Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress

_{Mario Lopez

July 8, 2009

Darwinism, Ethics, Evolution, Human evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This should be interesting:

Book Description

In this book, Weikart helps unlock the mystery of Hitler’s evil by vividly demonstrating the surprising conclusion that Hitler’s immorality flowed from a coherent ethic. Hitler was inspired by evolutionary ethics to pursue the utopian project of biologically improving the human race. This ethic underlay or influenced almost every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (i.e., measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare, and racial extermination.

More…

Comments

tribune7,
It’s that Hitler’s acts are damming evidence of the falsity of undirected evolution. You can still believe in directed evolution.
Thanks for reiterating this, I think the evos are trying to derail the point here: P1: If undirected evolution is true, Hitler was not wrong. P2: Hitler was wrong. Therefore by modus tollens, undirected evolution is not true.herb_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

It’s that Hitler’s acts are damming evidence of the falsity of undirected evolution. In what way? Please be detailed and specific, as this seems like a rather silly claim.Learned Hand_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

olearyfan BTW, if you go back and look at my statements I noted that it is possible to accept evolution and Hitler’s immorality. . .In which case, I really do not see the point of the original post in this thread. It's that Hitler's acts are damming evidence of the falsity of undirected evolution. You can still believe in directed evolution. Hitler was a madman. He was quite sane. He knew where he lived, what his name was, how to beat the French etc. He was rational. He does not have insanity as an excuse for his actions. Fred Phelps is doing what he says Christianity implies. Does anyone say he speaks for all Christians? Jesus would be the one who speaks for all Christians. Phelps is not doing what Jesus said he should do. Darwin, OTOH, said that “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." Hitler put Darwin's words into action while Phelps refused to do that with Jesus. And are you really an O'Leary fan?tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee
Weikert makes the argument with evidence from Nazi Germany, and other examples from history, that Darwinism following it’s own internal logic, leads to abuses towards the sanctity of human life.
And yet it took me two seconds to find Weikert quoted at Darwinian Conservatism thus: "Darwinism does not lead inevitably, or of logical necessity, to Nazism." And yet in all the hundreds of Darwinist events this year, we see no general call for racism or eugenics from supporters of Darwinism. Hmmm... Something here just does not add up. To Berceuse
Weikert also makes the case that many prominent Darwinists even today are suggesting euthenasia and infanticide as a means to do away with “unfit” persons. So not only is Darwinism racist, it is also “fit-ist.” Ideas have consequences.
I'm confused. Are you saying Weikert speaks for Darwinists generally? I have read quite a bit of ethics in my time, and I can assure you that the views you (or Weikert) express are not widely shared. Discussions of legalizing voluntary euthanasia - as wrong as they may be - are not eugenics. And "infanticide? Really? To tsmith
but you do represent the typical darwiniac.
You know nothing about me. You even make your slur sound like something to be admired. And in all of this, in all these posts, I see not one positive argument for Intelligent Design. Not one. For shame.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee -- Fred Phelps is doing exactly what Christianity says not to do. On the other hand, the Nazis did exactly what Darwinism implies, Great point, CY.tribune7_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

CY-198:
Weikert is not making an appeal to consequence.
yes he is, he cites nazism as a evidence of the consequence of the theory of evolution.
An appeal to consequence requires no evidence. It is simply asserting “if you believe such and such, such will be the result.”
Usually followed by claims that events x and y from history are all down to z accompanied by calls for onlookers to witness the fact.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

tsmith- I have nothing more to say to you, your abusive tone has removed any inclination I have to continue a discourse with you.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

Berceuse-196 I'm afraid I was unable to extract much meaning from Clives paragraph. It seemed to be labored with assumptions and definitions that may be private to Clive, but I may also have just misunderstood - sorry Clive, thats not meant as a slur on you.
We cannot categorically label Hitler’s behavior as “wrong” if we base it on a “morality” (if you can even call it that in this case) that has arisen by chance and natural selection.
I have a suspicion that the only definition of categorically that you would accept would be via teleological imposition, in which case there is little point trying to argue with you. If not god then anything goes? You have missed the theistic evolution point that chance and selection may be the creators preferred method of creation, and you have missed the atheists point that evolved morality does not mean that anything goes (otherwise it wouldn't be morality!)
I suspect that you will always dance around this point
if by that you mean that I disagree with your narrow perspective then yes, gladly.BillB_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

CY: You're wrong about it not requiring evidence. An appeal to consequences requires that there be something to point to in order to say "See: consequences!" It's just that the evidence tells you nothing about whether the premise is true or not. So, regardless of whether Weikart's case is a good or bad one, it cannot settle the question of whether or not evolution is correct. No matter how much consequential evidence is amassed by him or anyone else, that will never change. The same goes for arguments about the consequences of religion, by the way.dbthomas_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

olearyfan, 'Appeals to consequences' are a very basic logical fallacy, as discussed in this conservapedia article." Weikert is not making an appeal to consequence. An appeal to consequence requires no evidence. It is simply asserting "if you believe such and such, such will be the result." You should read the link you actually quoted. Weikert makes the argument with evidence from Nazi Germany, and other examples from history, that Darwinism following it's own internal logic, leads to abuses towards the sanctity of human life.CannuckianYankee_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

BillB @69 It wasn't a comprehension problem for tribune7, ScottAndrews, or Clive Hayden. Either you are willingly avoiding the issue by addressing semantics, or you are simply not getting it. To reiterate Clive: "Exactly, it is an invalidation, for it accepts and demands less than humanity from humanity, and this is not in accordance with the facts about what makes up humanity." We cannot categorically label Hitler's behavior as "wrong" if we base it on a "morality" (if you can even call it that in this case) that has arisen by chance and natural selection. However, I suspect that you will always dance around this point.Berceuse_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

I very much hope that you do not represent the typical pro-intelligent design poster on this forum
but you do represent the typical darwiniac.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

olearyfan, "Some people say that evolution implies racism. Do they speak for everyone who supports evolution?" No, and if you watched the 1 hour video I linked, Weikert also makes this point. However, he also makes the point that Darwinism started out positing racist ideas - Darwinists like Haeckel made distinctions between the races, with the white race at the top of a heirarchy, and the African race barely above primates. Weikert also makes the case that many prominent Darwinists even today are suggesting euthenasia and infanticide as a means to do away with "unfit" persons. So not only is Darwinism racist, it is also "fit-ist." Ideas have consequences.CannuckianYankee_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

That is not what I or anyone else here has said. Is that more false witness, or are you just trying to be funny? Or perhaps even deliberately hurtful?
oh please, you defend your hairygod and his theory at every turn. you ignore what he said, in fact you twist and LIE about what darwin said...
I have read this thread several times and I have seen numerous people dealing with exactly that point. That you choose to ignore them, tsmith is your loss
oh yes the darwiniac way of 'dealing with it' is to deny it, and lie. laughable.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

tsmith I see no reason to respond to your last post. If you wish to flounce off and declare victory, so be it. I very much hope that you do not represent the typical pro-intelligent design poster on this forum. Good day, sir.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Oh I see. When Fred Phelps speaks, he doesn’t speak for Christianity, but when Galton speaks, he speaks for all evolution. Makes perfect sense. [Facepalm]
but lets just ignore people like Gould and darwin himself said...or 'interpret' it to mean something else... [facepalm] laughable.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

tsmith
of course, Herr Darwin can do no wrong!!! he was much wiser and more noble than any of us today…
That is not what I or anyone else here has said. Is that more false witness, or are you just trying to be funny? Or perhaps even deliberately hurtful?
ignore that whole thing about exterminating the lower races…
I have read this thread several times and I have seen numerous people dealing with exactly that point. That you choose to ignore them, tsmith is your loss.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

