From Darwin to Hitler, or not?

Posted by Nick Matzke on May 4, 2005 01:03 AM

http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/index_files/image006.jpgLast month, Robert Richards, a noted historian of science, particularly evolution, at the University of Chicago, gave a talk, ‘The Narrative Structure of Moral Judgments in History: Evolution and Nazi Biology.’  See the event listing.  The talk has been attracting some attention on the blogosphere, i.e. Light Seeking Light and Red State Rabble.

The Richards talk is described in a reasonably detailed news account from the University of Chicago student newspaper, the Chicago Maroon. According to the news story, Richards addressed the arguments of historians (unnamed in the news article) that “made [Charles] Darwin and [Ernst] Haeckel complicit in the crimes of the Nazis, though both had been dead for decades before the rise of the Nazis.”

Richards set up some general principles for judging actors in history, and then addressed Darwin and Nazism:

While Richards maintained that the moral judgments are unavoidable in narrative history, he did offer his audiences several principles to govern these moral judgments. First, he said, there is “the supreme principle of assessment,” which should evaluate all actions with the same moral core. Other principles included understanding the intention and beliefs of the actor, and the actor’s motive for acting.

Based on these principles, Richards concluded that it could only be “tendentious” and “dogmatic” to condemn Darwin for Nazism, although Richards confessed that he still has not made up his mind on Haeckel.

(Ahmed (2005), quoting Richards. Bold added.)

This is, of course, rather relevant to the writings of Discovery Institute associate and ID-supporter Richard Weikart, whose book From Darwin to Hitler draws exactly this line:

In Hitler’s mind Darwinism provided the moral justification for infanticide, euthanasia, genocide, and other policies that had been (and thankfully still are) considered immoral by more conventional moral standards.  Evolution provided the ultimate goals of his policy: the biological improvement of the human species.

(Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 215)

Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world’s greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.  Darwinism — or at least some naturalistic interpretations of Darwinism — succeeded in turning morality on its head.

(Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 233)

Numerous ID supporters have promoted the Darwin-to-Hitler thesis, wielding Weikart’s book.  Weikart has done essentially nothing to restrain his colleagues, despite popping up to reply to his critics on essentially every forum and discussion board.  See previous PT posts, such as this one, for documentation.

I don’t know if Richards discussed Weikart’s book specifically — I bet he did, but there is no evidence on this at the moment — but his critique of the general argument is apropros.  In terms of Hitler’s inspiration, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel is certainly much closer to the root of Hitler’s evil than Darwin.  Quite a list of factors favor this view:

  1. Haeckel died in 1919 and was active in the early-20th century German discourse that Hitler read

  2. Haeckel lived and worked in Germany

  3. Haeckel was an anti-Semite and campaigning biological racist

  4. Haeckel was a strong, explicit promoter of eugenics

  5. Haeckel was a strong, explicit promoter of morally radical atheistic philosophies like monism (Weikart makes much of the alleged overturning of conventional religion and moral standards in Germany)

Darwin, on the other hand,

  1. died a generation earlier

  2. lived and worked in England, not Germany

  3. was racist but basically in a similar fashion to Abraham Lincoln

  4. was not a promoter of eugenics

  5. was not pushing atheism or radical moral philosophy, and instead argued that evolutionary theory fit well with the long-established natural law tradition of morality

It seems clear that Haeckel-to-Hitler (whatever the limitations of that view) is far more plausible than Darwin-to-Hitler.  Even in the index to From Darwin to Hitler, Weikart mentions Haeckel on about 82 pages, while Darwin gets mentioned on only 49.

So what does Richard Weikart, the author of From Darwin to Hitler, say about the Haeckel-to-Hitler thesis?

“As I reformulated my study on evolutionary ethics to include discussions on the value of human life, another topic became inescapable: the influence of this discourse on Hitler.  Hitler was not even on my radar screen when I began my research, and Daniel Gasman’s one-sided attempt to link Haeckel and Hitler made me wary.”

(Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. x, Preface)

“Hardly anyone has pursued the thesis of a single dominating influence on Hitler more relentlessly than Daniel Gasman with his Haeckel-to-Hitler hypothesis. […] However, Gasman’s approach is too blinkered, ignoring the huge disparities between Haeckel and Hitler.  In many respects Haeckel lined up with liberal progressives of his time, promoting the peace movement and homosexual rights, among other liberal causes.  Gasman makes altogether too much ado about Haeckel’s anti-Semitism, which, though misguided, was not a likely source for Hitler’s anti-Semitism.  For one thing, Haeckel’s anti-Semitic utterances are extremely rare, and they are much milder than Hitler’s.  Also, there were many anti-Semitic thinkers in the early twentieth century whose views are much closer to Hitler’s.  Even many socialists, including some Marxists, jumped on the eugenics bandwagon.

Also, Gasman cannot prove that Hitler ever actually read any of Haeckel’s works, so whatever influence Haeckel allegedly exerted on Hitler may have been mediated by others.  Indeed Haeckel’s works were widely read in the early twentieth century, and it would not be surprising if Hitler read one or more of them.  However, many eugenicists, racists, and anti-Semites peddled Haeckel’s ideas, too, and they were widely discussed in the popular press, so it is not at all unlikely that Hitler imbibed them through others.  Thus, Gasman is right to point out that Haeckel’s ideas were an important influence on Hitler, but they by no means provided the ideological foundation for facism, and Haeckel was by no means a proto-fascist.”

(Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 217)

“The Haeckel-to-Hitler (and Haeckel-to-Fascism) thesis is pursued relentlessly by Daniel Gasman in The Scientific Origins of National Socialism (London, 1971), and Haeckel’s Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology (New York, 1998).  Gasman’s work is not highly regarded by most historians, and with good cause.”

(Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 235, Endnote 4 of the Introduction)

To quote Jon Stewart, “Whaaaaa?”  Weikart says that Haeckel-to-Hitler is bogus, but then writes a whole book devoted to From Darwin to Hitler?  Something doesn’t add up here.

Reference

Usman Ahmed (2005).  “Richards addresses moral role of historians at Ryerson Lecture.”  Chicago Maroon, April 15, 2005.

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/996

Comment #28008

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2005 01:54 AM (e) (s)

hmm. and to think i always stopped with this ridiculous darwin-hitler thing whenever i saw:

“— or at least some naturalistic interpretations of Darwinism “

which is what all of the bs related to social darwinism always boils down to.

Comment #28015

Posted by Jason Ware on May 4, 2005 03:56 AM (e) (s)

‘was racist but basically in a similar fashion to Abraham Lincoln’

I don’t think that’s a good comparison.

Darwin may have been racist but no more so than anyone else in  Victorian England at the time and most probably less.

