Darwin → Hitler? Naw.

| 165 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Benjamin Wiker, a senior fellow of the Disco ‘Tute, has made a cottage industry of linking Darwin to Hitler, evolution to Nazi ideology, and that meme is perpetuated by a variety of ID creationist flacks.

Wiker’s view depends in large part on the supposition that German evolutionary thinking about evolution actually followed Darwin. However, as a recent book review in PLoS Biology points out, what reached Germany was not the English version of Origin of Species, it was a translation by German paleontologist Heinrich Georg Bronn that was a main source of German notions of Darwinian evolution, and those notions were a distortion of Darwin’s views. Bronn had a substantially different conception of evolution than Darwin, and Bronn’s translation apparently incorporated a good bit of his own conception rather than being a straight translation of Darwin. Bronn even added an extra chapter to OoS incorporate his own ideas.

I get no hits searching for Bronn in three of Wiker’s books (10 Books That Screwed Up the Word, Architects of the Culture of Death, and Moral Darwinism: How we became hedonists) in Google books. (The Darwin Myth is unfortunately not searchable.)

Nevertheless, finding no mention of Bronn, particularly in Architects of the Culture of Death and Moral Darwinism, I tentatively infer that Wiker didn’t bother to note the translation and distortion of On the Origin of Species through Bronn’s ‘progressive/perfection evolution’ lens. That’s obvious in some places. For example, in Architects of the Culture of Death, De Marco and Wiker wrote

Contrary to assertions of all too many historians, it is no stretch at all to fo from Darwin to Haeckel’s Darwinist Monism and on to Hitler’s Nazism, as the words of Hitler himself make quite clear: “Providence [i.e., the laws of nature] has endowed living creatures with a limitless fecundity, but she has not put in their reach, without the need for effort on their part, all the food they need. All that is very right and proper, for it is the struggle for existence that produces the selection of the fittest.” Natural selection is the engine of purification, and as with all other species of nature, this purification demans the isolation of particular breeds or races. (p. 115)

That skips right over Bronn’s insertion of progressive perfectionism into Darwin’s non-progressivist evolution. And it’s that progressivism, that notion that evolution somehow is directed at perfection, that infected German biology via Bronn and Haeckel. The authors go on to say

It is no surprise, then, to find that Haeckel’s evolutionary eugenic arguments undergirded the Nazi eugenic program.

Haeckel, not Darwin, via Bronn, since Haeckel was not fluent in English but probably read OoS in Bronn’s translation. I welcome corrections from historians.

Hat tip to The Mermaid’s Tale, where there is more on the topic.

1 TrackBack

A surprising if indirect affirmation of the Darwin-Hitler connection has been offered by the Darwinist faithful over at Panda's Thumb. Yes, you read that right.The argument made by scholars like Richard Weikart and Benjamin Wiker traces an intellectual... Read More

165 Comments

Whose [editorial comment] is that? Who equated Providence with the laws of nature in this specific context?

fnxtr said:

Whose [editorial comment] is that? Who equated Providence with the laws of nature in this specific context?

De Marco and Wiker. That’s in the original.

“Providence [i.e., the laws of nature] … “

That does not compute. Even if cited, the above notion only has value if one already “just knows” that some uberspirit exists since they suppose that what it does is “natural”.

For anyone else the notion certainly posits more questions than answers.

*but it is certainly a respectably ballsy statement to make. points awarded for style only*

Do you think someone could remind my fellow Brunonian, David Klinghoffer, of the Dishonesty Institute? I would, but poor dear David thinks of me as an “obsessed Darwin lover”. And if you do, tell David that I think he needs to be examined by one Josiah S. Carberry, who is known at our undergraduate alma mater as a legendary professor of psycho-ceramics.

Curious that “Providence” means “the laws of nature” when an evilutionist uses it, but when any of America’s founding fathers drops the word, it can only mean “the Holy Trinity.”

Bronn gets no mention in The Darwin Myth even though Wicker spends an odious chapter on “Darwin and Hitler”.

Don’t forget that Hitler was mainly interested in murdering Jews. Himmler was far more concerned with pseudo-scientific eugenics than was Hitler–to the degree Hitler used to make jokes at Himmler’s expense behind his back (you can read about this in Speer’s memoirs).

Also, as a reaction to Stein’s film, many science bloggers jumped on passages from Mein Kampf that seem to be evidence that Hitler was a Christian. It would be truer to say he was trying to create a political image acceptable to the mainstream which naturally had to include an appearance of Christianity. The extensive analysis of Hitler’s personality presented in Fromm’s Anatomy of Human Destructiveness makes it clear that Hitler was no Christian but was self-deluded to the point that he saw himself as the deity of National Socialism and envisioned a future in which he would receive the worship of all mankind, with National Socialism replacing Christianity.

Scott Hanley said:

Curious that “Providence” means “the laws of nature” when an evilutionist uses it, but when any of America’s founding fathers drops the word, it can only mean “the Holy Trinity.”

The question is what did Hitler mean. The man was so insane he probably changed the definition every time he used it. Though it’s been pointed out again and again most of his nutjob rambling was religious, not scientific, in nature.

What really gets me is that creationists denounce the “totally random theory of evolution” as being insufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of living things, and then in the very same breath denounce the “teleological theory of evolution” which practically forced the Nazis to try to “help evolution along” with their eugenics program. I guess when you’re a creationist you get to have your cake and eat it too.

None the less if you download a .pdf version of “Mein Kampf” and search (as I have done) for the words “Christ” “Jesus” or “Lord” or cognates thereof, you will find well over 40 hits.

Search Mein Kampt for the word “Darwin”?

Zero hits.

Regardless, as Peter Olofsson so beautifully stated: “…the validity of a scientific theory does not hinge upon how it has been interpreted by German dictators.”

Helena said: Don’t forget that Hitler was mainly interested in murdering Jews.

And don’t forget that Hitler did not get that obsession from Darwin, but from Martin Luther, who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies in 1543 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the[…]d_their_lies

Paul Burnett said:

Helena said: Don’t forget that Hitler was mainly interested in murdering Jews.

And don’t forget that Hitler did not get that obsession from Darwin, but from Martin Luther, who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies in 1543 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the[…]d_their_lies

Creationists tend to gloss over this insignificant trifle, as it puts a kink in their Lies for Jesus.

mafarmerga said:

Search Mein Kampf for the word “Darwin”? Zero hits.

There is one mention of the word “evolution”, relative to the crime of race-mixing.

Regardless, as Peter Olofsson so beautifully stated: “…the validity of a scientific theory does not hinge upon how it has been interpreted by German dictators.”

And one might do well to consider the debt Hitler owed to the Wright Brothers. After all, if it hadn’t been for them, he wouldn’t have had the Stukas and Heinkels and Messerschmitts to support his conquests.

“Makes you think, doesn’t it?”

Reminds me of something I read about Bill Clinton’s wildly popular My Life in China. The book was so popular and the booksellers so overwhelmed with orders that they could not fulfil in time that poorly and wildly imaginatively written Mandarin translations began to flood the market. These were mostly dished out by moonlighting journalists and hacks for hire transcribing notes over the phone with students rapidly translating the book into Mandarin as they read it. This led to some particularly hilarious ad libbing, and one terrible version that had the Old Dog in splits when it was explained had this on the first few pages, “I decided to move from Hope to Hot Springs as the Feng Shui was good over there…”

Paul Burnett said: And don’t forget that Hitler did not get that obsession from Darwin, but from Martin Luther, who wrote On the Jews and Their Lies in 1543 - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the[…]d_their_lies

Actually, it’s quite unlikely that Hitler had read Luther, either. Hitler was a Catholic, and Luther’s works were interdicted to Catholics. It’s likely that he’d heard of it, and would have approved, but in 1900 to 1918, when his warped political outlook was being formed, that Luther pamphlet (it is no more) wasn’t in print.

Hitler’s anti-semitism is difficult to trace to a source, since it was certainly psychopathic, and not accounted for by rational means. The defining event seems to have been the death of his mother on 21 December 1907, from breast cancer. She had been attended - and well cared for, by the standards of the day - by a Jewish physician, Dr Eduard Bloch. Within the year, Hitler tells us, he had turned from “a feeble cosmopolite” into “a fanatical anti-Semite” (Mein Kampf, 18). Somehow Hitler had transferred the blame and guilt that he felt - for he had treated his mother very badly before her final illness - to the man who had attended her.

The intellectual underpinnings of this metamorphosis - if you can call them that - seem to have been the tawdry racist pamphlets that he read in Vienna. Pre-WWI Vienna was awash with them. He also read the bogus “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” about 1920. So did many, but Hitler instantly and uncritically believed every word, taking them as confirmation, not new information. His attitudes had already been formed by then. The only major figure that he seems to have used as inspiration for his antisemitism was not Martin Luther, but Ricard Wagner.

But in a sense, it’s pointless to try to find an actual intellectual cause for a psychopathic event. Hitler’s corrosive, overwhelming hatred of Jews derives not from any source in German history, but from internal psychopathy. It was just that this psychopathy thrived in its environment. It was selected for, notwithstanding the fact that in a saner political environment, it would have soon become extinct.

Which is, you know, an odd affirmation of one of the ideas behind the Theory of Evolution, in a way.

Hitler was a creationist as Alan MacNeill documents. He was also a Catholic and his millions of willing followers were all Catholics and Lutherans.

These Hitler threads are boringly predictable. Someone will show up and claim to be able to read Hitler’s mind and explain what he really meant. Even though he has been dead for 64 years. I don’t believe anyone can read the minds of dead people or even alive ones.

And Table Talk, a book partially forged after the war by xians to make Hitler look a little less xian. Damage control.

Alan MacNeill:

While Hitler uses the word “evolution” in Mein Kampf, it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin’s theory. Indeed, he never mentions Darwin at all. In fact, a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.

Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed “from the very beginning”, and could not have evolved from apes:

“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” - Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

Like a creationist, Hitler believes that man was made in God’s image, and in the expulsion from Eden:

“Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i

Like a creationist, Hitler believes that:

“God … sent [us] into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. xiv

Like a creationist, Hitler claims Jesus as his inspiration:

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them.” - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order

Like a creationist, Hitler despises secular schooling:

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith … we need believing people.” - Adolf Hitler, Speech, April 26, 1933

Like a creationist, Hitler wished to make prayer compulsory in public schools. Unlike American creationists, he succeeded.

Hitler even goes so far as to claim that Creationism is what sets humans apart from the animals:

“The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator.” - Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

Hitler does not mention evolution explicitly anywhere in Mein Kampf. However, after declaring the fixity of the fox, goose, and tiger, as quoted above, he goes on to talk of differences within species:

“[T]he various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed.” Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi)

So, like a creationist, there is some evolution he is prepared to concede – evolution within species, or “microevolution”, to which people like Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe have no objection. It is on the basis of the one part of evolutionary theory which creationists accept that Hitler tried to find a scientific basis for his racism and his program of eugenics.

Ergo, Hitler did not base his eugenic and genocidal policies on evolutionary theory, but rather on views that are very similar to those held by most creationists and many ID supporters.

In addition to soaking up the antisemitism that was in the air, Hitler’s views and influence were the culmination of the right-wing militaristic nationalism that was a major influence in many European countries in the 1800s and early 1900s. Since the French Revolution there had been a tension between internationalism on the left and nationalism on the right. Antisemitism flourished among the nationalists and was often (but not always) opposed by internationalists (think, for example, of the Dreyfus Affair in France). Stir all that together with the aftermath of World War I (including the Versaille Treaty) and the stage is set for Hitler.

But of course it’s all Charles Darwin’s fault!

(If this is a misleading summary, I would be pleased to be corrected by historians).

Heinrich Bronn had his own pre-Darwinian notions of branching trees, speciation and mechanisms. There is a useful paper by Sander Gliboff:

Gliboff, Sander. 2007. H. G. Bronn and the History of Nature. Journal of the History of Biology 40 (2):259-294.

An older article, in German is:

Junker, T. 1991. Heinrich Georg Bronn und Origin of Species. Sudhoffs Arch Z Wissenschaftsgesch 75 (2):180-208.

The world can be changed by man’s endeavor, and that this endeavor can lead to something new and better .No man can sever the bonds that unite him to his society simply by averting his eyes . He must ever be receptive and sensitive to the new ; and have sufficient courage and skill to novel facts and to deal with them .

I think Hitler acquired his anti-semitism either at the end of WWI or during it. Ian Kershaw noted in his biography of Hitler that when he was attempting to make a living in Vienna before the war painting postcard sized pictures, he sold most of them through Jewish dealers, and he actually spoke well of them. Simon Wiesenthal in his book “Recht nicht Rache” discussed the theory that Hitler got a dose of syphilis from a Jewish prostitute around 1915 (a serious crime in the German army), and he defended himself by saying that he got syphilis before the war. Kershaw thinks that his anti-semitism came as a result of Germany’s loss in 1918, and only subsequently predated it to before the war to make it seem more considered.

