Darwin, Hitler, and the Culture of Death

LifeSiteNews ^ | 5/6/08 | Michael Baggot

[wagglebee]

May 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ben Stein has suffered extensive media criticism for drawing the connection between Darwin, Hitler, and the modern eugenics movements in a powerful 10-minute section of his film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

In an MSNBC.com review, Arthur Caplan calls the connection Stein draws between Darwin's theory and the Holocaust "despicable".  Neo-Darwinians on the whole have unleashed a barrage of insults at Stein and his work. They have also, however, completely failed to address the intimidating body of evidence Stein presents to support his claims. 

While Stein has explicitly asserted that not every neo-Darwinist is a eugenicist, an examination of the historic record reveals that neo-Darwinism can and has provided the philosophic justification for numerous horrific eugenic projects. 

According to Darwin, the survival of the fittest is the engine for progress for men as well as the rest of the animal kingdom.  In his "Descent of Man," Darwin laments that the misguided care of the weaker members of society has come as a detriment to the whole.  He warns that measures must be taken to "prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men," which is essentially nothing less than the mission statement of eugenicists the world over. 

Less than a century after Darwin's death, in his chapter on "Nation and Race" in "Mein Kampf," Adolf Hitler described the struggle for existence in Darwinian terms: "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness.  Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher evolution of organic living beings would be unthinkable."

The Nazi party framed its mission in terms of a Darwinian struggle to achieve a more evolved life form.   According to the Hitler-approved pamphlet "Why are We Fighting?", "Our racial idea is only the 'expression of a worldview' that recognizes in the higher evolution of humans a divine command." 

Another Hitler-approved booklet, "Racial Policy", outlined the Nazi vision of man as follows: "The preservation and propagation, the evolution and elevating of life occurs through the struggle for existence, to which every plant, every animal, every species and every genus is subjected.  Even humans and the human races are subject to this struggle; it decides their value and their right to exist."

There is a ruthless consistency to the Darwinian-phrased Nazi propaganda.  After all, if Darwin has rendered the "God hypothesis" superfluous and hence any notion of man as the intrinsically valuable creature made in God's image and likeness, what better criteria is there for human worth than power?

According to Darwin, man is different from the rest of the animals only by a matter of degrees.  There is nothing that essentially distinguishes man from the other beasts.  At best, man is a more complex machine than the rest of the animals.  It should not be surprising then that the prominent bioethicist Peter Singer appeals to Darwinian evolution when attacking the sanctity-of-life ethic and defending abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.  According to Singer, Darwin "undermined the foundations of the entire Western way of thinking on the place of our species in the universe." 

Likewise, Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett calls Darwin's views the "universal acid" that erodes traditional moral convictions rooted in the dignity of the human person.  His strictly biological assessment of human worth lets Dennett speaks of the "gradations of value in the ending of human lives," as he offers a case for euthanasia.

In a particularly powerful portion of "Expelled," Stein lets Cornell historian of science William Provine detail the implications of neo-Darwinism.  Without qualification, Provine adamantly affirms that neo-Darwinism demonstrates that there is no meaning to life.  Not surprisingly, he claims that he would put a bullet through his own head if his brain tumor reemerged.  Provine chides his brother for clinging to this life for so long. 

One is then led to wonder if Provine has a more sympathetic view of the large quantity of apparent drains on our society that fill our nations hospitals and nursing homes. The materialistic nihilism Provine honestly insists is entailed in neo-Darwinism seems to be completely incompatible with traditional humanitarian aspirations to defend the weak and vulnerable of society. Instead the weak and vulnerable are to be considered as obstacles to the progress of the human species in its evolutionary journey. They are to be eradicated. And, if not actively eradicated, then, at the very least, they should not be allowed to reproduce. 

If man is the accidental byproduct of blind natural forces and not the planned creation of an Intelligent Creator, then his worth is something to be earned rather than gratefully received.  The denial of man's intrinsic human dignity is at the heart of every eugenics movement from Hitler's Germany to early 20th century America to Planned Parenthood's continued mission to eliminate the "unwanted" children of the world. 

Is every neo-Darwinian a racist bent on genocide? No. But as Darwinian thinkers themselves admit, the neo-Darwinian outlook provides a handy foundation for the Culture of Death's rejection of human dignity and thus opens the way for the host of attacks on human life that continue to infect nations across the globe.  Thank you, Mr. Stein, for reminding us that ideas have major consequences.

(author's note: I am indebted to the Discovery Institute's Richard Weikart for compiling important passages from Hitler and Nazi propaganda in his recent article "Was It Immoral for 'Expelled' to Connect Darwinism and Nazi Racism?")

Learn more about Expelled:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com

Learn more about the Darwin-Hitler connection:
http://www.darwintohitler.com

Read more about Darwin's devaluation of the human person:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=vi...

[Gene Eric]

>> So you think Stein is praising science ...

Science is not pure and pray to God we use it in a way that doesn’t make us the worse for applying what we think we understand and can control.

[count-your-change]

You don’t suppose Adolph would pander to his audience do you?

[Coyoteman]

Science is not pure and pray to God we use it in a way that doesn’t make us the worse for applying what we think we understand and can control.

Of course.

But that has nothing to do with what Stein is doing. When it comes to science, he's throwing a bomb into a crowded bus.

[Gene Eric]

>> When it comes to science, he’s throwing a bomb into a crowded bus.

How is that different than what Al Gore is doing which, by the way, is the basis of my original comment to the comparison.

[Dog Gone]

The bomb largely was a dud.

The movie may do better in DVD format promoted by churches when available.

[Coyoteman]

How is that different than what Al Gore is doing which, by the way, is the basis of my original comment to the comparison.

Gore? He's a joke.

I don't look to either Gore or Stein for the latest findings on science.

[NicknamedBob]

"... they have eyes to see, but cannot see. And you can bet that there will be someone come along on this thread to heap contempt on me for saying so. But maybe I'll be small potatoes on this thread ..."

Small potatoes ... heap contempt ... ?

Hmm. Well, okay, but I put gravy on mine.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Gene Eric]

>> I don’t look to either Gore or Stein for the latest findings on science.

Neither do I. Gore has invested much more time and money into his campaign than Stein which would statistically give Gore the edge on affecting the interpretation of scientific data. To my original post commenting on the weight of the Gore & Stein campaigns, the retorts were irrelevant.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[count-your-change]

“BTW, the Soviets arrested people and worse for teaching Darwinism.”
You have some examples of this? It would be passing strange since according to the book, “Landmarks in the Life of Stalin”, young Stalin thought highly of Darwin.

[Revolting cat!]

What is the fuss all about? The philosophical connection between the saints of the 19th century, Marx, Darwin and Freud and the dystopias of the 20th century had been made a long while ago, by, d'uh, philosophers and thinkers outside of the science field. Why, because it is obvious and Adolf and Vladimir, men of their age, didn't have to name names, just like the Witch, O'Bambinoand the head of HR at my company don't have to name the brave feminist leaders of recent decades either. They're in their blood and it shows in their thinking, their policies! Trends is trends. Geez! Double D'uh!

The controversy today appears to be among the unread, some of whom confess on this very forum that they abhor philosophy, because, according to one post I read, it hasn't made progress (unlike science) in 2,600 years (or maybe he said 6,456 years, since that is the age of the Earth.)

I don't know what it all says about the Theory of Evolution versus Whatever, and the thinkers I read as long as 2-3 decades ago never went into that particular argument, but the connection was there for all to see.

[NicknamedBob]

"... young Stalin thought highly of Darwin."

That Stalin, or Hitler, or Charles Manson, or Osama bin Laden may have read, agreed with, or have thought highly of Darwin is irrelevant to the nature of his research and its conclusions, or to the reproducible veracity of them.

It is almost impossible to distinguish between the eco-centric writings of Al Gore, and those of the Unibomber. Does that mean that Al Gore should be locked up to prevent him from causing mischief?

.

Okay, bad example.

[AdSimp]

I had to scroll a while to find a relevant and appropriate point. Well said.

Why this issue of Intelligent Design, and making a logical and often made deduction from Darwin through eugenics to Hitler, causes such a temper tantrum from the Darwinists, is quite beyond me. The point of the movie was to say that the academy not only disagrees with ID, but seeks to destroy anyone involved with ID.

And that we see in all the Expelled threads on FR.

[count-your-change]

My comment on Stalin was in response to a post that suggested the Soviets arrested folks for teaching Darwinism and I thought it curious if true given Stalin’s view of Darwin’s work.
But I would ask you a question: Do the groups that so opposed the use of DDT in even the most minute amounts to kill mosquitoes bear any responsibility for the millions of malaria deaths and disabilities that followed its ban?
Does the “deep ecology” philosophy bear any guilt for those deaths since it advocates reducing the earth’s population to a fraction of what it is now, even if by “natural” means like malaria?
Lock up Big Al? Of course not, but it might be considered justice to demand that he live as he would have others live.

[NicknamedBob]

Do they? No.

Should they? Yes.

"Does the “deep ecology” philosophy bear any guilt for those deaths since it advocates reducing the earth’s population to a fraction of what it is now, even if by “natural” means like malaria?"

Guilt didn't drive them to insanity, so it really won't affect them either way.

I have no objection to allowing the Earth's population to be reduced. Some of us want to get out of this looney-bin anyway.

I'd like to retire to one of the cloud-cities of Venus.

[Ken H]

Why this issue of Intelligent Design, and making a logical and often made deduction from Darwin through eugenics to Hitler, causes such a temper tantrum from the Darwinists, is quite beyond me.

Hitler professed himself a Christian, and declared that Christianity was to be the moral foundation of the Reich.

If you are going to connect the TOE to Hitler's crimes, then would you not also have to connect Christianity to his crimes?

[Sun]

The movie, Expelled, was a dynamite of a movie.

It covered many things, including IDers losing their free speech for even mentioning Intelligent Design.

And the movie had it’s light moments, too, thanks to Ben Stein’s dry humor.

[count-your-change]

I know what you mean. When I was younger life was a waltz, now it's a barroom brawl with a knee to the groin and a thumb in the eye everyday. And the ref sticks a foot out to trip me.
If the cloud cities of Venus were any good the taxes would be out of my league. Cheers

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Okay, so you’re saying that the average American undestood and loved the movie, but it was too intellectual for the scientists.

Not precisely too "intellectual," but too far outside the box within which the scientists in question think. Perhaps that is how I should have said it.