Talk:Hitler based his views on Darwinism (Talk.Origins)

I looked at the Talk.Origins article and did not see any claim that Hitler was a Christian, or anything that "slander[ed] Christianity".

On the other hand, I don't see that you provide any evidence that Hitler did indeed base his views on Darwinism, but discuss only why you don't think Hitler was a Christian.

There doesn't appear to be any doubt that Hitler made many appeals to various Christian traditions and ideas (twisting them to meet his purposes), but I have been unable to find any reference to Darwin in the on-line version of Mein Kampt and his speeches that I looked at. The few references to evolution were not speaking of biological evolution, or else expressed ideas that were in contradiction to Darwin's views.

I also find it strange that the Nazis banned books on evolution if they were "ardent followers of Darwinism."

I found the following comparison of Hitler's and Darwin's views:

"Hitler stated that "racial purity" was "God's Will". Darwin showed that there is no such thing as racial purity in the first place, and that secondly, races and species are not formed by God.

Hitler said that segregation of species and races is a "rigid law" of nature. Darwin showed that there are no such rigid laws in nature.

Hitler said that species only naturally mate with members of their same species. Darwin showed that many species naturally hybridize (in fact, research now shows that more than 10% of "species" hybridize in the wild).

Hitler said that species are uniform in character. Darwin showed that there is a high degree of variation within species.

Hitler advocated the use of race laws to favor only "Nordic" peoples. Darwin stated that no such laws should be made. Hitler despised sympathy and said that sympathy should not extend to all races. Darwin stated that sympathy was the highest moral value, that indeed sympathy was an important attribute for human success, and that we should extend our sympathy to all people.

Clearly, Hitler's views reflected the traditional "pre-Darwinian" views of nature. Hitler viewed race as sacred, he viewed the Germans as "God's chosen people", and he justified racism, genocide, and eugenics through his sacred views. The sacredness of race is what made race worth fighting for to the Nazis."

For more details, see: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

Can you point out where Darwin said that Jews must be hated, that they were rats and vermin and Christ killers, and all the other humbug the Nazis spouted?

Here are some of the first few references to Jews that I found on a search through Mein Kampf. Can anyone show us any references from Darwin that could by any stretch of the imagination be linked to any of them?

"The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the account of people who formed scarcely one per cent. of the nation--that fact could not be gainsaid. It was there, and had to be admitted. Then I began to examine my favourite 'World Press', with that fact before my mind. ...

Only the enemies of the two countries, Germany and Russia, could have an active interest in such a war under these circumstances. As a matter of fact, it was only the Jews and the Marxists who tried to stir up bad blood between the two States. ...

This is chiefly applicable to that parasitic nation which, particularly at the present time preys upon the honest portion of mankind; I mean the Jews. ...

The Jewish State has never been delimited in space. It has been spread all over the world, without any frontiers whatsoever, and has always been constituted from the membership of one race exclusively. That is why the Jews have always formed a State within the State. One of the most ingenious tricks ever devised has been that of sailing the Jewish ship-of-state under the flag of Religion and thus securing that tolerance which Aryans are always ready to grant to different religious faiths. But the Mosaic Law is really nothing else than the doctrine of the preservation of the Jewish race. Therefore this Law takes in all spheres of sociological, political and economic science which have a bearing on the main end in view. ...

In the business world the situation was even worse. Here the Jews had actually become 'indispensable'. Like leeches, they were slowly sucking the blood from the pores of the national body. By means of newly floated War Companies an instrument had been discovered whereby all national trade was throttled so that no business could be carried on freely. ...

There is no such thing as coming to an understanding with the Jews. It must be the hard-and-fast 'Either-Or.'"

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

I don't claim to be any kind of expert on this subject, but I find it unChristian to see someone so reviled on so little evidence (I mean Darwin, not Hitler). Am I wrong? --Drlindberg 13:50, 27 October 2006 (EDT)

Scorpions' reply, one year later

You, like Talk.Origins, are simply trying to prove Hitler was a Christian. Have you checked any of the articles we linked too? Or are you so determined to believe Hitler was a Christian and not evolutionist that you don't want to? In that case, your arguments have no place here. Scorpionman 13:22, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Drlindberg, whether Charles Darwin did, or did not, espouse openly racist views is irrelevant and immaterial. What's relevant and material is that Charles Darwin's theories laid the foundation for the overt racism of the Nazi Party. Racism follows logically from Darwinian teachings, whether Darwin himself realized that logical progression or not.--Temlakos^Talk 14:10, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Consult my reply here. You're both wrong, Scorpion & Tem. In short, it's this - Nazism & "social darwinism" do not "follow[] logically" from evolution: there is an intervening, superseding cause in the development of each, that involves a perversion of science (which is by definition value neutral). Temlakos or Scorpion, could you lay out an inferential chain of reasoning, unbroken, connecting scientific evolution to racism, etc? I'd like to see the chain, and then we'll proceed from there, okay?-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 16:21, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

To reply to you, Sommer, my point about Eric Rudolph (which you clearly missed) was this. Oftentimes humanity will for some reason or another produce an individual so deranged that he will read evil values into either prima facie good (or value-neutral) ideological frameworks. Eric Rudolph was one such man, who believed that to be a Christian meant being a murderer. Conceding arguendo that Hitler believed in evolution, Hitler was another such man, who thought that evolution, a scientific theory, implied mass murder. What you should see by the comparison to Rudolph is that it is foolish to judge an ideological framework by the warped, twisted super-villains that claim adherence to that framework. No one individual is indicative of an entire "idea" or religion, so saying that Hitler believed in and acted upon evolution - therefore evolution is evil - is a ridiculous statement. That some evil men may have claimed allegiance to some theory or idea may hold probative and prejudicial weight for the feeble-minded, but the connection is no more than skin deep. In short, Eric Rudolph:Christianity::Hitler:Evolution.-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 17:43, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

Nobody was judging any ideological framework. --Tony Sommer 22:16, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

So you admit that even if Hitler based his ideas on a twisted perversion of evolution, this would have no ramifications whatsoever? Good. Maybe you should note that in the article, so as not to mislead. As it stands you seem to be attempting to defame evolution with this exactly this implication. Albeit not successfully.αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 22:38, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

I love how you ask the question then answer it for yourself, no reason for me any longer apparently, you have your mind made up. --Tony Sommer 20:22, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, it seemed to me that you were conceding the point. Feel free to correct me.-αmεσg (visit me at RationalWiki!) 21:38, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

Something I wrote here seems to have disappeared. Be that as it may, I would like to be allowed to defend myself. I have never claimed or tried to prove that Hitler was a Christian. All I have been doing is saying that I can find no valid evidence that he believed in (or had any understanding of) evolution as Darwin understood it, or as modern science understands it. And please do not assume to tell me what I have read or not read. --Drlindberg 09:11, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

For the record, it is statements like this: "Weikart's book was financed by the Discovery Institute as part of their "wedge strategy" for attacking Darwinian science as morally corrupting in its atheism. The book is now commonly cited by proponents of creationism and intelligent design as scholarly proof that there is a direct line of influence "from Darwin to Hitler." But as I have shown, Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism. - http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/02/review-of-richard-weikarts-from-darwin.html" that lead me to take Weikart's book with a grain or two of salt. Do you have any other evidence? Thank you. --Drlindberg 09:26, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Hitler sported evolutionist views, such as saying that the Aryans were more "highly evolved" than other races and therefore superior to them. He also, however, kneaded in some bizarre religious beliefs, for example, saying Jesus was an Aryan and that His "condemnation" of the Jews was an excuse for Hitler to exterminate them completely. Completely inconsistent with what the God Jehovah states repeatedly throughout the Scriptures: the Jews are His people, and "those who curse them, I will curse." Hitler based his actions both on supposed evolutionary and creationist views, neither of which really justified his hellish actions. I think he was deranged, personally. Scorpionman 10:41, 15 April 2008 (PDT)

Another highly-delayed continuation

Even if Hitler's actions were based on the study of evolution, he understood it in wrong way, as scorpion says that aryans were supposedly more "highly evolved" and so it should eliminate other races, but this is ridiculous, evolution doesnt say that, evolution is all but racist, evolution favors diversification of races so in the event of a enrivomental changes, they have more chances to survive, white people are more adapted to cold climates but black people are more adapted to hot ones, and curiously many people that died from diseases and other non combat related issues in wwII, were from the supposedly more "evolved" aryans, so in short Hitler misunderstood complettely evolution. Ryosuke1208 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Evolution does not say that Aryans are more "highly evolved", but it is consistent with such a view, while Biblical beliefs are not. Evolution does not insist that the so-called "races" are unequal, but it does imply that they are: what are the odds that every people group will evolve at the same rate towards or within human-hood over millions of years? The Bible insists that we are all descended from the fully human Noah (and before that, his ancestors back to Adam) within the last few thousand years. Adaptation by different people groups to different environmental conditions is perfectly compatible with both evolutionary and Biblical views.

To conclude that Hitler misunderstood evolution goes so far beyond the presented evidence that it constitutes a bare assertion -- no visible means of support. Even if everything you said were true (which I have shown is not the case), Hitler misunderstanding evolution is only one possibility: the most obvious other possibilities are that he misapplied it or that evolution is bunk. ~ "Webster" Otley (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)