If you can read German, the addition Bronn made can be found at:

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Entst[…]_der_Arten/Fünfzehntes_Kapitel

raven said:

Hitler was a creationist as Alan MacNeill documents. He was also a Catholic and his millions of willing followers were all Catholics and Lutherans.

…

Alan MacNeill:

While Hitler uses the word “evolution” in Mein Kampf, it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin’s theory. Indeed, he never mentions Darwin at all. In fact, a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.

Like a creationist, Hitler asserts fixity of kinds:

“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.” - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi

…

A great find, Raven. Good enough to bookmark the source.

Dave

I suppose it’s worth it to rebut this Hitler stuff. As well as creationists using that illogical linking to justify themselves, it might also cause ill-informed neo-nazis to mistakenly believe that their repulsive ideology is related to “evolution” or “natural selection”.

In addition to what has been pointed out above, let me note that -

1) Even if Hitler had been a trained and talented biologist, that would be totally irrelevant. Hitler was, in fact, a fairly talented painter (his failure to become a professional artist notwithstanding, this is true). The Nazi party did, in fact, include talented artists, musicians, scientists, physicians, etc. (For completeness, I’ll note that it did not contain molecular biologists, nor anyone with a full modern understanding of the theory of evolution, because molecular biology (and most of cell biology) had not been discovered yet.)

However, one thing that painting and the theory of evolution have in common is that neither one of them is a system of ethical philosophy that tells people how they “should” behave.

People who happen to understand the theory of evolution can do what they choose to do (or what they have the illusion of choosing to do, I suppose, if you’re a hard core determinist).

The theory of evolution does have a lot of value in helping me to understand what is likely to happen if I do certain things, but it says nothing whatsoever about whether certain actions or outcomes are “good” or “bad”.

2) And indeed, just as we note that being a painter doesn’t mean that someone is a Nazi, and in fact that many painters were vehemently anti-Nazi, so we can note that many scientists were opposed to Nazism, and that Darwin himself held political views that, while quaint by today’s standards, were very progressive for his time.

I realize that this is obvious, and that anyone who doesn’t accept this obvious logic is either biased beyond the point of honest discussion, suffering from a cognitive disorder, or both, but it’s still worth mentioning it.

On page 115 of ‘Architects of the Culture of Death’ De Marco and Wiker do not give the original source of this Hitler quote.

They reference instead page 21 of a Mike Hawkins book.

Just how many times have we seen creationists not give the orginal source of a quote, but instead quote somebody quoting somebody else?

Sorry that should be page 274 of the Mike Hawkins book.

It is very suspicious that De Marco and Wiker cannot bring themselves to document where Hitler said that ‘quote’

Guess what? Mike Hawkins is not quoting the original German. He is using the Cameron Stevens version of Table Talk.

I have the original German version , by Picker.

I wonder why a scholar like Wiker does not translate Hitler directly but instead cites a work which quotes another work , which then uses an English translation of dubious provenance.

Doesn’t a scholar like Wiker believe in primary sources rather than 4th hand sources?

Or does he want to hide the fact that he is not using primary sources?

Wayne Robinson said:

I think Hitler acquired his anti-semitism either at the end of WWI or during it. Ian Kershaw noted in his biography of Hitler that when he was attempting to make a living in Vienna before the war painting postcard sized pictures, he sold most of them through Jewish dealers, and he actually spoke well of them. Simon Wiesenthal in his book “Recht nicht Rache” discussed the theory that Hitler got a dose of syphilis from a Jewish prostitute around 1915 (a serious crime in the German army), and he defended himself by saying that he got syphilis before the war. Kershaw thinks that his anti-semitism came as a result of Germany’s loss in 1918, and only subsequently predated it to before the war to make it seem more considered.

If you can read German, the addition Bronn made can be found at:

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Entst[…]_der_Arten/Fünfzehntes_Kapitel

The evidence that Hitler’s antisemitism predated WW1 is found in the letters, conversations with Hans Jetzinger, and book “The Young Hitler I Knew” (trans. E V Anderson, Boston, 1955) of Gustl Kubizek, Hitler’s friend and roommate in Vienna in 1908. According to this source, Hitler was a member of the Anti-Semitic League as early as that year, when he was only eighteen. This actually predates the period in 1909-1911 when he sold paintings to Jewish art dealers and framers.

Kubizek is considered a reliable witness. He did actually room with Hitler, but he did not put himself forward either during the Third Reich or afterwards, all his evidence is consistent with what is known from other reliable sources, and it is even consistent with Hitler’s own account. The last, of course, is the least important.

There is no persuasive evidence that Hitler ever had syphilis. The suggestion derives from a note in the diary of Dr. Theo Morell, his physician, speculating on the cause of his patient’s violent mood swings. (But there is no evidence for any formal report written by him.) And Morell was a quack, and the supposed source of the infection is as varied as the authors who speculate about it. There’s some circumstantial evidence, but the possibility is at best very speculative. To assume that Hitler was infected, that it was by a Jewish prostitute, (when Hitler probably never had normal sexual relations with anyone) and then to build Hitler’s antisemitism on that, is to go far, far out on a historical limb.

Guess what? Mike Hawkins is not quoting the original German. He is using the Cameron Stevens version of Table Talk.

I have the original German version , by Picker.

I wonder why a scholar like Wiker does not translate Hitler directly but instead cites a work which quotes another work , which then uses an English translation of dubious provenance.

Doesn’t a scholar like Wiker believe in primary sources rather than 4th hand sources?

Or does he want to hide the fact that he is not using primary sources?

Those who deny Hitler as a Christian will invariably find the recorded table talk conversations of Hitler from 1941 to 1944 as incontrovertible evidence that he could not have been a Christian. The source usually comes from the English translation (from a French translation) edition by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper.

Because they lied. The translation they used is partially forged. Xians after the war added some anti-xian quotes as damage control. Tim Carrier documents when the additions were made, who made them, and why.

Invariably creationists lie.

I will add here that fundie cultists frequently make up quotes, just flat out lie. Not that we all don’t know that.

Most of us have seen the “xian nation” propaganda effort with quotes from the founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, and so on about how the USA was a god inspired idea or some such.

The truth is, most of those people were Deists or critical of religion.

Some of those quotes are just plain Made Up.

If you see a suspicious quote from a fundie xian without a source, chances are the source is a lie in someone’s warped brain. Once one of them lies, they just repeat it, even after they get caught.

raven said: If you see a suspicious quote from a fundie xian without a source …

When you see a quote presented by a creationist, it need not be “suspicious”, or without a source. Even quotes which look quite innocent and have a full citation should be checked before proceeding.

This is a bit off topic, but Ben Stein has complained lately about being “persecuted” by Atheists and “Neo - Darwinists”:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/[…]new-york-tim

John, you’re just another lying sack of shit, like all creationists.

Hitler was a creationist fraud, just like you. The Nazis burned science books and murdered anyone who questioned their cult, just like you wish you could get away with.

Face it, John, you’re the Nazi here. The reason creationists keep flogging the Darwin/Hitler lie is because they know they’ve got blood on their own hands that they can never wash off, and they desperately need to manufacture a scapegoat. But no matter how many times you repeat this lie, it will never change the fact that Hitler was one of yours. Nor will it ever change the fact that evolution actually happens in the real world.

John is a colossal idiot if he actually believes that the American slaveowners were Darwinists. I suppose he’s stupid enough to think that it was Darwin who started the whole shtick of “The Curse of Ham” and “The Curse of Cain,” and it was Darwin who inspired Manifest Destiny.

It seems odd that Darwin inspired Stalin when Stalin neither used Darwin, nor Evolutionary theory, as an excuse for the atrocities he committed, nor were there any suggestions in Stalin’s memoirs that he even read any of Darwin’s writings.

It also seems odd that the Nazis were “systematic, fanatical atheists who cited Darwin, and not the Bible,” when the Nazis used the swastika, symbol of the god Thor, protector deity of the Teutonic peoples, as well as permitted things like “Gott Mitt Und” to be printed on officers’ belt buckles. That, and it seems odd that the Nazis sited Darwin when they also saw fit to ban and burn his works, as well as take the suggestion that apes are related to humans as being a grievous insult.

John said: The key is that once the Jude-Christian prohibition against murder of non-combatants is lifted by systematic atheist, fanatics will cite Darwin – not the Bible – to exterminate whoever they want to.

Oh, now I see what you’re saying! You blame Darwin for lifting “the Jude-Christian prohibition against murder of non-combatants”. Now, let’s see, given that witch hunts were officially endorsed by christian churches for so many centuries, and the “witches” in question were definite non-combatants, who were murdered, that must mean that Darwin somehow lifted this prohibition CENTURIES BEFORE HE WAS EVEN BORN!!

So, John, where do you think Darwin got his magical time machine?

John the Nazi creationist fraud said:

Can it be that the mad infatuation that some people feel for Charles Darwin – a man dismissed as an amateur scientist by Louis Paster and Rudolf Virchow, and a man who stole his key idea from Alfred Russel Wallace – is as simple as a blind hatred of all religion, and Christianity in particular? I wonder. You can look the Wannsee protocol up on the web or in Shirer or Payne. He said it: “natural selection.” The idea, stolen from Wallace, that made Darwin famous.

Here’s an interesting tangle of John’s idiotic lies.

He first attempts to discredit Darwin by calling him an “amateur scientist”. Then he accuses him of stealing his key idea from Wallace. Then he babbles about a vast conspiracy against christianity.

What John is too stupid to even notice in his writing is that if his claim that Darwin had stolen the idea of evolution by natural selection from Wallace was true (which it isn’t), then describing Darwin as a “amateur scientist” would be totally irrelevant even if it were an accurate description (the fact that said description is a dishonest quotemine is a separate issue). If, as John falsely claims, Darwin didn’t actually do any of the work involved in developing the theory of evolution, then attempting to discredit evolution by making irrelevant personal attacks on Darwin is even MORE irrelevant than usual. If evolution was all Wallace’s work, then for John’s lies to even rise to the level of an ad hominem he’d have to be attacking Wallace. But he doesn’t. He’s so obsessed with Darwin being the Lord of All Evil that he can’t stop himself from flinging shit at his imagined Great Satan, totally oblivious of the fact that his attacks contradict each other and would be irrelevant even if they were true.

Bottom line, John, evolution happens. It’s been observed countless times, in countless places. We have the evidence. We have the fossils. We win. You lose. No amount of lying about a dead man will ever change that. But you, John, are too stupid to even get the lies right! I’d say you’re an embarassment to every thinking creationist, but I know there are no such things.

By coincidence, PZ Myers has just posted the winning essay in answer to the question “Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought?” I’m going to copy it verbatim here for John’s benefit (not that I expect it to have any effect):

No. First of all, as has already been established courtesy of searching through Mein Kampf in detail, Hitler’s assorted eructations on nature reproduce well-known creationist canards, including the static species fallacy, and Hitler also asserted that fertile, viable hybrids were inpossible, which is manifestly refuted by this scientific paper (among many others):

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies, by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006)

Also, even an elementary search of Mein Kampf reveals the following statistics. The number of instances of key words are as follows:

“Darwin” : ZERO

“Almighty” : 6

“God” : 37

“Creator” : 8

Hitler was inspired by the anti-Semitic ravings of one Lanz von Liebenfels, who was a defrocked monk, and whose magnum opus bore the Pythonesque title of Theozoology, Or The Account Of The Sodomite Apelings And The Divine Electron. This was in effect a warped Biblical exegesis, which rewrites the Crucifixion story, and also contains a mediaeval bestiary replete with instances of Liebenfels’ florid imagination.

Additionally, the Nazis placed textbooks on evolutionary biology on their list of seditious books to be burned, as illustrated nicely here, where we learn that in 1935, Nazi guidelines with respect to seditious books included:

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

Translated into English, this reads:

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

The evidence is therefore conclusive. Nazism was not inspired by evolution, and indeed, much of Hitler’s own writings are creationist in tone. The Nazis destroyed evolutionary textbooks as seditious (much as modern day creationists would love to), and the Nazi view of the biosphere is wholly at variance with genuine evolutionary theory, involving fatuous views of race “purification” by the establishment of monocultures that are the very antithesis of genuine evolutionary thought, which relies upon genetic diversity.

Always glad to hear from people who get so mad they spout obscenties like the gutter trash they appear to be, and accuse me of denying evolution and citing Satan – in fact I did neither. Pasteur and Virchow said Darwin was an amateur scientist – you smarty boys know who they were, of course.… the people who invented modern medicine and public hygiene when they proved that Spontaneous Generation was a myth even though Darwin believed in it. Now let’s see who’s the liar: does the word “natural selection” appear in the orders for the Holocaust or does it not? Was the twisted murderer who wrote the order an atheist who hated his own Jewish genes? Were Walter Rathenau and Albert Balin actually members of the Kaiser’s cabinet. Was Anne Frank’s father actually an officer in the Kaiser’s army. Did Hannah Arendt – a Holocaust refugee – mention Darwin as the motivator. If these things are true, and Darwin had NO influence, why did the Holocaust originate in Germany, where Jews had enjoyed full civil rights, fior a century, rather than in Russia or France? Last question: what three countries actually accepted Jewish refugees when dear of Darwin’s mighty British Empire refused them and left them to die or be murdered: British quote: “Australia has no race problem and is nor desirous of importing one” – Evian-les-Bains, 1938. Jewish quote: “The British foreign office doesn’t seem to object to the final solution at all as long as the Germans do the actual killing.” Come all, all you smart foes of Christianity. Which three countries took refugees? (1) The United States – heavily Christian. (2) The Dominican Republic – heavily Catholic.(3) The Japanese Empire, where Jews were respected for their intelligence and for funding the Russo-Japanese War, and where Darwin was laughed at because he was such an obvious racist. The prime instigator of saving Jews, Chiune Sugimara was – guess what – a Christian. Darwin really did say that Africans were links between (white) man and the anthropoid ape – “Descent of Man” - and was relieved that they would soon go extinct. But of course he wasn’t a racist or a bad scientist if you smart little bous scream that he wasn’t, even though Pasteur and Virchow said so. He was ENGLISH!!! If you guys knew how funny you were making a hero out of an incestuous mountebank the rest of the world makes fun of, you wouldn’t be white either –your faces would be red…if you were smart enough to get the joke. No curse a man you don’t have to face.…You never know who you’re talking to, but before I got “saved” I was a biker and we used guys like you to grease our brakes…But I don’t want another Holocaust – I didn’t want the last one but I wasn’t around. If YOU don’t want one, look objectively at how badly mistaken Darwin was about “natural selection” as the engine that drove Evolution, of how that affected humanity, and of what it may someday do to sissy boys who prate because they can’t reason.

John said: If you guys knew how funny you were making a hero out of an incestuous mountebank the rest of the world makes fun of, you wouldn’t be white either –your faces would be red…

And yet, species have and do evolve.

Don’t you understand that the credibility of scientific theories does not rest on how they are used by men?

(Not that I agree with any of your diatribe…I’m just pointing out that your argument is irrelevant no matter how right or wrong it may be).

Have just done a Google search on “Hannah Arendt Darwin” and got some interesting results.

Seems that Arendt did suggest a connection between “Darwinism” and Hitler, and was vigorously criticised for it. For instance, there’s this http://www.jstor.org/stable/1407859 (I get free access at work.)

This article goes on to note that Hitler thought that the “degenerate” races would swamp the Aryans, so perhaps we can label all the tedious entropy arguments and “evolution can’t create new information” and all the rest as “Nazi concepts”.

Obviously, John is stupid enough to assume that it was Darwin, and not Martin Luther, who wrote “Of the Jews and Their Lies”

whiny baby Johnny said:

Always glad to hear from people who get so mad they spout obscenties like the gutter trash they appear to be…

Aw, poor widdle baby johnny can’t stand dirty words! Waaaaaah!

Go fuck yourself. If you had any evidence to defend your bullshit, you’d be defending it instead of whining about me saying “shit”. The fact that you focus solely on tone just proves that you are full of shit.

John the liar said: … and accuse me of denying evolution and citing Satan – in fact I did neither.

Oh, so you say you’re not a creationist, you just repeat exactly the same lies creationists do, but you don’t actually believe the bullshit you’re spewing. And somehow you think this reflects well on you. It doesn’t.

John the liar said: Pasteur and Virchow said Darwin was an amateur scientist – you smarty boys know who they were, of course.… the people who invented modern medicine and public hygiene when they proved that Spontaneous Generation was a myth even though Darwin believed in it.

Yep, another classic creationist lie, wrapped up in an argument from authority and a quotemine.

And again, since you refuse to notice this, what would it matter if Darwin was an amateur or not? How would that invalidate evolution? And how could your bullshit attacks on Darwin even be relevant if, as you claim, he stole his ideas from Wallace? If the science you so despise was Wallace’s work to begin with, what point is there in throwing shit at Darwin?

[Irrelevant babbling snipped]

John the Internet Tough Guy whined: No curse a man you don’t have to face.…You never know who you’re talking to, but before I got “saved” I was a biker and we used guys like you to grease our brakes…

Oh, nice, death threats! Very christian of you, john (I don’t say that ironically, I’ve noticed that religious nuts are prone to making death threats when they’re exposed as lying sacks of shit). Somehow, in john’s delusions, profanity is an unforgivable sin, but death threats are perfectly okay!

John the Holocaust Denier said: But I don’t want another Holocaust – I didn’t want the last one but I wasn’t around.

Oh, so you’re just trying to prevent another Holocaust…by lying about the causes of the first one and pinning the blame on a scientist that your cult tells you to hate, while ignoring the anti-semitism promoted by that same cult for centuries. Yeah, let the guilty parties off the hook, that’s a GREAT way to make sure they never rear their ugly heads again.

John the Holocaust Denier said: If YOU don’t want one, look objectively at how badly mistaken Darwin was about “natural selection” as the engine that drove Evolution, of how that affected humanity, and of what it may someday do to sissy boys who prate because they can’t reason.

Precisely how badly, and in exactly what way, was Darwin mistaken about natural selection? This is a serious question. You’ve screamed that Darwin was a racist, a plagiarist, an amateur, a bad scientist, an “incestuous mountebank”, and you’ve accused him of mass murder, but never once in all your diatribes have you gotten around to saying where he was actually WRONG. So what is the problem with natural selection, john? Why are you so obsessed with making Darwin the scapegoat for every evil in the world? Why do you think centuries of science should be thrown out the window?

And speaking of “sissy boys who prate because they can’t reason”, I’ve never seen anyone who fit that description better than YOU.

John wrote:

“If YOU don’t want one, look objectively at how badly mistaken Darwin was about “natural selection” as the engine that drove Evolution, of how that affected humanity, and of what it may someday do to sissy boys who prate because they can’t reason.”

Please John tell us, exactly how was Darwin mistaken about natural selection? You do have a scientific reference for this claim don’t you. We’re all dying to hear all about it.

Besides, if Darwin was wrong and Hitler was using his principles, then Hitler was doomed to failure. Don’t you think that’s a good thing? DO you really think that HItler failed because Darwin was wrong? Would you rather that Darwin was right and that Hitler had succeeded?

Still waiting for your proof that Darwin stole anything from Wallace. You just made that up didn’t you? Why do creationist nut jobs always always have to lie? And you wonder why people call you names.

Looks like my comments got screened out – too bad. Kevin seemed like an intelligent and honest man. The others sounded like Asperger’s victims – scatology, rage, terror, “Nazi Holocast Denier” – when I cited the actual order? Misrepresentation, I think. psychiatric basket cases. Don’t let these boys near a gun. Hope the pandas are safe.

NB Kevin and other sane people: read “A Delicate Arrangement” by Arnold Brackman about how Darwin stole Wallace’s ideas. Read Pasteur’s acceptance speech to the Academie Francaise for what Pasteur thought of Darwin. Check Virchow on the web unless you read German. A writer named Bernard Schreiber did a great takeout on Darwin and Hitler – his book is on thw web. John…glad I’m not a psychiatrist for these guys – I’d get rich but I’d get bored…name-calling is for little girls.…

You’re still a fucking biker thug, Johnny, you’re just swinging the bible now – and all the related rage-infested bullshit that you pour into it – instead of a chain.

Fuck off.

John said:

Looks like my comments got screened out – too bad. Kevin seemed like an intelligent and honest man. The others sounded like Asperger’s victims – scatology, rage, terror, “Nazi Holocast Denier” – when I cited the actual order? Misrepresentation, I think. psychiatric basket cases. Don’t let these boys near a gun. Hope the pandas are safe.

No comments were “screened out.” However, this thread has sunk far enough into the swamp to warrant closing it.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Richard B. Hoppe published on August 10, 2009 5:02 PM.

Fulgurite was the previous entry in this blog.

Stalactite is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter