary reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social Darwinism by the scientific and academic community." [Jerry Bergman, "Darwinism And The Nazi Race Holocaust." Talk Origins, Aug 13, 1999]

This is Chamberlain:

"The overwhelming majority of men with their display of ant-like activity are quite incapable of viewing things in such an original manner; productive power can be generated only by simple healthy specialisation. A manifestly unsound system like that of Darwin exercises a much more powerful influence than the deepest speculations, just because of its 'practicability.' And so we have seen the idea of evolution develop itself till it spread from biology and geology to all spheres of thought and investigation, and, intoxicated by its success, exercised such a tyranny that any one who did not swear by it was to be looked upon as a simpleton." [Houston Stewart Chamberlain, "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century Vol 1." John Lane Company, 1968, p.lxxxvii-lxxxviii]

Those are pretty powerful words. The German, Ernst Haeckel, who was highly praised by Charles Darwin, was one of the earlier promoters of eugenics and euthanasia; and Charlie seemed elated at his cousin's (Galton's) book on eugenics, and even rationalized it.

No matter which road you take, Joey, they all lead back to Charlie.

**************

>>Joey the History Denier said: "If we tolerate such sloppy logic, we could also say, with straight faces: "Christ's teachings, as modified by Marx, Hitler & Stalin killed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century alone!" "As modified by" is a total complete absolute nothing. You can't sanely blame Christ for His teachings as modified by devils and you can't blame Darwin for his modest & reasonable scientific theory as modified by lunatics!"

Once Charlie Darwin endorsed eugenics, the gig was up for the "less civilized" or "less favoured," as Charlie might label them.

**************

>>Danny Denier quoting Bergman, 1999: "..."Terms such as 'superior race', 'lower human types', 'pollution of the race', and the word evolution itself (Entwicklung) were often used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders.... ...Hitler's views were [quoting George Stein]: " … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true...."
>>Joey the History Denier said: "Once again: Darwin himself never used the word "evolution" and Darwin was no "social Darwinist". All that cr*p came later and should not be blamed on Darwin's modest scientific theory.

I have provided several quotes in this post of Charlie using the word "evolution." However, you may have noted that he reserved the term "evolution" for his racist book, "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," published in 1870, and not in his earlier "let's get acquainted" book called "On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

I wonder how little Adolf interpreted the phrase, "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life?"

**************

>>Danny Denier quoting Stein, 1988: "National socialist "biopolicy," a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in racial inequality, a monistic, anti-transcendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection, is what national socialism is all about (Jackel 1972). "
>>Joey the History Denier said: "The fact is that insane people can take any perfectly reasonable idea and twist it to their own nefarious purposes."

That is what Charlie did with God's Word, and I don't hear you complaining.

This is Stein's full quote:

"There is no originality here, crazy or otherwise. Hitler's views are rather straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that this "crazy originality" was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist "biopolicy," a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in racial inequality, a monistic, anti-transcendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection, is what national socialism is all about (Jackel 1972). Once it becomes clear that a particular biopolicy was the basis of the regime, various historical problems such as the seeming inconsistency or opportunism of tactics, the strategic blunders such as the invasion of Russia, or the totally irrational efforts expended on the extermination of undesirables become clear." [George J. Stein, "Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism." American Scientist, Vol.76, Iss.1; January, 1988, p.51]

Mr. Kalamata