No, because the ‘races’ of humanity are still biologically the same species. That is what I said last time.
too bad darwin, et al disagree with you...but keep ignoring it, all that matters is what YOU say today!!
Are you unable to process information which contradicts your initial beliefs? Is that the problem here?
you are good for a few laughs.
When evidence is presented to you that the quotes you have picked do not reflect reality, or reflect only a minority or outdated position, you go back to your original quotes, as if they are definitive
oh a 'minority' or 'outdated' position...right...well tell me how evolution has changed to prohibit racism and eugenics...this should be good...oh I know, evolutionists don't talk about it these days..except for Watson..but we can ignore him...so lets ignore history and pretend all is rosy..and all those biologists like Gould, who disagree are LIARS!!! The reason I say you are bearing false witness, tsmith, is because you pretend that the quotes you choose on Darwinism reflect the opinions of everyone who might be described as a Darwinist. They clearly do not. post your proof, you cannot, you're a typical darwiniac...ie a liar.
But to insist, as you do, that evolutionism or Darwinism necessarily leads to racism, or that all darwinists are racists whether or not they know they are, is simply bizarre.
you can ignore the OBVIOUS history of the theory, and what historians, and evolutionists have said, doesn't matter...apparently the truth hurts...so you just prefer to ignore it.tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

He was referring to varieties. He mentioned the races of cabbages (and other plants and animals).
of course, Herr Darwin can do no wrong!!! he was much wiser and more noble than any of us today... ignore that whole thing about exterminating the lower races...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

No but we have Fox and Friends for that
Now now, hdx, Kilmeade is a noted atheist liberal Darwinist. *cough*.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

tsmith
inherent in evolution is the difference of the races…and of course one race must be more ‘fit’ than another, right?? since its impossible for every race to evolve equally isn’t it??
No, because the 'races' of humanity are still biologically the same species. That is what I said last time. Are you unable to process information which contradicts your initial beliefs? Is that the problem here?
all you can do is dismiss it, becasue you can’t deal with what is put to you obviously…
Don't blame me for your own lack of understanding. It's unbecoming. Here's the issue tsmith. You pick and choose quotes which support your position. When evidence is presented to you that the quotes you have picked do not reflect reality, or reflect only a minority or outdated position, you go back to your original quotes, as if they are definitive. The reason I say you are bearing false witness, tsmith, is because you pretend that the quotes you choose on Darwinism reflect the opinions of everyone who might be described as a Darwinist. They clearly do not. If you wish to shout to the rooftops that some scientists and some evolutionists and some Darwinists are racists, then heavens, you might seem as if you have a point. But to insist, as you do, that evolutionism or Darwinism necessarily leads to racism, or that all darwinists are racists whether or not they know they are, is simply bizarre.olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

so what was that subtitle about race about again???
He was referring to varieties. He mentioned the races of cabbages (and other plants and animals).
Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.
There is really not much about human evolution in Origins of Species.hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

As I noted before, there are dozens (hundreds, thousands) of Darwin Anniversary events going on this year. Where are all the events celebrating his supposed implication of racism?
No but we have Fox and Friends for that
Kilmeade questioned the results, though, saying, "We are -- we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other ..." At this point, his co-host tried to -- in that jokey morning show way -- tell Kilmeade he needed to shut up, and quick, for his own sake. But he didn't get the message, adding, "See, the problem is the Swedes have pure genes. Because they marry other Swedes .... Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society."
hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

And more fun reading on Bryan and others
In 1925, the Klan became the first national organization to urge that creationism and evolution be given equal time in public schools (see Wade 1987). In the same year, Bryan's participation in the Scopes trial turned it into a major event of international interest. When Bryan died five days after the Scopes trial, the Klan burned crosses in Bryan's memory, eulogizing him as "the greatest Klansman of our time" (Werner 1929). The Klan vowed to take up Bryan's anti-evolution cause, and a defrocked Klan official formed a short-lived rival group called the Supreme Kingdom, "whose primary purpose was carrying on Bryan's crusade against teaching evolution" (Larson 1997).

Although there was no formal connection between fundamentalism and the Klan, both movements appealed to similar people. According to McIver (1994), perhaps as many as 40,000 fundamentalist preachers joined and were active in the Klan. As Mecklin observed, "a fundamentalist would have found himself thoroughly at home in the atmosphere of Klan ceremonies" (1924: 100). Moreover, many of the leading evangelists of the early 20th century were fervent creationists who supported, and were supported by, the Klan (Moore 2001; Wade 1987). William Bell Riley - who founded the World Christian Fundamentals Association and sent Bryan to Dayton to prosecute Scopes - advocated white supremacy as well as a ban on the teaching of evolution.
-Randy Moore, University of Minnesotahdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee
I don’t think you understand the difference between what Darwinism posits and what Christianity posits. Fred Phelps is doing exactly what Christianity says not to do. On the other hand, the Nazis did exactly what Darwinism implies...
Boggle. Fred Phelps is doing what he says Christianity implies. Does anyone say he speaks for all Christians? Some people say that evolution implies racism. Do they speak for everyone who supports evolution? As I noted before, there are dozens (hundreds, thousands) of Darwin Anniversary events going on this year. Where are all the events celebrating his supposed implication of racism? Oh I see. When Fred Phelps speaks, he doesn't speak for Christianity, but when Galton speaks, he speaks for all evolution. Makes perfect sense. [Facepalm]olearyfan_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT}

Oh the Scopes trial! What about that Creationist William Jennings Bryan and other anti-evolutionists
In the year after the 1924 Democratic convention, where [William Jennings] Bryan [the prosecutor of the Scopes trial] had thrown his weight against a resolution condemning the Ku Klux Klan, Pickens lumped Bryan together with the Klan as a matter of course. Bryan's offense, suggested J. A. Rogers in the Messenger, A. Philip Randolph's radical journal, was the same hypocrisy that tainted Fundamentalists throughout the South: "Bryan from the pulpit preaches the domination of Christ; in politics he practices Ku Kluxism and white domination, the bulwarks of which are lynching, murder, rape, arson, theft, and concubinage." ... And Bryan was one of the more racially benign antievolutionists. One of his allies, South Carolina's former governor and current U.S. senator, Cole Blease, not only endorsed a rigid antievolution law but also virulently and publicly supported the extralegal lynching of black men. Blease had earned notoriety by planting the severed finger of a lynched African American in the gubernatorial garden. ... Secular black commentators charged that the goad to the antievolution movement, from the top on down, was fear of Darwinism's racial implications. If black and white had a common ancestry, as evolutionary theory suggested, then the South's elaborate racial barriers might seem arbitrary rather than God-given.
- Jeffrey P. Morgan; Reading Race into the Scopes Trial: African American Elites, Science, and Fundamentalism, Journal of American History, Vol. 90. No. 3; 2003hdx_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

and here from a Civic Biology...the book of the famous scopes monkey trial...
'at the present time there exists upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instinct, social customs, and to an extent, in structure. ' 'There are the Ethiopian or Negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.'
naw, no racism in evolution!! nothing to see here...move on... olearfan, let me guess, you're a democrat!!tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

olearyfan: try to answer, instead of avoiding it... inherent in evolution is the difference of the races…and of course one race must be more ‘fit’ than another, right?? since its impossible for every race to evolve equally isn’t it?? all you can do is dismiss it, becasue you can't deal with what is put to you obviously...tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

Olearyfan, I don't think you understand the difference between what Darwinism posits and what Christianity posits. Fred Phelps is doing exactly what Christianity says not to do. On the other hand, the Nazis did exactly what Darwinism implies, and that's the point of Weiker's writing. Ideas have consequences. Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6ACannuckianYankee_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

when you make no attempt to respond to most of what is put to you.
again you're a liar. So you keep saying, tsmith, as if your opinion binds everyone else. and you have been unable to refute it.
For the bazillionth time, tsmith, some does not equal all.
so unless EVERY LAST EVOLUTIONIST says something, it ain't so...laughable. so what was that subtitle about race about again???tsmith_{July 9, 2009
July
07
Jul
9
09
2009
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply