From Darwin to Hitler, or Not? Part 3

Excellent post. I think it wise to add that any Christians who actually practiced their faith- concerned with social justice and pacifism- were in great trouble under Hitler, and the camps were filled with many of those as well.

Game, set, and match? That, along with the other countlessly mentioned lines of argument, pretty much eschews the "Darwin to Hitler" tangent.

Excellent post. I think it wise to add that any Christians who actually practiced their faith- concerned with social justice and pacifism- were in great trouble under Hitler, and the camps were filled with many of those as well.

It is interesting to think that the Nordic race, if properly purified, may rise even higher than the culture of the Stone Age. When one reads statements as that, one is tempted to ask whether they are made in order to obtain or retain posts, or whether, possibly, they may not be a rather subtle form of propaganda intended to make the existing racial doctrines in Germany appear ridiculous.

Just a comment on eugenics: J.B.S. Haldane wrote an article where he promulgated a "positive" eugenics, where parents would be able to choose the characteristics of their offspring ("Oh, I soooo want a daughter who looks like Paris Hilton!" - the father's reply resulting in immediate ejection from the clinic). Now, I think his arguments were naïve but he certainly had good intentions.

Least of all should we feel any assurance in deciding genetic superiority or inferiority as applied to whole races, by which is meant not races in a biological sense but social or political groups bound together by physical conditions, by religious sentiments, or by political organizations. The latter have their roots in the past and are acquired by each new generation as a result of imitation and training. If it is unjust "to condemn a whole people" meaning thereby a political group, how much more hazardous is it, as some sensational writers have not hesitated to do, to pass judgment as to the relative genetic inferiority or superiority of different races. If within each human social group the geneticist finds it impossible to discover, with any reasonable certainty, the genetic basis of behavior, the problems must seem extraordinarily difficult when groups are contrasted with each other where the differences are obviously connected not only with inateiial advantages and disadvantages resulting from location, climate, soil, and mineral wealth, but with traditions, customs, religions, taboos, conventions, and prejudices. A little goodwill might seem more fitting in treating these complicated questions than the attitude adopted by some of the modern race-propagandists. (Thomas Hunt Morgan (1925), Evolution and Genetics, pp. 206-207. Italics original.)

Just a nitpick: Heinrich Heine wrote lyric and - extremely witty - political poems (e.g. the Wintermärchen), but never any plays.

HRG (who considers Heine lyrics set to music by Schubert or Schumann as among the most sublime works of art).

JBS Haldane seems to have been a considerable wit as well. Apart from his famous remark about god & beetles, I rather enjoyed the fact that he called his parrot Onan 'because it spilt its seed upon the ground'.

Eugenetics was commonly practised all around the world in some way. Maybe not as radical as the Nazi's, but the forced sterilisation of disabled people to prevent procreation of them is the same. And by widening the definition of what fell under 'disabled', you could get a lot of people under there.

I'm about halfway through Dawkins' book. The first few chapters were both informative and very funny. I found his scientific argument against a deity a little weaker. I agree with his contention that one can argue scientifically against a deity, and that 'non-overlapping magisteria' is a cop-out; I just don't think he made the case as strongly as he could have.

But overall, so far, I'd highly recommend it.

Just a nitpick: Heinrich Heine wrote lyric and - extremely witty - political poems (e.g. the Wintermärchen), but never any plays.

The quote is from Almansor I think.

...the Nazis were blustering, inconsistent thugs primarily interested in hate and power, and would happily appropriate/coopt/twist/distort any concept, consistent or not, that they thought would help their selfish causes.

— Nick

(Not to be confused with the lines from one of the Indiana Jones movies: ... "Nazis. I hate these guys.")

A competent scholar like Dr. Weikart should certainly have been able to find those documents.

Perhaps he didn't have space in his book to write about them?

Hitler in his own words:

* My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognise more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice...and if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. Speech in Munich (12 April 1922)

* Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country] ... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press---in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... [few] years. The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922---1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871---872.

* The Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attaches the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and is endeavouring to develop them.
o Speech at the Reichstag (23 March 1933)

* The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc, because it recognized the Jews for what they were. ... I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the church and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions. 26 April 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

* Imbued with the desire to secure for the German people the great religious, moral, and cultural values rooted in the two Christian Confessions, we have abolished the political organizations but strengthened the religious institutions. Speaking in the Reichstag on 30 January 1934

* And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. Mein Kampf, p. 174

* The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine. Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 12

* For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine, if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant changes in its outward structure? ...Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas... it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith. ove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God. Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 5

A very quick search for "primitive Darwinism" turned up the phrase in some T.S. Eliot criticism and also with A.E. Wilder-Smith, the creationist. Again, from very hurried reading it appears that "primitive Darwinism" refers to "Darwinism that deals with man as only an animal, without consideration of theology". Wilder-Smith uses this connection to link Darwinism to Communism. (I wonder what he would have made of Pol Pot?)

If we're going to talk about Hitler and Christianity, it's probably a good thing to get this out of the way. Hitler's views on Christianity seem to be mixed at best. Things like "Positive Christianity" and the obvious and well-documented subversion of public architecture into political, Nazi-ideological shrines, and the heavy use of "Folk" rites seem to speak more to a kind of Christo-pagan-pseudoaryan fusion intended to re-invent the cultural history of Germany into a version more in line with either Hitler's own personal beliefs or simply the policies of the Nazi party.
The more I look into this sort of thing the more I think that Hitler was simply playing off the popularity and influence of Christianity to advance his own agenda rather than any sincere religious convictions for Christianity proper. I haven't read enough to conclude whether he had ANY genuine religious convictions or simply used religious language when expressing them in public. Either way, it's clear that Hitler viewed religion as a powerful tool for control. Nazism was the state religion. Political and religious fervor was whipped up into a Cult of the Blood to promote solidarity among the German public and squelch dissent beneath a romanticized, revisionist wave of cultural rape and groupthink.

Either way, Hitler being Christian or simply selling himself under the Christian label, there's a lesson for IDists or anybody else who want to make appeals to God in order to push their vision through the masses for the purposes of social upheaval.

Either way, Hitler being Christian or simply selling himself under the Christian label, there's a lesson for IDists or anybody else who want to make appeals to God in order to push their vision through the masses for the purposes of social upheaval.

Hmmm.... religious themes in a nazi propaganda piece....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_Will#Themes

Well I figured the IDists were somewhat less ambitious at that than than the Nazis. As far as I know they only wanting to overturn secular society and bring back The Good Ole Days that never existed, before Darwinist Materialism bore its oh so bitter fruits that cause all sorts of problems. With the Nazis, their dream was more about reshaping society so that they would have immediate, personal power and influence over society. Honestly, I can't see Johnson or Dembski going for such power grabs themselves. Maybe there's something I'm missing?

Excellent post. It gives a very nice objective portrayal of the actual events without taking any cheap potshots at anyone. This is exactly how we defenders of science ought to approach this issue. Well done!

Actually, I did take some potshots at the Nazis I think.

Hitler was a vegetarian.

— Nick Matzke

(Hitler)...especially liked liver dumplings

Although Hitler had probably never read Darwin, he tended more to philosophy, he was without question inspired by the American Eugenics movement.

Edwin Black in War Against the Weak establishes this definitively.
His website is www.waragainsttheweak.com

Maybe there's something I'm missing?

Wheels: I think many of the authoritarians have learned that you get defeated faster when you go public; so instead you prop up a figurehead who will act as a sort of lightningrod for criticisms of your policies (e.g., Reagan, Bush II).

Nazis were leftists, like the americans who aggressively tout state schools and state run evolution teaching.

Nazis were leftists, like the americans who aggressively tout state schools and state run evolution teaching.

Do a Google for "Christian Reconstructionists". Then do a Google for the name of DI board member (and cash cow) Howard Ahmanson. What DI wants is theocracy. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

...the nearest analog to the the Nazis in present day American politics that has the same support by capital and the conservative media is?

Anybody else notice that the Nazis appeared to be defending traditional marriage and attacking sexual education in the book bannings as well?

Far too many parallels with the Christian Right.

Like I said before...remember Godwin's Law.

Oh boo. All those disclaimers about christians working against the nazis, spare me please. Why is it, when talking about nazis, that everyone runs to say their particular niche -or any niche they sympathise with for that matter- did lots to oppose them?

Let me be the first to say it: there are many more christians and atheists too, I have no doubt, that collaborated with the Nazis and facilitated their rise. To add constant disclaimers to everything concerning nazis is to build up the legendary larger-than-life evil that the nazis are rapidly becoming (have become?) and to discredit the real truth behind all of this: the evil of the nazis is an integral part of humanity and we would do well to heed its hateful upcroppings everywhere they appear.

And as for whether Darwin facilitated the rise of Hitler, well, indirectly it doubtlessly did. But indirectly, so did Christ. All these posts are just reductio ad hitlerem arguments and serve no real purpose other than to be mocked. To treat them seriously is to give in.

I hope you're saying that drawing such parallels is easy and therefore meaningless. "Nazis did x, he does x, therefore he's like a Nazi": I find these implications distasteful, no matter who is making them.

And as for whether Darwin facilitated the rise of Hitler, well, indirectly it doubtlessly did. But indirectly, so did Christ.

...Some kind of idea is at the beginning of every political movement. It is not necessary to put this idea in a thick book, nor that it take political form in a hundred long paragraphs. History proves that the greatest world movements have always developed when their leaders knew how to unify their followers under a short, clear theme. That is clear from the French Revolution, or Cromwell's movement, or Buddhism, Islam, or Christianity. Christ's goal was clear and simple: "Love your neighbor as yourself." He gathered his followers behind that straightforward statement. Because this teaching was simple, crisp, clear, and understandable, enabling the broad masses to stand behind it, it in the end conquered the world.

Nazis were leftists, like the americans who aggressively tout state schools and state run evolution teaching.

— Just saying that

Guess who said this, a German Nazi sometime between 1930 and 1945 or a US/UK politician sometime from 2000 onwards: 1) There's no telling how many wars it will take to secure freedom in the homeland 2) We must wage a total war on terrorism 3) So total war is the demand of the hour. 4) We would not deserve to lead this nation if we tolerated to any degree whatsoever any threat to the homeland. 5) Peace through victory! 6) We are fighting for our lives. If we lose it will mean the end of our nation and our history. This war is a defensive war. It was forced on us by our enemies. 7a) Often [the leadership] cannot reveal the reasons for its actions without giving valuable information to the enemy. 7b) Much of the evidence we have is intelligence and highly sensitive. It is not possible without compromising people or security to release precise details. 8) We wage a war to save civilization, itself. We did not seek it, but we must fight it -- and we will prevail. 9) We feel no hatred against the Czech/Afghan people. 10) We would have nothing against Czecho-Slovakia/Iraq if, first, it had not suppressed Germans/Kurds, and, second, if it was not intended as the instrument of a future attack on Germany/America. Upon us falls the task of preventing such an attack at all costs. 11) This is a battle with only one outcome: our victory not theirs. Answers: 1) George Bush Speech 5th Aug 2002 2) Ken Adelman Wednesday, February 13, 2002; Page A27 Washington Post (Adelman was assistant to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from 1975 to 1977, and arms control director -- seriously: ``arms control''! -- under President Ronald Reagan.) 3) Joseph Goebbel's ``total war'' speech 18 February 1943 4) Joseph Goebbel's speech 5 June 1943 5) Joseph Goebbel's speech 24 December 1941 6) J. Goebbel's article 26 September 1943 7a) ibid 7b) Tony Blair speech to Parliament, 4th October 2001. 8) George W Bush speech 01 Nov 2001 9) Adolf Hitler speech April 3rd 1939 10) ibid 11) Tony Blair speech Labour Party conference, Brighton 2001

There is (or should be) no reverse Godwin's Law wherein anything oppressed by the Nazis automatically wins. An obvious example here is communist writings.

— Nick Matzke

And as for whether Darwin facilitated the rise of Hitler, well, indirectly it doubtlessly did. But indirectly, so did Christ.

Nazis were leftists, like the americans who aggressively tout state schools

— Just saying that

It may be significant that all of the dated quotations given by Lebensraum (oy) were from 1934 or earlier. This is the period when Hitler was either acquiring power or consolidating it. He was willing to use whoever he could find to achieve those ends. I suspect that the references to Christianity acquired a different tone as the Third Reich went along in its thousand year -- I mean, 12 year -- reign.

While it is true that a text's merit is not necessarily proportional to its unpopularity, the example of "communist writings" doesn't strike me as "obvious." I happen to like some communist writings, especially those of the pre-Marx communists like William Morris (back when the words "socialist" and "communist" really were interchangeable). As for the Marxian and post-Marxian stuff, I admit I haven't read Das Kapital (who has?)...

— Larry Gilman

It may be significant that all of the dated quotations given by Lebensraum (oy) were from 1934 or earlier. This is the period when Hitler was either acquiring power or consolidating it. He was willing to use whoever he could find to achieve those ends. I suspect that the references to Christianity acquired a different tone as the Third Reich went along in its thousand year --- I mean, 12 year --- reign.

— David Fickett-Wilbar

Okay, does anybody know what happened to the comments box on the anit-evolution uk thread? I can't leave a comment!!!

:-(

Umm, maybe, maybe not. They deny it: The Truth About Discovery Institute and "Theocracy".

Umm, maybe, maybe not. They deny it: The Truth About Discovery Institute and "Theocracy".

Five Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts. * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

It may be significant that all of the dated quotations given by Lebensraum (oy) were from 1934 or earlier. This is the period when Hitler was either acquiring power or consolidating it. He was willing to use whoever he could find to achieve those ends. I suspect that the references to Christianity acquired a different tone as the Third Reich went along in its thousand year --- I mean, 12 year --- reign.

From the Wedge Document: Five Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its influence in the fine arts. * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. Certainly sounds theocractic to ME. The IDers can deny whatever they want to deny. Their own words show their denials to be BS.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

So, the way to think of this is: a foreigner with a dollar can do two things with it. He can buy an American good---buy an apple exported from the United States, for example---or he can buy an asset in the United States. If he purchases the apple, he eats it and we don't have it anymore. If he purchases the asset in the United States, we keep it. And he registers a deeper commitment to America than he does in buying an apple, or a side of beef or any other kind of American product.

— George Gilder

But then, we already knew they were unabashed liars, didn't we.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

... Nazis are to internet discussions what gasoline nitroglycerin is to fires...

Jedidiah Palosaari: ...any Christians who actually practiced their faith- concerned with social justice and pacifism- were in great trouble under Hitler, and the camps were filled with many of those as well.

It's unclear to me, exactly, what they want

The question, though, is that maybe they say different things to Howard Ahmanson than to the rest of us.

A correction here --- the Wedge Document was not written for Howard Ahmanson (Ahmanson had **already** provided the seed money for the Center for The Renewal of Science and Culture by the time the Wedge Document was written), nor was it written to raise money (notice that it doesn't mention "money" or "fundraising" anywhere in it, and contains no appeals for donations whatsoever).

— Lenny Flank

In its "The Wedge Document; So what?" document arguing these things, the DI is simply lying to us. Again.

— Lenny Flank

"worldwide Darwinist conspiracy"

If the conspiracy is worldwide, can it really be considered a conspiracy anymore?

pwe: ...I - as some kind of Christian - cannot really think that other Christians will deliberately lie in order to push their agenda through.

Down here in my part of the world (Texas) there is now afoot an effort to remove a certain book from the classroom reading list of the Conroe district high schools.

Apparently, this vile, socially dangerous book must go because it contains "discussions of being drunk, smoking cigarettes, violence, "dirty talk," references to the Bible and using God's name in vain."

To prevent damage, do not proceed any further until you unplug your irony meter

OK, The name of this book that the Grand Parkway Church wants banned?

Wait for it....

Fahrenheit 451.

Yes, Ray Bradbury's famous tome about ... banning books.

(I heard those irony meters popping - maybe next time you'll listen when I warn you)

Well, maybe they just want people to start using the Celsius (Centigrade?) temperature scale? Well, er, on second thought, maybe not.

What kind of ignorant libertarian BS is this, "There is (or should be) no reverse Godwin's Law wherein anything oppressed by the Nazis automatically wins. An obvious example here is communist writings."?

I came here hearing this was a serious blog. Well you can't always believe what you hear. "communist writings", as if there is only one ideological line. Get real.

...just to warn you, anyone tempted to respond to that last confusing post should probably first take a look at the things bernarda has been posting on the Respectful Insolence blog on scienceblogs over the last couple days.

No thanks, I'd rather not. The one example is more than enough.

Reasonable.

It's just they I - as some kind of Christian - cannot really think that other Christians will deliberately lie in order to push their agenda through.

cannot really think that other Christians will deliberately lie

What you say you "cannot really think" is an extremely well documented phenomenon, extending from creationism to the abortion/contraception debate to pedophilia to the Vatican banking scandal to the Crusades to the blood libel to that story about the teenager whose pregnancy was attributed to a ghost.

Please examine the nature of your mental block and seek help in freeing yourself from same, if you can't manage that by yourself. The life (money/freedom/sanity/etc) you save may be your own.

You've not been listening to ID/creationists for very long then, have you ... They lie routinely, continuously, and unashamedly.

— Lenny Flank

Nick, the "another resurgence of discussion" link doesn't work for me.

Ignore the accusations and just look at the argument and evidence.

Creationists claim the fossil record was sorted by a flood. I've been asking them for decades to explain how mangroves got to the top in this system. To date, not a single creationist has had even a shadow of an answer.

And that's just scratching the surface of creationist inability to deal with the evidence.

Please read these and tell me what you think:

* My article on fossil sorting.
* Another article I wrote, this one on the most detailed creationist fossil sorting argument
* Problems With a Global Flood, 2nd Edition by Mark Isaac
* 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.

Re "If you have two parties, each accusing the other of lying, who's to be trusted?"

Maybe the one that can produce evidence and logic to support its position? ;)

See www.waragainsttheweak.com for the truth about Darwins influence on humanity.

LOL; but you forget that creationists/IDists claim the same about 'Darwinists' - that they are deliberately lying. If you have two parties, each accusing the other of lying, who's to be trusted?

See www.waragainsttheweak.com for the truth about Darwins influence on humanity.

pwe: These people may have been wrong, but they might still have believed, what they said.

pwe: If you have two parties, each accusing the other of lying, who's to be trusted?

See www.waragainsttheweak.com for the truth about Darwins influence on humanity.

Follower of Edwin Black: See www.waragainsttheweak.com for the truth about Darwins influence on humanity.

Awesome, thanks for this post. Nothing demonstrates to a fence-sitter the ridiculousness of science-denialism better than the irrational conspiracy theories which the dissonance of denialism inevitably lead to.

— Sounder

snip

— Andrew McClure

Didn't you hear?

Godwin's Law has been suspended for the duration.

That means until the conservatives stop acting like Nazis.

(They could start by getting one or two of the Republican leadership to stop saying that opponents of the war are helping the terrorists. THE GODDAM WAR IS HELPING THE TERRORISTS!)

Godwins law should have been invoked many posts ago.

Why dredge up old stuff about Hitler and his belief in master races, or any nonsensical connection to a book with a subtitle like "On the Preservation of Favored Races"? or a book like "The Descent of Man" and its unfortunate mention of the elimination of savage races?

People might get the wrong idea.

Neither. Look at the external evidence and form your own conclusions. Meanwhile, please attempt to adjust your thinking: Many Christians will deliberately lie to push their agenda through. If you lack the technical background to feel confident in assessing the creo/evo debate regarding this question, contemplate the words & actions of the dominant faction of the regime currently controlling the world's sole military hyperpower.

— Pierce R. Butler

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

Why dredge up old stuff about Hitler and his belief in master races, or any nonsensical connection to a book with a subtitle like "On the Preservation of Favored Races"?

— A. Shickelgruber

or a book like "The Descent of Man" and its unfortunate mention of the elimination of savage races? People might get the wrong idea.

But the creationists/IDists are right that Haeckel forged those embryo drawings, and that he was highly speculative.

— pwe

And, notice that Nick Matzke listing the Guidelines from Die Bücherei emphasizes the 6th entry: 6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). Weikart mentions in From Darwin to Hitler that the Monist League opposed Nazism and was banned, so Matzke (sorry, Nick) is not really having a point here. This is sloppy research!

But it wasn't the creationists/IDists who pointed that out in the first place. Haeckel's doctrine of recapitulation is not accepted by modern evolutionary theory, and his original drawings have been criticized by other embryologists for at least a century, which is why very few modern textbooks actually use them---they use more accurate drawings or photographs instead. Gould completely demolished Haeckel in his Ontogeny and Phylogeny, written 30 years ago, and since then repeatedly criticized any textbooks which used outdated drawings. The creationists are late to the party.

— Anton Mates

Huh? Nick bolded the entry which included the banning of Darwin. That was his main point, not anything to do with Monism.

— Anton Mates

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel).

Moreover, if you read the rest of his post, you'll see Nick point out that Weikart's defense of Monism/Haeckel, re: connections to Nazism, is inconsistent with his attack on Darwin. This is because (as you can read about in a previous PT post on this topic) the case for Haeckel's contributing to Nazism is much stronger than the case for Darwin doing the same.

— Anton Mates

This is true; but try to put yourself into the minf of a creationist. We have Häckel's forged drawings, the Piltdown Man, and Archaeoraptor (if I remember the name correctly), and perhaps a few more cases. For the layman - such as me - this doesn't really look good, and, yes. that's what the creationists are exploiting. But still, there's a record of forgeries.

— pwe

Ehh, let's have the text again: 6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). It might not have been Matzke's intention to focus on Monism; still, it would have been fair to mention that the ban on Monism was known and mentioned by Weikart.

Also note that Darwin isn't mentioned, only 'primitive Darwinism' (whatever that was).

Of course, but Weikart isn't claiming that Darwin contributed to Nazism, only that Darwinism did so.

If you want to, you can read (my version of) Weikart's thesis on Wikipedia.

I am no fan of Weikart; but I think it better to argue against him on points that he actually made than on points he can just ignore or turn around.

Lenny Flank wrote: and then count how many times Herr Hitler mentions "Goid" or "The Creator".

the Piltdown Man

and Archaeoraptor (if I remember the name correctly)

But still, there's a record of forgeries.

Considering that Hitler and his thugs were masters at deception, one would do well to be highly skeptical and not believe their every utterance.

Right, just the utterances that mention "evolution". Then, they are being completely forthright and honest, right?

Right, just the utterances that mention "evolution". Then, they are being completely forthright and honest, right?

Right, just the utterances that mention "evolution". Then, they are being completely forthright and honest, right?

Did you get your comeback right the third time?

Considering that Hitler and his thugs were masters at deception, one would do well to be highly skeptical and not believe their every utterance.

— Simplicit

Remember, the Nazis aimed to win the support of a very Christian Germany, so "God", "Creator", "Jesus" were invoked regularly to assuage the masses. Of course, this was nothing but a sham, an outright lie and deception of the highest order. Thus, Jesus was presented as "Aryan", and Hitler - as reincarnation of said (or at least as a "German Messiah" of sorts). In fact, Germans were required to "pray" to Hitler's image. The Nazis and their supporters were atheists.

Anton Mates wrote: Moreover, how could they have fooled all the Christian Germans into going along with them unless the latter thought what they were doing was compatible with Christianity?

Quote from the 4th leaflet of the White Rose: "Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. Man is free, to be sure, but without the true God he is defenseless against the principle of evil."

Moreover, how could they have fooled all the Christian Germans into going along with them unless the latter thought what they were doing was compatible with Christianity?

— Simplicit@optonline.net

OK. First, the Nazi propaganda machine was highly sophisticated and effective. Hitler himself appears to have had hypnotic abilities, and may have dabbled in the occult to acquire or hone said abilities.

Second, the Nazis were certainly not God-fearing or God-loving. Cold-blooded, ruthless murderers are not God-fearing folk --- no matter what they claim (cf. Today's Islamofascist thugs).

Third, please read up on The White Rose, and specifically their "leaflets", to get an even better grasp of goings-on in Nazi, Germany. These were medical students who were truly God-fearing, valued life and cared for their countrymen.

...oh.

pwe said:

"But still, there's a record of forgeries."

There's also a record of forgeries in the art world. So everyone should stop painting.

Simplicit (great name by the way) said:

"Hitler himself appears to have had hypnotic abilities, and may have dabbled in the occult to acquire or hone said abilities."

That's a classic! :)

Hitler himself appears to have had hypnotic abilities, and may have dabbled in the occult to acquire or hone said abilities.

This is true; but try to put yourself into the minf of a creationist.

— pwe

We have Häckel's forged drawings, the Piltdown Man, and Archaeoraptor (if I remember the name correctly), and perhaps a few more cases.

— pwe

For the layman - such as me - this doesn't really look good,

— pwe

and, yes. that's what the creationists are exploiting.

— pwe

Whenever fundies talk about Piltdown Man, they for some odd reason neglect to mention a few things: First, it was EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS, not creation "scientists", who discovered the Piltdown fraud. The creation 'scientists" were just standing around looking stupid.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Second, many of those evolutionary biologists rejected Piltdown right from the beginning, since it did not fit into the established fossil sequence. While they did not suspect fraud, they did suspect that the jawbone and the skull simply did not belong together.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Third, the evolutionary biologists (not creation 'scientists') who discovered the fraud did it using RADIO-DATING techniques --- the very same ones that creationuts keep telling us are so wildly inaccurate and unreliable.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

And finally, since creationists reject both radio-dating AND the order of the fossil record, they have NO BASIS AT ALL upon which to declare that Piltdown is a fake anyway.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

But still, there's a record of forgeries.

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Such as, oh, the "Paluxy manprints", the "Jurassic human finger", the "pre-Cambrian pollen", the "Cretaceous human tooth", the "trilobite that got stepped on by a sandal" .... .

Hitler himself appears to have had hypnotic abilities, and may have dabbled in the occult to acquire or hone said abilities.

— Simplicit@optonline.net

Second, the Nazis were certainly not God-fearing or God-loving. Cold-blooded, ruthless murderers are not God-fearing folk --- no matter what they claim (cf. Today's Islamofascist thugs).

— Simplicit@optonline.net

This is true; but try to put yourself into the minf of a creationist. We have Häckel's forged drawings, the Piltdown Man, and Archaeoraptor (if I remember the name correctly), and perhaps a few more cases. For the layman - such as me - this doesn't really look good, and, yes. that's what the creationists are exploiting. But still, there's a record of forgeries.

— pwe

Evolution served their demonic ends --- just as their blasphemous use of "God" did. OK. First, the Nazi propaganda machine was highly sophisticated and effective. Hitler himself appears to have had hypnotic abilities, and may have dabbled in the occult to acquire or hone said abilities. Second, the Nazis were certainly not God-fearing or God-loving. Cold-blooded, ruthless murderers are not God-fearing folk --- no matter what they claim (cf. Today's Islamofascist thugs). [empasis mine]

— Simplicit

What Anton said. On one hand, we have a statistically acceptable record of humans screwing up in their pursuit of science. On the other hand, we have people who so consistently, maliciously lie to support their position that one might poetically opine that deception is the very air they breathe. Seriously, if you have any doubts as to who has more credibility, I urge you to review the history more deeply. I recommend that to anyone who has reached the same creationist-sympathetic conclusion.

— AC

And we have literally mountains of extremely potent evidence. Meanwhile, creationism has a much longer history of fakes and no evidence.

— Michael Suttkus

Why are a list of fakes you can count on one hand telling for the "creationist mind" but creationism is supposed to get a free pass?

— Michael Suttkus

Even better, when fakes are revealed, scientists STOPPED USING THEM AS EVIDENCE!

— Michael Suttkus

So, what have we done? Well, we fixed it! In 1998 we rewrote page 283 of the 5th edition to better reflect the scientific evidence. Our books now contain accurate drawings of the embryos made from detailed photomicrographs

Quick, check the web and see how many creationist websites you can find still pretending Paluxy has human tracks (despite AIG, the ICR and numerous other major creationist organizations admitting they're debunked).

— Michael Suttkus

That must move creationism from looking utterly atrocious to completely stupid.

— Michael Suttkus

pwe said: "But still, there's a record of forgeries." There's also a record of forgeries in the art world. So everyone should stop painting.

— Darth Robo

But now you need to find at least a few utterances where Hitler says something different. And although he readily criticized the church and mainstream Christian doctrine in private, I'm not aware of anywhere where he suggested he didn't believe in God, or even the (at the very least) moral supremacy of Jesus. It's fairly obvious that Adolf Hitler, if he was Christian, was a very very strange one. Even by the standards of, say, Martin Luther. But just being as *cough* idosyncratic in his theology as he was in his morality doesn't make him an atheist.

— Anton Mates responding to Simplicit

Whenever fundies talk about Piltdown Man, they for some odd reason neglect to mention a few things: .... Since creationists reject radio-dating and the order of the fossil record, it would appear as if they simply have no reason to think that Piltdown IS a fake......

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Considering that Hitler and his thugs were masters at deception, one would do well to be highly skeptical and not believe their every utterance. Remember, the Nazis aimed to win the support of a very Christian Germany, so "God", "Creator", "Jesus" were invoked regularly to assuage the masses. Of course, this was nothing but a sham, an outright lie and deception of the highest order.

— Simplicit

The Nazis and their supporters were atheists. They believed in one thing only - themselves. And of course, that "might makes right".

— Simplicit

This is true; but try to put yourself into the minf of a creationist. We have Häckel's forged drawings, the Piltdown Man, and Archaeoraptor (if I remember the name correctly), and perhaps a few more cases. For the layman - such as me - this doesn't really look good, and, yes. that's what the creationists are exploiting. But still, there's a record of forgeries.

But it should look good. That's, what, five or six big hoaxes in a field that's been around for a century and a half? And all have been found out from within the field, most within a few years of their appearance. (Archaeoraptor doesn't even count, really---that was National Geographic's goof, by going ahead and publishing while the peer-reviewed journals like Nature and Science rejected papers about it from the get-go.)

— Anton Mates

(Incidentally, it's unclear that Haeckel's drawings were intentionally fraudulent. He seems to have always drawn more than he actually saw, on radiolaria as well as embryos---not necessarily to mislead anybody, but because he wanted to show his subjects as he knew they "really were." Which doesn't excuse him as a scientist, of course, but I wouldn't say he proved to be personally dishonest.)

— Anton Mates

Again, Nick just cut and pasted the entire list, and he did mention that Weikart opposes the idea that Haeckel's ideas contributed to Nazism. Given that mention, it doesn't seem necessary for him to specifically list Weikart's reference to the Monism ban. .... Nick also made that point in his post.

— Anton Mates

Then presumably the banned book list Nick provided is even more relevant, since it specifically says "Darwinism."

— Anton Mates

I think you make good points in pointing out where Darwin's scientific claims and personal ethos clash with Nazism

— Anton Mates

---and I do wish people paid more attention to the former before shouting about the moral/philosophical consequences of evolution---but it seems equally relevant to me that, as Nick shows, even the Nazis didn't think of themselves as Darwinists.

— Anton Mates

I think you'll find that that the two categories are not mutually exclusive....

— Anton Mates

The problem, though is, who's story to study? Somebody - I don't remember wo - once said that we don't have history, we only have images of history.

— pwe

The creationists have their own versions of history, and how is anyone to know that it's wrong? Because the evolutionists say so; but they have a record of forgeries, so why trust them?

— pwe

Don't get me wrong, I am (almost) as evil an evolutionist as the rest;

— pwe

but since my background is sociology rather than natural science, I see things somewhat differently. Apparently we have two groups of people that disagree on something; but they throw out exactly the same arguments against the other group. From a sociological point of view, creationists and evolutionists therefore appear to be pretty similar.

— pwe

And we have literally mountains of extremely potent evidence. Meanwhile, creationism has a much longer history of fakes and no evidence.

— pwe

That's interestingly not how the creationists look at it :-)

Well, actually AiG has a page with Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Of course, it may seem odd that you need AiG's permission NOT to use an argument; but that's just freedom of speech according to Ken Ham's Amendment to the US Constitution, I'd think.

— pwe

Ooh, not quite so, it would appear. Check out Kenneth Miller's page about Haeckel's embryos. Kenneth Miller had co-authored a biology textbook, in which Haeckel's embryo drawings originally were used. {snip}

— pwe

I'll readily admit that for some reason refutations of creationist claims travel slowly on the net.

— pwe

As an aside, try to check out how many websites still list Ron Wyatt's archaeological discoveries as genuine, although even AiG has heavily debunked some of them.

— pwe

Re "(The creationists are fleeing from the facts, not the oak trees, just to clarify he previous sentence.)"

The creationists weren't fleeing from the oak trees. Got it. :)

The problem, though is, who's story to study? Somebody - I don't remember wo - once said that we don't have history, we only have images of history. The creationists have their own versions of history, and how is anyone to know that it's wrong? Because the evolutionists say so; but they have a record of forgeries, so why trust them?

Don't get me wrong, I am (almost) as evil an evolutionist as the rest; but since my background is sociology rather than natural science, I see things somewhat differently. Apparently we have two groups of people that disagree on something; but they throw out exactly the same arguments against the other group. From a sociological point of view, creationists and evolutionists therefore appear to be pretty similar.

And we have literally mountains of extremely potent evidence. Meanwhile, creationism has a much longer history of fakes and no evidence.

— Michael Suttkus

That's interestingly not how the creationists look at it :-)

Even better, when fakes are revealed, scientists STOPPED USING THEM AS EVIDENCE!

— Michael Suttkus

Ooh, not quite so, it would appear. Check out Kenneth Miller's page about Haeckel's embryos. Kenneth Miller had co-authored a biology textbook, in which Haeckel's embryo drawings originally were used. This was changed in a subsequent edition due to complaints.

As Miller writes: So, what have we done? Well, we fixed it! In 1998 we rewrote page 283 of the 5th edition to better reflect the scientific evidence. Our books now contain accurate drawings of the embryos made from detailed photomicrographs That's more than a CENTURY after Haeckel had been accused of forgery!

We don't have truth, only images of truth. As long as the images remain, nobody will know the difference - as long as they don't look at other images, that is.

pwe wrote:

We might say that despite a few forgeries we have faith in evolutionary science, but then we are simply trusting the priests of a religion.

Is that statement based on faith, or on your complete inability to distinguish between science and religion?

Your insistence that science is a "religion" reminds me of how grade-school kids weasel out of a losing argument: "That's just your opinion, and we're all entitled to our own opinions; so there." This logical fallacy is known as "crybaby subjectivism." Or just "lying."

The problem, though is, who's story to study? Somebody - I don't remember wo - once said that we don't have history, we only have images of history. The creationists have their own versions of history, and how is anyone to know that it's wrong? Because the evolutionists say so; but they have a record of forgeries, so why trust them?

— pwe

Yes, statistically this might not look bad; but that's not how creationists report things.

— pwe

They still bask in the Cambrian explosion, the missing geological column, the failure to produce life from non-life, and so on. It all adds up.

The problem is that ONE forgery or ONE unexplained problem is enough.

We might say that there's a natural explanation for the Cambrian explosion, but then we have faith, and evolution is proved to be a religion.

We might say that despite a few forgeries we have faith in evolutionary science, but then we are simply trusting the priests of a religion.

Well, rumor has it that the road to hell is paved with bad excuses ('apologetics' in Greek). Haeckel apparently didn't consider himself to be dishonest; he was so sure about the theory that he was willing to invent evidence. But that's not SCIENCE, is it? If we don't make a distinction between what's really out there and what we would like to be out there to fit our theories, we aren't doing science, are we?

Then presumably the banned book list Nick provided is even more relevant, since it specifically says "Darwinism."

Actually. after the discovery of Mendel's works around 1900, 'Darwinism' went a bit out in the dark, and Mendelian discrete inheritance was the new king. In the 1930s the modern synthesis came around; but possibly the Nazis had cut themself off from the scientific community in general and didn't notice that.

Ooh, not quite so, it would appear. Check out Kenneth Miller's page about Haeckel's embryos. Kenneth Miller had co-authored a biology textbook, in which Haeckel's embryo drawings originally were used. This was changed in a subsequent edition due to complaints.

pwe wrote: unless you consider everybody that doesn't adhere to some specific variety of Christianity to be an atheist :-)

Franklin D. Roosevelt from his famous Lend Lease Speech: Nazi forces are not seeking mere modifications in colonial maps or in minor European boundaries. They openly seek the destruction of all elective systems of government on every continent; including our own. They seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers who have seized power by force. Yes, these men and their hypnotized followers call this a new order. It is not new and it is not order.

From Mind Over Matter a tad past 1/2 down the page: By the way --- and maybe it is more than just by the way --- what can guarantee that people will behave in a righteous and just manner, if not for the belief in a greater power? In previous generations there were some who believed (and I stress this word, because it was no more than a belief) that one could rely on the natural inclination to justice in man's heart. Hence there would be no need for belief in a Creator who commands people to behave in a certain manner. According to this belief, man's internal moral sense would render unnecessary any Divine mandate to rein his will, desires, or rationalized values, because of his supposed intrinsic integrity. In our generation, however, the facts have been painfully and conclusively disclosed that this assumption is completely invalid. The very nation which spawned a diversity of famed pioneers of diverse philosophical perspectives, including various ethical systems, as well as the greatest scientists --- it was specifically that nation, with all of its tens of millions of citizens, that murdered and destroyed millions of men, women, and children without any justification. Their annihilation was based purely on a feeling of superiority and control. In fact, their leaders "sanctified" their actions by receiving approval from the scientists and the heads of the universities, including even founders of philosophical and ethical systems, approval without any conditions or reservations at all. Of course, I know that there were individuals amongst that nation who disagreed. But that doesn't override or even weaken the fact that hundreds of professors and scientists were among the ideologues behind the Third Reich's behavior.

I repeat once again, just for you, PWE:

Do you seriously mean to tell me that, if two people tell you two different things, you have no idea whatever how to tell which is right?

If someone tells you that the moon is made of rock, and someone else tells you that it's made of green cheese, you have no idea how to tell which it is?

If someone tells you there are WMD's in Iraq, and someone else tells you there are not, you don't have a clue how to tell if there really are?

If IDers tell you that they're not creationists, and then tell you ten seconds later that one of their objectives is to defend creationism, you have no idea at all whether they are lying to you?

Wow. No WONDER you are sympathetic to creationism. (shrug)

A. Shickelgruber

Haeckel is most definitely at fault there. His philosophical beliefs overpowered his scientific objectivity. And, again, his peers called him on it.

Well, if FDR said so, that makes the case! US presidents are well trained in science and always give objective reports of events not remotely influenced by hyperbole!

The mere facts about hypnosis, I will now completely ignore as irrelevant.

As for the 'hypnosis' issue, here's a quote I found from F. D. R. :

— pwe

By the way --- and maybe it is more than just by the way --- what can guarantee that people will behave in a righteous and just manner, if not for the belief in a greater power? In previous generations there were some who believed (and I stress this word, because it was no more than a belief) that one could rely on the natural inclination to justice in man's heart. Hence there would be no need for belief in a Creator who commands people to behave in a certain manner. According to this belief, man's internal moral sense would render unnecessary any Divine mandate to rein his will, desires, or rationalized values, because of his supposed intrinsic integrity. In our generation, however, the facts have been painfully and conclusively disclosed that this assumption is completely invalid.

— Rabbi M. M. Schneerson apparently

Of course, I know that there were individuals amongst that nation who disagreed. But that doesn't override or even weaken the fact that hundreds of professors and scientists were among the ideologues behind the Third Reich's behavior.

— Rabbi M. M. Schneerson also

As for the 'hypnosis' issue, here's a quote I found from F. D. R. :

— Anton Mates

So the evidence for Hitler's magical nation-spanning mind control powers is that FDR once referred to the Nazi supporters as "hypnotized" in a speech.

— Anton Mates

Well, if FDR said so, that makes the case! US presidents are well trained in science and always give objective reports of events not remotely influenced by hyperbole! The mere facts about hypnosis, I will now completely ignore as irrelevant.

— Michael Suttkus

I repeat once again, just for you, PWE: Do you seriously mean to tell me that, if two people tell you two different things, you have no idea whatever how to tell which is right?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

If someone tells you that the moon is made of rock, and someone else tells you that it's made of green cheese, you have no idea how to tell which it is?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

If someone tells you there are WMD's in Iraq, and someone else tells you there are not, you don't have a clue how to tell if there really are?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

If IDers tell you that they're not creationists, and then tell you ten seconds later that one of their objectives is to defend creationism, you have no idea at all whether they are lying to you?

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Wow. No WONDER you are sympathetic to creationism. (shrug)

— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

pwe wrote:

I believe to have read somewhere that F.D.R. was very pro-Nazi in the beginning.

I believe to see that pwe's command of historical fact is as lame as his grammar.

2. Just because anti-Christian writings were banned does not mean that Christianity is bad or supported Nazism. Hitler was a vegetarian; it does not follow that vegetarians are evil. Although some ID supporters have difficulty getting this sort of subtlety through their thick skulls, the point of raising Christianity when Darwin/Hitler is being discussed is not to besmirch Christianity, but to show that the Nazis were blustering, inconsistent thugs primarily interested in hate and power, and would happily appropriate/coopt/twist/distort any concept, consistent or not, that they thought would help their selfish causes. Raising the case of Christianity also usually exposes the hypocrisy of ID/creationists who push the Darwin-to-Hitler propaganda as part of their apologetics agenda, because they typically respond in injured tones about how the Nazis weren't actually employing true Christianity. Exactly our point.

— Nick Matzke

3. The above lists do not prove that books by Darwin or Haeckel were actually physically burned, only banned; such details may or may not exist somewhere in the historical record. It is also possible that Darwin/Haeckel were promoted at some times/places and banned in others, because after all, as noted above, the Nazis were inconsistent goose-stepping morons.

— Nick Matzke

4. Darwin and evolutionary biology do not get a free pass. Even though it is ludicrous to say that Darwin led to Hitler (which is highly dubious even for Haeckel, as Weikart acknowledges repeatedly, not realizing how this sinks his Darwin argument), despite the fact that he was a liberal and opposed to slavery, Darwin still had some of the racism of his day, as can be seen in Descent of Man. ...

— Nick Matzke

5. [Added in edit on a commenter's suggestion] Since we are being thorough here, it is also worth pointing out that many Christians resisted the Nazis, from opposing them via the churches to hiding jews. A notable example is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who resisted the Nazi attempts to take over the church and, despite his earlier commitment to pacifism, eventually participated in a plot to kill Hitler. He was arrested, put in jail, then concentration camps, and finally executed by hanging in April 1945 just weeks before the camps were liberated by the Allies.

— Nick Matzke

Just for the record: it is Simplicit you are quoting :-)

— pwe

I believe to have read somewhere that F.D.R. was very pro-Nazi in the beginning.

Ok, I have to apologize to Nick for having overlooked this. But, just to be an evil evilutionist, I have to mention that Weikart doesn't actually have a "Darwin argument". His argument is somewhat vague, since it deals with 'Darwinists'/'Darwinism', and that's his real problem. It's unclear from his book, if all of these Darwinists understood excatly the same by being Darwinists.

A lot of people were Pro-Nazi back when all the world at large knew about the Nazi party was that they were nationalist Germans bent on fixing Germany's screwed up economy and self-image.

There was a time when the Nazi weren't known for death camps and hate.

A lot of people were Pro-Nazi back when all the world at large knew about the Nazi party was that they were nationalist Germans bent on fixing Germany's screwed up economy and self-image. There was a time when the Nazi weren't known for death camps and hate.

A lot of people were Pro-Nazi back when all the world at large knew about the Nazi party was

This may have some truth but anyone paying close attention could plainly see

More seriously, we can't check everything - occasionally we need to rely on others, and we can't check each and everything down to the bottonless bottom.