Sure I've heard of him, of Ernst anyway, as I think you know. "Lavishly praised?" That's stretching it a bit. Darwin was complementary, but then he was normaly gracious, and even obsequious, sometimes even toward those we know (from letters, diary's, etc) that he did not really think that highly of (e.g. Herbert Spencer, arguably the century's premier bloviator).
However I believe Darwin did in fact think well of Haeckel, certainly as a naturalist, and was pleased to have a rising and hardworking young scientist energetically introducing evolutionary theory in Germany; but I don't think Darwin gasped much, if any, of Haeckel's philosphy of nature, or of man. We know Darwin read several of Haeckels books, but he does not appear to have read anything at all by Haeckel straight through. Instead he seems to have mined Haeckel's works for facts and observations. Anyone who knows much about Darwin can easily imagine his eyes glazing over, and quickly skipping over, Haeckel's more discursive passages. In addition Darwin's German was poor: only barely servicable for dry, scientific reading.
Darwin does reference Haeckel many times in The Descent of Man as Haeckel had recently published on human anthropology. The most "lavish" praise I could find was early on, when Darwin mentions Haeckel at the end of a string other important contemporaries and predecessors:
The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new. Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion, which has lately been maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers; for instance, by Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt, Lubbock, Buchner, Rolle, etc. (1. As the works of the first- named authors are so well known, I need not give the titles; but as those of the latter are less well known in England, I will give them:--'Sechs Vorlesungen uber die Darwin'sche Theorie:' zweite Auflage, 1868, von Dr L. Buchner; translated into French under the title 'Conferences sur la Theorie Darwinienne,' 1869. 'Der Mensch im Lichte der Darwin'sche Lehre,' 1865, von Dr. F. Rolle. I will not attempt to give references to all the authors who have taken the same side of the question. Thus G. Canestrini has published ('Annuario della Soc. d. Nat.,' Modena, 1867, page 81) a very curious paper on rudimentary characters, as bearing on the origin of man. Another work has (1869) been published by Dr. Francesco Barrago, bearing in Italian the title of "Man, made in the image of God, was also made in the image of the ape."), and especially by Haeckel. This last naturalist, besides his great work, 'Generelle Morphologie' (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edition in 1870), published his 'Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte,' in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine. Wherever I have added any fact or view from Prof. Haeckel's writings, I give his authority in the text; other statements I leave as they originally stood in my manuscript, occasionally giving in the foot-notes references to his works, as a confirmation of the more doubtful or interesting points.
See also the very next paragraph where Darwin credits Haeckel with picking up on bare hints in The Origin of Species, and recognizing the significance and importance of sexual selection in human evolution.
Now this is certainly complementary of Haeckel, but anyone who would describe it as "lavish" can not have read much of Darwin, or of 19th Century literature generally. So much is my humble opinion anyway.
He was the spiritual ancestor of Nazism.
In some respects I suppose: His racism, his "monistic" philosophy, and his general "Germaness" (yes, I am a borderline anti-Euro-bigot). But "the" spiritual ancestor? I'm sorry, but that's just silly hyperbole. Haeckel, for instance, never approached the incredibly vituperative antisemitism of Martin Luther, nor in any way duplicated the extensive advice Luther gave hundreds of years earlier regarding the practical aspects of persecuting and dispossessing jews.
Darwin and his minions popularized the ideas of Nazism and made the despicable actions of Hitler 'scientifically acceptable' to the populace.
LOL! What a fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth, over the top, bald (and empty) assertion. It doesn't deserve an answer, unless you want to be more specific. Was Darwin a socialist? No. Was Darwin a nationalist? Not inordinately. Was he a racist? Maybe a mild one (more of a cultural chauvanist really) by our modern standards, but notably moderate and liberal by the standards of his own time. What "ideas of Nazism" did Darwin and his "minions" (LOL) "popularize"?
Haeckel was a liar and a fraud, he was no scientist. He totally made up the drawing of embryos in order to support the lie of 'ontogeny follows philogeny'. To the great discredit of Darwin, who was no scientist, he followed him in adding the fraud to his theory. Even decades after the fraud was discovered and after science has totally discredited 'ontogeny follows philogeny' Darwinists continue to use the faked drawings and the fake theory in support of evolution.
Darwin and his minions popularized the ideas of Nazism and made the despicable actions of Hitler 'scientifically acceptable' to the populace. -me-
LOL! What a fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth, over the top, bald (and empty) assertion. It doesn't deserve an answer, unless you want to be more specific.
I've been specific enough. Darwin and evolutionary theory gave 'scientific' support to eugenics, racism and survival of the fittest the direct excuses for the barbarism of Nazism.