Comment #28017

Posted by Dave Cerutti on May 4, 2005 04:22 AM (e) (s)

I went to a talk by Mary Poplin, a professor of Christian education and education for disadvantaged students.  Not to detract from her noteworthy achievements in bringing education to those who need it most, but some of her views aren’t what people whould be taught.  After hearing her discuss the notion that all lines of thought stemming from non-Christian sources had aspects of “evil” to them, I asked what she thought of the possibility that mainstream (i.e. actual) science could be marginalized by Lysenkoist programs.  I mentioned the case of evolution being rejected in Stalin’s USSR.  Her response, “well, Darwin was a racist, and Hitler based his views on Darwinism.” And on from there, with a smiling and “oh, so moderate and open-minded am I” tone.  Mary seemed to be bubbly rather than malicious with her musings about God helping out scientists by sending visions to their wives, but some of these people really don’t get it—some of them even profess to hate PCism, all the while putting on a smiling face and acting as if they’re open to all these new possibilities when they don’t care what anyone else is going to tell them.

The theme of the talk was how she came to be a Christian, after realizing that her radical feminism open-mindedness really wasn’t open-minded at all.  I neglected to mention that she should try converting to Christianity again, if it’s all about dispelling false mysticism and seeing clearly.

Comment #28019

Posted by Ian Hearn on May 4, 2005 05:11 AM (e) (s)

Something Fishy In Africa.

The fossil of a previously unknown Boneless fish is the oldest fish fossil to be found in Africa

“These exciting fossils will help fill in the ‘missing link’ in the evolutionary history of very early fishes,” Professor Aldridge said.
Each new fossil find helps to paint a more complete picture, and indicate when various new adaptations evolved.
“The fossil record confirms that the evolution of fish was a step-wise event,” explained Professor Aldridge. “The various characters that make up a fish, or a vertebrate, didn’t all appear at once - they were added one-by-one through evolutionary time.

Apoligies if this has been on PT before.

Comment #28025

Posted by louis on May 4, 2005 06:26 AM (e) (s)

What always amuses me about the “Darwin to Hitler” argument is that it presupposes that ideas about racial purity and supremacy didn’t exist prior to Darwin. Not only that but it also supposes that people had never justified their actions/ideas by appealing to the “good of the {insert grouping of choice here}”. Not to mention the GLARING strawman in the claim that evolutionary biology specifically advocates that things be done for the good of the species, as if the species were the sole unit of selection and as if that were the “point”.

Sadly for the “Darwin to Hitler” posse one can equally make the case “Muhammed to Hitler” or “Jesus to Hitler” or “Aristotle to Hitler” with similar facility and accuracy. It’s just such a crock that these ideas (evolution and racial purity ideologies) are inextricably linked together.

Social Darwinism my sainted nether regions! Why not have Social Newtonism, which by some “interpretations” must mean that (should we adhere to some of Newton’s more fruity ideas) that because of gravity we must drop people of differing religious views to us out of high windows thus killing them to maintain the purit of our theology?

Bah!

Comment #28026

Posted by louis on May 4, 2005 06:28 AM (e) (s)

What always amuses me about the “Darwin to Hitler” argument is that it presupposes that ideas about racial purity and supremacy etc didn’t exist prior to Darwin. Not only that but it also presupposes that people had never justified their more dubious actions/ideas by appealing to the “good of the {insert grouping of choice here}”. Not to mention the GLARING strawman in the claim that evolutionary biology specifically advocates that things be done for the good of the species, as if the species were the sole unit of selection and as if that were the “point”. There’s just simply too much nonsense in the idea to wade through.

Sadly for the “Darwin to Hitler” posse one can equally make the case “Muhammed to Hitler” or “Jesus to Hitler” or “Aristotle to Hitler” with similar facility and accuracy. It’s just such a crock that these ideas (evolution and racial purity ideologies) are inextricably linked together.

Social Darwinism my sainted nether regions! Why not have Social Newtonism, which by some “interpretations” must mean that (should we adhere to some of Newton’s more fruity ideas) that because of gravity we must drop people of differing religious views to us out of high windows thus killing them to maintain the purity of our theology?

Bah!

Comment #28028

Posted by Tom Curtis on May 4, 2005 06:39 AM (e) (s)

Several people have expressed the opinion above, that Darwin was racist.  I do not believe that this view can be sustained by the evidence.  Although Darwin wrote several passages that could be viewed as racist in effect, he also frequently lauds people of other races, and not in the stilted way that suggests he is praising their acheivement as exceptional for their race, but simply as exceptional (or at least laudatory) simpliciter.

I think a better reading of Darwin is that he was not a racist, but rather a cultural supremacist.  He thought the overwhelming difference between an Englishman and a man from another race was, not that the former was English, but that he was bathed in English culture.  He found the company of Fuegans on board the Beagle as least as congenial as that of the English sailors, for they had imbibed, for two years, English culture.  But Fuegans in their native culure he considered the lowest humans on Earth.  The difference, culture rather than race, was the basis of his discrimination.

Comment #28029

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 4, 2005 06:46 AM (e) (s)

Regarding Hitler and evolution and creationism, see:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nazis.htm…

Comment #28034

Posted by John Landon on May 4, 2005 06:57 AM (e) (s)

Attempting to defend Darwin from any direct link to Hitler is obviously only fair in what was a complex history. Also, practically everyone was influenced by Darwin and used him to justify their own views.
But when all is said and done the whole tone of cultural discourse was set into a tailspin by Darwin’s (and Spencer’s) work. I was looking at J.Barzun’s _Darwin, Marx, and Wagner_ (from before the Synthesis!, 1941), and he noted just how dreary it was to research the literature of the late nineteenth century in the wake of Darwin’s book, all the forgotten stuff packed off to the archives. The lead up to WWI was filled with pseudo-Darwin. To take it at the high end, compare Kant and Nietzsche (who was critical of Darwin, and yet…). The sudden vicious tone is unmistakable. BTW, even Nietzsche has been quite sanitized, cf. the recent _Nietzsche, Biology, and Metaphor_, dredging up his remarks on extermination.
So while Weikart’s work shows still another important thematic coopted by the ID people, sure to discredit everything they touch, the often disastrous thinking induced in many by Darwin can never be taken lightly.

Any theory about survival of the fittest needs vigilance! Even now the genocidal lunatics are out there, and I have met a number, and they never appear in print. All they need is the wrong moment to get activated. Those underground lunatic Darwinians are always there.

Comment #28037

Posted by David Heddle on May 4, 2005 07:20 AM (e) (s)

I knew someone would crawl out of the slime and try to deflect this topic into one of a connection between Christianity and Nazism. I won my private bet—it was Lenny, with the link to the drivel he provided. Before ya’ll go there, I’ll remind you:

Rutgers university (that hotbed of fundamentalist Christendom) has a Nuremberg project (here is the link)where they are investigating new documents. One major part of the Nazi Master plan was  “The Persecution of the Christian Churches.”

The editor of the project, Julie Mandel, said

“A lot of people will say, ‘I didn’t realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy.’ … They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity.”

(the Phildelphia Inquirer, Jan. 9, 2002.)

And from a 1945 OSS report: “Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion”

In light of these, it is clear that Nazis “quote mined” Christianity for their own purposes, that they treated some misguided Christians as “useful idiots” for their own purposes, and that ultimately they would institute a plan of persecution against the church.

Try to stay on topic—which is Darwin and Nazism, not Christianity and Nazism.

Comment #28038

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 4, 2005 07:24 AM (e) (s)

What always amuses me about the “Darwin to Hitler” argument is that it presupposes that ideas about racial purity and supremacy etc didn’t exist prior to Darwin. Not only that but it also presupposes that people had never justified their more dubious actions/ideas by appealing to the “good of the {insert grouping of choice here}”. Not to mention the GLARING strawman in the claim that evolutionary biology specifically advocates that things be done for the good of the species, as if the species were the sole unit of selection and as if that were the “point”. There’s just simply too much nonsense in the idea to wade through.

What amuses me about it is that the very idea of a “genetically pure master race”, is anti-evolutionary.  Evolution **depends** on genetic diversity, and cannot work without it. 

Any “genetically pure master race” would suffer the same fate as a monocultured wheat field when faced with a disease or parasite.  Its future would be short, and its demise certain.

As usual, those who mis-use evolution, are also the ones who understand it the least.

Comment #28041

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 07:48 AM (e) (s)

“As usual, those who mis-use evolution, are also the ones who understand it the least.”

Too bad the same can be said of nuclear physics?

Comment #28043

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 08:04 AM (e) (s)

“I knew someone would crawl out of the slime and try to deflect this topic into one of a connection between Christianity and Nazism”

Slime, eh?  Suggesting that Nazism could not have arose without hundreds of years Church sponsored anisemtism is not so much a ‘deflection’ as a counter-explanation.  Although the Nazis are probably best understod neither  as “Christians”  nor “Darwinists” per se, it is difficult to imagine Nazism springing up without either.  In fact, it’s utterly ridicuous.  The Church paved the way for the extermination of the Jews.

Look at “Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s” by Daniel Goldhagen for an in-depth discussion.

Comment #28045

Posted by PZ Myers on May 4, 2005 08:38 AM (e) (s)

All well and good, but what the heck does atheism have to do with “radical moral philosophies” or Nazism? Your fifth item in each of  your two lists just doesn’t fit.

Comment #28046

Posted by D.B. Light on May 4, 2005 08:43 AM (e) (s)

Thanks for the link. This is an interesting site and I will be returning often. Regarding the link between Darwin and Hitler, I think that there is a general misconception here about historical causation. Yes, of course, Darwin’s ideas provided scientific rationales for some of the greatest crimes against humanity ever perpetrated. Similarly, Marx’s claim to “scientific” authority did the same for the even greater crimes perpetrated in Communist countries. But that is a far cry from saying that Darwin and Marx bear some responsibility for those crimes. History doesn’t work that way.

1) Both Darwin and Marx articulated ideas that were not completely unique to them. Lots of other people were thinking along the same lines and the same general concepts would have emerged regardless of whether or not either man ever wrote a word.

2) The assumption is that absent Darwin or Haeckel there would have been no Hitler (or no “final solution”) and that absent Marx there would have been no Stalin or Mao. I rather doubt that — the organization of modern states, the technologies of control, etc. that underlay the rise of totalitarianism would have emerged regardless of whether these ideas were in the air. And, scapegoat groups would have been persecuted in the pursuit of national and social unity. Even if the justifying ideas were absent the same historical situations were likely to emerge, and there are always sources of justification — religion for instance.

3) Nor does the fact that horrific crimes were committed in the name of “science” invalidate the scientific enterprise any more than the fact that crimes were committed in the name of religion invalidates religion. The ideas are not in themselves determinative. Hitler does not invalidate Darwin, nor Stalin Marx, anymore than Torquemada invalidates Jesus Christ.

Comment #28049

Posted by HPLC_Sean on May 4, 2005 09:13 AM (e) (s)

If Darwin’s Origin led to Nazism then:
Einstein killed hundreds of thousands at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Wright brothers killed 3000 at the World Trade Centers.
Utterly ridiculous.

Comment #28050

Posted by Paul King on May 4, 2005 09:33 AM (e) (s)

Any study of the origins of Nazi racial theory has to take into account that it was derived from the Gobineau via Houston Stewart Chamberlain. 

Gobineau’s main work on the subject, An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races, was written in 1853-55, predating Darwin’s publication of his views of evolution.

Comment #28051

Posted by ambrose on May 4, 2005 09:34 AM (e) (s)

Christians are understandably sensitive about the holocaust, because it was inspired in large part by the New Testament, and Hitler himself was a self-proclaimed Christian.

Here is Hitler, for example, on the importance of the Passion Play at Oberammergau [just like Mel Gibson’s blockbuster]:

“His blood be on us and our children… [Matthew 27:25], maybe I’m the one who must execute this curse … I do no more than join what has been done for more than 1,500 years already. Maybe I render Christianity the best service ever!” (Adolph Hitler, 1942)

If Christians try to equate the Holocaust with subjects other than Christianity, I suggest referring them to the following articles and images, as well as the Bible, which reveal all too clearly the discomfort that comtemporary Christians have about the Holocaust:

Now where are those links with the Holocaust and evolution?

Comment #28052

Posted by jeebus on May 4, 2005 09:41 AM (e) (s)

“I knew someone would crawl out of the slime and try to deflect this topic into one of a connection between Christianity and Nazism.”

Even if there is (at best) an ambiguous connection between Christianity and Nazism, there is certainly no confusion over the DIRECT ROLE Christianity has played in countless other murderous actions.

Oops.  Just a technicality, but please replace “Christianity” with “Christians.”

Of course, the role Christians played in Nazism is not ambiguous at all…

…Doesn’t the Bible teach us to kill people who are different than us?

Comment #28053

Posted by caerbannog on May 4, 2005 09:54 AM (e) (s)

David Heddle wrote:

……..
In light of these, it is clear that Nazis “quote mined” Christianity for their own purposes, that they treated some misguided Christians as “useful idiots” for their own purposes, and that ultimately they would institute a plan of persecution against the church.
………

Here are some photos of some of those Christian “useful idiots”: http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm…

Comment #28055

Posted by the Ticktockman on May 4, 2005 10:17 AM (e) (s)

In light of these, it is clear that Nazis “quote mined” Christianity for their own purposes, that they treated some misguided Christians as “useful idiots” for their own purposes, and that ultimately they would institute a plan of persecution against the church.

“some misguided Christians?”  A whole country’s worth (and then some)?  Unfortunately, Christianity is terribly “quote minable,” and so anti-semitism, sectarian disputes, and the use of religioun as a motivating factor for war precede Nazism and Darwin by centuries. Use of scripture for one’s own purposes and belief in the validity of that scripture are not mutually exclusive (e.g., “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”). 

Try to stay on topic—which is Darwin and Nazism, not Christianity and Nazism.

The topic is “From Darwin to Hitler, or Not.”  In weighing against a theory, one serves the debate better by adducing other hypotheses.  I’d suggest that interpretations of Christianity played a far more significant role in Nazi propaganda and belief than interpretations of Darwin and evolutionary theory (which post-date many conceptions of racial/cultural superiority).  Thus, this is very much part of the overarching topic under discussion.  Cheers,

-TTm

Comment #28059

Posted by David Heddle on May 4, 2005 10:34 AM (e) (s)

Ambrose, caerbannog, TTm, jjebus, since you can’t stay on topic and can’t grasp a point, I’ll try to direct you.

There is a difference between co-opting something for one own’s advantage and sincere support. The Rutgers works trumps anything written before it, for before the Rutgers project it was possible to argue that Nazis believed their own talk when they misused scripture for anti-Semitic purposes. The Rutgers work shows they despised Christianity. The Rutgers work, alas, does not show that they despised evolution.

So back to Darwin and Nazism. Maybe we could start with Hess’s “national socialism is nothing but applied biology.”

Comment #28066

Posted by Jeff Guinn on May 4, 2005 11:19 AM (e) (s)

David:

You could.

But I recommend reading Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” (a truly classic book) first.

You would thereby learn how irrelevant Darwin was to National Socialism.

Comment #28069

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 4, 2005 11:23 AM (e) (s)

How shocking! The Nazis, while claiming to be Christians, persecuted other people who called themselves Christians!

…sounds eerily like what Christians have been doing to one another for the past 20 centuries or so, doesn’t it?

And how can the “persecuted” Christians be distinguished by the “persecuting” Christians, pray tell me? Did you get a phone call from Up There, David, telling you that the Nazis were “no true Scotsmen”?

Comment #28071

Posted by DaveL on May 4, 2005 11:30 AM (e) (s)

I don’t have the exact details at hand, but isn’t it the case that Louis Agassiz, one of the most famous 19th century scientists who never accepted Darwinism, was also rabidly racist? I recall a quote included in one of Gould’s essays where Agassiz was literally revolted by an encounter with a black person in America.

Racism and anti-Semitism will use any tool at hand, and as they are looking for a hammer will see any tool as a hammer; when they do, it’s foolish to blame the tool.

Comment #28072

Posted by Louis on May 4, 2005 11:30 AM (e) (s)

ARGH! Heddle that’s another irony meter you’ve blown!

In the same post referring to the co-option of something for one’s own advantage as a defense/rebuttal of the statedly religious (and even christian in places) sections of Nazi ideology, and then claiming a Darwinian basis for certain Nazi ideology. Oh dear.

Everyone knows the Nazis misused a variety of spiritualist and religious doctrines to suit their own ends and garner popular support. Everyone also knows that their latching onto concpets contained in social Darwiniasm (not something I would defend anyway) and evolutionary biology and twisting them to suit their racist and anti-semitic ideals was an equally unsupportable piece of dishonesty.

The only distinction is that evolutionary biology (as Lenny correctly points out) shows that ideas about racial purity being favoured are clearly incorrect and self-defeating, and that various religions (esp christianity in this case) have been used with apparent scriptural justification to “justify” the most abhorrent practices in human history. Mainly due to the simple fact that religion is something dreamt up in the mind to express desires about the universe and science has to deal with reality as it is, not as it wants it to be. Of course if you disagree with that as I am sure you will, please feel free to answer Lenny Flank’s question about why your religious opinions are any more correct than anyone else’s……

Please stop flogging your tired old strawman.

Comment #28074

Posted by David Heddle on May 4, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s)

Louis,

I agree with you—I absolutely think it is meaningless to tie evolution to Nazism. Of course the Nazis co-opted evolution, and of course this has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of evolution, which is a scientific theory and thus politically agnostic. I was responding in kind to the idiots who wanted to tie Christianity to Nazism, as a deflection. Your hero Lenny is the chief of sinners in this regard.

Comment #28075

Posted by someeyes on May 4, 2005 11:45 AM (e) (s)

Jeff Guinn wrote:

But I recommend reading Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” (a truly classic book) first.

‘Road to serfdom’ is probably the lengthiest slippery slope fallacy ever…

Comment #28078

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 4, 2005 11:52 AM (e) (s)

Hmmm, David dodged my question. I wonder why.

And how can the “persecuted” Christians be distinguished by the “persecuting” Christians, pray tell me?

What makes the “persecuted Christians” more Christians than the “persecuting Christians”?

Face it, David: as much as you wish it to go away, history has shown us countless examples of Christians (both as individuals and as organizations) harassing, torturing, murdering other Christians (as well as non-Christians, of course).

Do you know where the real difference is, between “Darwin-to-Hitler” and “Luther-to-Hitler” reasoning?

That we do have a way to see whether the Nazis were “Darwinists” (hint: they weren’t), whereas we don’t have any such way to check whether Nazis were “Christians” (unless one takes the entirely ludicrous idea that David Heddle’s opinion is enough to bar Nazis from being Christians).

Martin Luther wasn’t “misrepresented” or “interpreted” by the Nazis.

Comment #28081

Posted by T. Bruce McNeely on May 4, 2005 11:54 AM (e) (s)

It’s totally absurd to imply that Nazi genocide would not have occurred in the absence of the theory of evolution. Genocide has been a part of human behavior throughout history. See Jared Diamond’s writings or (ahem) the Old Testament. Artificial selection (breeding) has been known about for just as long. If the Nazis did resort to Darwin’s work to justify their actions (something I doubt occured to a significant degree), it would simply be that, a justification.

Comment #28086

Posted by David Heddle on May 4, 2005 12:08 PM (e) (s)

Oh FCD let me see if I can find your question:

how can the “persecuted” Christians be distinguished by the “persecuting” Christians

They can’t, if I understand your question. Christians can sin in all conceivable ways—what’s your point? Can you distinguish between evophiles who supported Hitler and those who opposed him?

I avoided answering because it was a rather dumb question.

Certainly I cannot say whether this Nazi or that Nazi was a Christian, an no doubt some regarded themselves as such—but we now can say the Nazis as a party had a plan tp persecute Christians. (They do not seem to have had a plan to persecute ecolutionists.) In other words, it has now been demonstrated that the Nazi party as an organization did not consider itself Christian, but anti-Christian.

Comment #28089

Posted by PvM on May 4, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)

While history and logic may not be your strongest skills they seem to still be exceeding your understanding of evolutionary science.

Why not address the issues raised?

Face it, David: as much as you wish it to go away, history has shown us countless examples of Christians (both as individuals and as organizations) harassing, torturing, murdering other Christians (as well as non-Christians, of course).

Do you know where the real difference is, between “Darwin-to-Hitler” and “Luther-to-Hitler” reasoning?

That we do have a way to see whether the Nazis were “Darwinists” (hint: they weren’t), whereas we don’t have any such way to check whether Nazis were “Christians” (unless one takes the entirely ludicrous idea that David Heddle’s opinion is enough to bar Nazis from being Christians).

Martin Luther wasn’t “misrepresented” or “interpreted” by the Nazis.

Comment #28090

Posted by Louis on May 4, 2005 12:19 PM (e) (s)

Heddle,

Lenny’s not precisely my hero per se (sorry Lenny, I can tell you’re crushed, no, really!), but he has asked a question you and many others apparently cannot answer. Now any fool can ask a difficult or unanswerable question, but Lenny’s question does have an answer and the interesting thing about the answer is watching the shennanigans of the dishonest type of theist (for by no means are they all of this type) whilst they try to wriggle away from giving the answer they know to be honest and correct.

The Nazi/evolution/christianity thing has only one problem for you and your ilk. As you have freely admitted evolutionary biology and Nazi ideology have nothing to do with one another. The trick is that certain christian ideals and certain Nazi ideals actually have a lot in common, where they aren’t actually identical. Interestingly, as one might expect, christianity also contains ideals that are entirely antithetical to both these same nazi and christian ideals mentioned in the previous sentence. Hmmmmm now comes the trick, how do we decide which set of ideals to follow and why….

Back to Lenny.

Comment #28093

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 4, 2005 12:31 PM (e) (s)

Heddle:

Where, exactly, in your precious Rutgers report does it say that the Nazi Party considered itself anti-Christian?

PvM:

I suppose you are talking to Heddle, but you should probably make it clearer.

Comment #28095

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 4, 2005 12:34 PM (e) (s)

Tom Curtis gets it right.  I think it would be difficult to make a case that Darwin was racist himself.  Especially considering several points:

  • Darwin held as a dear friend in Glasgow a local man who was African.

  • As Mr. Curtis points out, Darwin was friendly with the Fuegians aboard HMS Beagle on their way home, and later.

  • Darwin’s writings of the trip make reference to the evil of slavery, and he specifically compares rebel slaves uprising in Brazil to the best Roman generals, in genius and nobility — this is not a racist’s view.

  • Darwin was one of the advocates of putting the family fortune to work against slavery, not least because of the racist institution slavery had become; others in the extended Wedgewood family joined in, and their combined donations were significant in England’s successful campaign to end slavery in the empire.

  • Darwin lamented that European cultures had over-run aboriginal cultures that were, in their places, ‘more fit’ than the Europeans; in particular, Darwin lamented the demise of the aboriginal Tasmanians after a long, nasty war begun before Darwin’s birth; while this is often cited in error by creationists to demonstrate Darwin’s racism, the fact remains that Darwin was among the earliest to defend the Tasmanians as a superior culture, and to note their demise.

  • Darwin was a supreme gentleman, but he did bother to write to Haeckel to rebuke Haeckel for his views, and as I recall, race was one of the issues.

From there it would be almost impossible to assemble an honest case of any direct ties from Darwin to Hitler.

  • In the entirety of Mein Kampf Hitler never mentions Darwin and not once suggests any understanding of evolution or any other biological science.

  • Hitler was supremely ill-informed about science matters; for example, Werner von Braun’s biography recounts the near-disaster (to German rocketry) when Hitler toured the rocket engine facility — at the end, Hitler questioned the entire enterprise and threatened to simply use Rolls-Royce engines in his rockets; von Braun hastily convened a class on beginner jet propulsion and staved off the closing of the program.

  • Hitler thought race was carried “in the blood,” as Ashley Montagu pointed out in his 1959 book Human Genetics.  Consequently, Hitler refused to allow blood banks, and he held other odd views that are completely anti-Darwinian (such as the notion that Jewish blood was B [or B positive, I don’t recall exactly], despite the fact that the very blood type was common among Aryans, especially around Berlin). What views of Hitler’s can be attributed to his understandings of science are almost always at odds with Darwin and real science.

I am troubled that the Discovery Institute promoted Weikart’s book at all.  Racism is evil, and it’s a problem — but if DI is pushing science, then this obviously religio-political view is out of place.  As a rhetorical device, it is cheap and offensive, and wrong, to accuse Darwin of racism.

One might make a case that science was not as strong a force against racism as it might have been.  If one studies the history, however, one understands that racism is not promoted by science — nor, in my view, by a solid understanding of religion.  Religion was not then, nor is it now, as strong a force against racism as many of us would have it.  The accusations from creationists merit a sound raspberry with a shout of “We invoke Godwin’s Law.” 

Of course that would be fruitless before people who don’t know what Godwin’s Law is, or why it is relevant.

Comment #28098

Posted by David Heddle on May 4, 2005 12:48 PM (e) (s)

Louis,

Lenny asks an idiotic question that I have answered too many times, but here goes again: I think my opinions are correct, because if I didn’t, I’d change them (duh). I do not think they authoritative, but I do think thet are correct. You see the difference? Lenny doesn’t. Do you hold to any opinions that you think are wrong?

FCD, I may have gone out on a limb, maybe I was off base by equating a master plan for persecuting Chistians with being anti-Christian. They just seem so similar.

Comment #28100

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 4, 2005 12:55 PM (e) (s)

Heddle:

That’s exactly the point I made and you missed.

If attacking Christians makes one anti-Christian, then Catholics are anti-Christian, Protestants are anti-Christian, Greek Orthodox are anti-Christian, and so on and so forth ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

Sorry, David: Christians have attacked, persecuted, ostracized, tortured, killed, and spit upon other Christians since the beginning of Christianity. That the Nazi did likewise does not detract from their considering themselves Christians.

Comment #28105

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2005 01:09 PM (e) (s)

@Hedley:
“…the idiots who wanted to tie Christianity to Nazism, as a deflection.”

a defelection from what?  the ties to evolution, which you yourself have also dismissed?

“Of course the Nazis co-opted evolution, and of course this has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of evolution, which is a scientific theory and thus politically agnostic.”

If you want to defend christianity in a political sense, you best find some better battles to fight.

Comment #28106

Posted by David Heddle on May 4, 2005 01:13 PM (e) (s)

Geez FCD, the difference is not even subtle. Let’s assume a gross oversimplification, that in Northern Ireland Catholics and Protestants are fighting over purely religious differences. Then one group of Christians is killing another, and both groups sincerely claim to be Christian. What the Nuremberg documents show is that the Nazis wanted to get rid of the church altogether. That they would use party plants within the churches for their purposes, persecute church leaders, and eliminate all denominations. The Nazi plan was not to wipe out Catholics and Protestants in favor of “Nazi Christianity”, but to eliminate them in favor of National Socialism, period. Go read the documents.

Comment #28107

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2005 01:14 PM (e) (s)

test

Comment #28108

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 4, 2005 01:19 PM (e) (s)

Heddle,

Nor does the Rutgers archive show that Nazis liked evolution, or even knew anything about it.  Nor does the archive, showing that there were plans to oppress some Christian churches, suggest in any way that the Nazis were opposed to all Christian churches.

I suspect that a fair study would show there were a number of Darwinists shipped to the concentration camps or otherwise made non grata, marginalized, or forced to leave Germany.  Do you really think we should say that the Nazis having driven Einstein away means they were opposed to nuclear theory?  (There was the famous compilation of ‘100 scientists’ essays against Einstein;’ Einstein said, “Why 100?  If I were wrong, one would be enough.”)

So stick with the 300 DI scientists against Darwin, but don’t further muddle your already muddled politics with Nazi-ism, pro or con.  Some things don’t deserve to be made into hash.

300 scientists?  If Darwin were wrong, one would be enough.  100 scientists?  300 scientists?  What’s the difference?

Comment #28109

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 4, 2005 01:23 PM (e) (s)

I went, I read, and you are guilty of wishful thinking.

I do not object to your disassociating yourself from the Nazis; on the contrary, I applaud that. But whitewashing the Nazis’ own consistent declaration of Christianity, on the basis of their intention of demolishing any competing Christian organization in their path, is pure hogwash.

Or maybe the fact that Stalin murdered hundreds of thousands of Communists and dismantled or took over the organizations of the Bolshevik “old guard” should have him re-classified as an anti-Communist, David? What’s good for the goose, etc.

Comment #28111

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 4, 2005 01:26 PM (e) (s)

David

I think my opinions are correct, because if I didn’t, I’d change them (duh). I do not think they authoritative, but I do think thet are correct.

That’s nice.  Why not keep your non-authoritative religious opinions to yourself then?

Thanks.

Comment #28112

Posted by Andrew on May 4, 2005 01:27 PM (e) (s)

Um, idiot:  Christian Nazis who killed Christian non-Nazis is “one group of Christians killing another,” which is the whole point of Aureola Nominee, FCD’s argument in the first place.

In any event, given the overwhelming evidence that Hitler considered himself to be a Christian, Heddle’s argument amounts to nothing more the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.  Everyone else knows this already.

Comment #28115

Posted by David Heddle on May 4, 2005 01:45 PM (e) (s)

Andrew, you are truly a moron. The whole point of the Rutgers documents is that Hitler wasn’t a Christian, but that he played the game, when it suited him, for political purposes. Do you have any skill at following an agument?

Ed, I’ll stick with my muddled politics, just as sure as you’ll stick with your muddled logic.

FCD, yes—declaring their Christianity in public, when it suited them, certainly trumps a secret plan to kill Christians! By all means!

Comment #28117

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2005 01:51 PM (e) (s)

” The whole point of the Rutgers documents is that Hitler wasn’t a Christian, but that he played the game, when it suited him, for political purposes. “

hmm.  just like most of the neocons, David.

Comment #28118

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 4, 2005 01:52 PM (e) (s)

The keyword is “competing Christian organizations”, David.

Much like the Catholic Church tried to do with several Protestant sects, or vice versa, for instance.

If you were a Nazi Christian in Nazi Germany nobody would ship you off to a concentration camp for uour Christianity, so no, the Nazis hadn’t “a secret plan to kill Christians”, but merely “a not-so-secret plan to kill non-Nazi Christians”.

Nazism wasn’t a necessary consequence of Christianity, but this is not what we were talking about.

Andrew:

Heddle knows that this is simply the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, as I said so in my very first post on this thread. I’m afraid he’s not simply mistaken; he’s being dishonest, in the service of “a greater cause”.

Comment #28120

Posted by Andrew on May 4, 2005 01:57 PM (e) (s)

Since I’m apparently too moronic to ascertain who’s a “real” Christian and who’s really pretending, I’d like David Heddle to set forth that criterion for me.

So Heddle, here’s my question:  When someone professes, both publicly and in private, that they are a Christian (as Hitler did), how do I know whether they’re actually a “real” Heddle-approved Christian or not?

Comment #28123

Posted by David Heddle on May 4, 2005 02:14 PM (e) (s)

Andrew, here is a very, very good clue! Are you ready? Write this down: If they have a secret master plan to persecute and kill Christians, then they are not “Heddle-approved.”

Comment #28125

Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on May 4, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)

Still playing with words, eh, David?

Hint: killing some Christians for not toeing the party line is not the same as killing Christians for being Christians.

And that’s that for me. Your state of denial is only mildly amusing, and your dishonesty not at all. Take care.

Comment #28129

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 02:36 PM (e) (s)

David Heddle,

If the Nazi’s attempted extermination of the Jews had so little to do with the thousand year-old tradition of European Christian antisemitism, then I ask you to provide an alternative explanation as for: 1) Why the Jews were singled out by the German people? and 2) What factors created the conditions for the implimentation of the Final Solution.

And if you believe that any old scapegoat would have been adequate, please explain why this adequate scapegoat has historically alway been the Jew.

(And oh, please do this without refering to Christianity.  Good luck…and be careful!)

Comment #28131

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 02:42 PM (e) (s)

Or maybe: The Nazi’s weren’t Christian.  They  just co-opted ‘regular’ European Christian antisemitism to suit thier own goal of exterminating the Jewish people…

I’m fine with that too!

Comment #28133

Posted by the Ticktockman on May 4, 2005 02:50 PM (e) (s)

Andrew, here is a very, very good clue! Are you ready? Write this down: If they have a secret master plan to persecute and kill Christians, then they are not “Heddle-approved.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t a very useful answer unless you have the benefit of historical hindsight and/or access to that secret master plan. 

-TTm

Comment #28142

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 4, 2005 03:07 PM (e) (s)

PZ wrote,

All well and good, but what the heck does atheism have to do with “radical moral philosophies” or Nazism? Your fifth item in each of  your two lists just doesn’t fit.

That is the key bit of Weikart’s argument, evolution=Darwinism=atheism=downfall of morality.  A classic core tenent of creationism/ID, actually.  I disagree, of course.

Given how Weikart has always responded with alacrity to previous critiques on the web, if we don’t see a reply from him in a few days I think we can safely consider his argument holed beneath the waterline.

Comment #28146

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 4, 2005 03:15 PM (e) (s)

Nazis persecuted Darwin’s followers, too

Well, David, if muddle is what you want, here it is.

From the Cornell index to the documents, we get this little wonder, which details the Nazi hassling of free-thinkers, including Darwinists — wasn’t this what you said had NOT happened?

Volume X
Subdivision: Subdivision 18 / Relations with the Christian Churches 
Part Not applicable 
Section 18.05 (PID-PW Series No. 15) 
Title: “The German Monists Organization” (.PDF) / CONFIDENTIAL
Pages: 6, plus an unnumbered cover page. 
Date: June 1945 
Language: English; the translator is identified as “O.W.I., R&A Section, Translator’s Unit.”
Author: Franz Hesse 
Witness: Not applicable 

Other Names: Ernst Haeckel; Spinoza; Hume; Locke; Comte; Feuerbach; Darwin; Nietzsche; Helmholtz; Goering; Hermann Sudermann; Prof. Unna; Prof. Immanuel Herrmann; Prof. Robert Reimann; Wilhelm Boelsche; Prof. Friedrich Jodl; Pfarrer August Kalthoff; Prof. Theodor Hartwig; Prof. Wilhelm Ostwald; Prof. August Forel; Prof. Felix Linke; Prof. Heinrich Schmidt; Prof. M. H. Baege; Prof. Arnold Dodel; Herbert Eulenberg; Dr. Graf Arco; Dr. Rudolf Goldscheid; Dr. Max Deri; Dr. Paul Wolski; Dr. Raabe; Prof. Heinrich Schmidt; Albert Bessner; Rudolf Virschow; Friedrich Schiller; Hitler; von Papen; Dr. Max Seber; Dr. Georg Kramer; Otto Knopf; Ernst Mach; Albert Einstein; Joergen Joergensen; Richard von Mises; Rudolf Carnap; Hans Reichenbach; Niels Bohr; Philip Frank; Moritz Schlick; Bertrand Russell; H. G. Wells 

Other Dates: July 1933; May 1935; January 1938; October 1938; May 1939; 10 March 1945 

Abstract: This document is a brief history of the German Monist Organization from 1933 to 1939, and recounts how the community of free-thinkers managed to survive and communicate, through various carefully-camouflaged publications, despite being constantly scrutinized by the Gestapo. The author’s main contention is that the Catholic and Protestant Churches were not the only religious or philosophical organizations to suffer at the hands of the Nazis, and that their respective claims to having a privileged place in the reconstruction of Germany is both unwarranted and dangerous. This document is a typewritten copy of good to fair quality on slightly browning paper.
Keywords Persecution of Christian Churches; Crimes against humanity; Free Masons; Free-Thinkers; Non-Confessionals; Christian sects; German Monists; Persecution of unorthodox thought; Monistische Monatsheft; Die Stimme der Vernunft; Natur und Geist; Natural philosophy; German Faith Movement; Deutsche Glaubensbewegung; Positivism; Vienna Circle

A .pdf of the photocopy of the document can be read here: 
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/

As I noted before, this is a political issue, not an issue of science.  There is no positive correlation between evolution and the Third Reich — if anything, the correlation is negative.  Attempts to claim otherwise, in addition to being boorish, are incorrect.

Comment #28147

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on May 4, 2005 03:17 PM (e) (s)

Not to step on any toes, but the Gypsies (or Travellers, if you prefer) were also sytematically rounded up and exterminated by the Nazis, for pretty much the same reasons.  Although fewer Gypsies than Jews suffered at the Nazis’ hands, most of the authorities I’ve read agree that a far greater percentage of the total Gypsy population of Nazi-occupied Europe died than did the comparable Jewish population (I’ve read estimates that approach 75%, but the accuracy of such claims is tricky to ascertain given the nature of Traveller society).

Just an FYI, and certainly not an attempt to downplay the horrors of the Holocaust with regards to Jews or any other targeted group.

As for the Nazi-Christianity link, it seems to me that many of the ceremonies and trapping of the Nazi state religion are a pastiche of Christian and non-Christian traditions (with a strong dose of overly romaticized “paganism” (a term I’m using extremely losely here)).

As for the Nazis’ supposed use of Darwin as a justification for their atrocites, well…the technique seems more than a little similar to Dembski’s quotation of Ward about the Cambrian Explosion.  Duplicity in the service of one’s own version of “the higher good” is a depressingly common phenomenon among us humans.

Comment #28148

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)

“…but the Gypsies (or Travellers, if you prefer) were also sytematically rounded up and exterminated by the Nazis, for pretty much the same reasons.”

And these reasons are…?

Comment #28149

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

I.e. since German Jews were some of the most assimilated in Europe, it’s hard for me to understand what you mean by “the same reasons”.

Comment #28153

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on May 4, 2005 03:36 PM (e) (s)

They are a convenient scapegoat population that the majority of Germans (and, truth be told, Europeans in general) viewed negatively at the time; they are a non-Aryan enthic group; they attempt to keep their own traditions and culture separate from the one(s) in which they find themselves (ie: they are the Other); they wouldn’t conform to the State’s rules.

You know, the usual Nazi crap.

Comment #28154

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 4, 2005 03:38 PM (e) (s)

Just a brief quiz to lighten things up here.  Who uttered the following statement?

I affirm my faith when I’m asked about it, but I always try to do so in a way that communicates absolute respect not only for people who worship in a different way, but just as much respect for those who do not believe in God, who are atheists. Atheists have just as much of a right to the public discourse as people of any religious faith in this country. And I think we have got to really stand and, if necessary, fight for that principle.

Virtual six-pack to the winner.

Comment #28155

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on May 4, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

While it’s true that German Jews were some of the most assimilated in Europe, that doesn’t mean that the non-Jewish Germans felt that way.  Of course, Hitler elevated the ethnic tensions by conflating them with class tension (ie: the “rich Jew” stereotype), which found fertile ground in the economically depressed post-WWI non-minority German population.

Comment #28156

Posted by SteveF on May 4, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)

Was it Sean Hannity?

Comment #28158

Posted by David Heddle on May 4, 2005 03:52 PM (e) (s)

GWW,

That’d be Al Gore, when he took a break from inventing the internet. Make that Coors, I enjoy a nice reactionary brew.

Comment #28159

Posted by neo-anti-luddite on May 4, 2005 03:55 PM (e) (s)

David Heddle wrote:

That’d be Al Gore, when he took a break from inventing the internet.

Except, of course, that Al Gore never actually claimed that he invented the Internet.  Care to link to your source, David?

Comment #28160

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 4, 2005 04:01 PM (e) (s)

Make that Coors, I enjoy a nice reactionary brew.

Heh, it’s been a while but you cracked me up with that line.  Kudos!

The sixer is David’s.  Al Gore was (and is) the man.

Comment #28161

Posted by jeebus on May 4, 2005 04:02 PM (e) (s)

“Who uttered the following statement?”

George W. Bush?

(I actually have heard him make a few PC comments regarding atheism, so it’s worth a try…)

Comment #28163

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 04:04 PM (e) (s)

“they are a non-Aryan enthic group”

Then why did they stick those yellow stars on ‘em? 

“they attempt to keep their own traditions and culture separate from the one(s) in which they find themselves”

They do?  How conspiritorial!

“they wouldn’t conform to the State’s rules”

I don’t kno what this is supposed to mean.

“they are the Other”

Do we have a postmodernist? (Nothing to see here, move along, they are “the other”.)

Comment #28164

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 04:13 PM (e) (s)

Since we’re talking about the intellectual origins of Nazism, it is important to note that coordinated anti-gypsy programs didn’t start for some time after the Nazis took power.  Persecution of the gypsies was a (tragic) afterthought:

“For Nazi Germany the Gypsies became a racist  dilemma. The Gypsies were Aryans, but in the Nazi mind there were contradictions between what they regarded as the superiority of the  Aryan race and their image of the Gypsies…

“At a conference held in Berlin on January 30,  1940, a decision was taken to expel 30,000 Gypsies from Germany to  the territories of occupied Poland…

“The reports of the SS Einsatzgruppen  [special task forces] which operated in the occupied territories of  the Soviet Union mention the murder of thousands of Gypsies along  with the massive extermination of the Jews in these areas.

“The deportations and executions of the Gypsies  came under Himmler’s  authority. On December 16, 1942, Himmler issued an order to send all Gypsies to the concentration  camps, with a few exceptions…”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/gypsie…

Comment #28165

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 04:16 PM (e) (s)

And Heddle, judging by your CV it looks like you have some time on your hands.

Pity you chose not to answer any of my questions…

Happy Holocaust Rememberance Day to All and to All a Good Night!

Comment #28166

Posted by Nick (Matzke) on May 4, 2005 04:18 PM (e) (s)

The “The German Monists Organization” PDF mentioned above is apparently here, specifically:

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/show.asp…

…about halfway down.

Comment #28168

Posted by isidore on May 4, 2005 04:29 PM (e) (s)

But before I go:

“While it’s true that German Jews were some of the most assimilated in Europe, that doesn’t mean that the non-Jewish Germans felt that way. ”

Oh they felt this way.  In fact, that’s what make Jews so creepy to non-Jews.  I.e. one never knows who might be a Jew.  Th eironic thing is that, if all Jews just slapped on black hats and grew beards, nobody would give them much notice…

Comment #28169

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2005 04:36 PM (e) (s)

hahahhahaha.

heddley fell for that one hook, line, and sinker GWW!

I applaud your efforts.

should i spill the correct answer?

i’ll “disemvowel” it:

Cc Cnnlly

in The Washington Post, 12/18/99

tho in truth, it is a perfect example of “quote constructivism” if you will allow me to use the term.

if you don’t know what this is all about, I’m sure GWW will tell you soon enough.

BTW, COORS SUCKS!

I like Bass Ale or Guinness myself.

cheers

Comment #28171

Posted by hortensio on May 4, 2005 04:39 PM (e) (s)

Tiny, irrelevant, non-Holocaust-related comment to the original post:

I don’t know if Richards discussed Weikart’s book specifically — I bet he did, but there is no evidence on this at the moment…

He mentioned it as a sort of one-liner as he was introducing his theme toward the start of the lecture.  Rough [memory-tainted?] paraphrase:  “An example that doesn’t need any comment is a book that came out recently.  Its title was From Darwin to Hitler.”  As I recall, though, he didn’t <i>discuss</i> any specific books or authors who make this connection; he discussed the grounds on which such claims can be made and evaluated.

Comment #28172

Posted by caerbannog on May 4, 2005 04:42 PM (e) (s)

David Heddle wrote:

Make that Coors, I enjoy a nice reactionary brew….

(This probably should be posted over at the Bathroom Wall, but what the heck..)

Q:  Why is Coors like sex in a canoe?

A:  Because it’s f@#&ing close to water!

Comment #28173

Posted by Jim Harrison on May 4, 2005 04:43 PM (e) (s)

Like any other immense group, the Christians contain good men and bad, wise and foolish. I do think, however, that the active defense of the religion, like any other sustained attempt to play to the cheap seats, tends to harm the character of the apologist. The faith provides a blanket excuse to resort to any rhetorical method whatsoever, including, obviously, nonstop dishonesty. Well, you have to admit, if the end is ever going to justify the means, saving souls from eternal perditiion fits the bill.

Too bad the whole program is so childish.

Comment #28174

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2005 04:43 PM (e) (s)

Oh my, I just noticed GWW’s reponse “confirming” Hedley’s supposedly “correct” answer.

Please tell me you were just leading him on?  Your question was the perfect one to lure out folks that don’t pay attention to where quotes come from.

do you want to provide the correct link to show where the quote really came from, or should I?

Comment #28178

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 4, 2005 05:00 PM (e) (s)

Sir TJ — it was Al Gore who said the line about respecting atheist’s views as much as the views of religious people.  That’s what the contest was about.

Of course Al Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet.  Everyone who isn’t a sleep walking zombie knows that by now.

I assume Heddle was making a joke when he referenced the sad myth re the Internet — granted, a much less amusing one than his joke about Coors being a “reactionary brew,” but still a joke.

Only David can set us straight (frightening prospect, but there you go).

Comment #28180

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 4, 2005 05:12 PM (e) (s)

oh man, i thought you were referring to the fact that what Al said was so horribly quote mined by Ceci in the post article, which is documented on the Howler:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h121899_1.shtml…

I stand corrected then.

I have to ask then; what was the point of bringing that quote up to begin with?

Comment #28185

Posted by Anna on May 4, 2005 05:33 PM (e) (s)

Speaking as someone who was present at Richards’ lecture:

Haeckel was no more anti-semitic than anyone around him; in fact, in many respects he was far more tolentant of Jews than your average Fritz. He put Jews at the top of evolutionary tree right along with Europeans and advocated their assimilation through intermarriage. So any statement to the effect that Haeckel considered Jews biologically inferior and deserving only of extermination is plain ridiculous.

Comment #28188

Posted by mynym on May 4, 2005 05:39 PM (e) (s)

“…then I ask you to provide an alternative explanation as for: 1) Why the Jews were singled out by the German people?”

Because it was thought that they were a disease, a biological one by the biologizing biologists and the like.  For the Naturalists there is no metaphysical and so no metaphor.  When they say they think you are a sort of animal they mean their metaphors to be literalized.  It’s the opposite of Jesus who uses metaphors and means the metaphor as a form of communication of information that is not literalized. 

The memes and associative arguments involved remind me of the sort of thing that occasionally shows up on the blog of PZ Myers.  There was also what they called the “Jewish influence,” the “fairy tale of the Jews” and the “ethical code worship of the Jews.”  As to this Nazism you can change “Jewish influence” to “fundamentalist” and then read what American socialists and many evolutionists say about “fundamentalists” to get a sense of its ethos.  Sometimes you don’t have to read history, as it repeats. 

“What factors created the conditions for the implimentation of the Final Solution.”

The blonde beast…

On the original post,
“To quote Jon Stewart, “Whaaaaa?”  Weikart says that Haeckel-to-Hitler is bogus, but then writes a whole book devoted to From Darwin to Hitler?  Something doesn’t add up here.”

That’s written like someone who does not know how to trace memes.  Don’t you know that just because the memes have a common ancestor (Darwin) that does not mean that they must take the same paths (Darwin to Haeckel to Hitler) to their common source?

Haeckel and Hitler do have some of the same memes, as their memes were both descended from Darwin.  (And, of course, there were others before Darwin too.)  That does not necessarily mean that their ideas trace from one to another.  This is a bit of linking nuance that true or not does not have much to do with the fact that Darwin layed the foundation that Hitler built on.  Anyone even vaguely aware of the history knows that historical fact. 

I think that Weikart is wrong about that and it is a fairly unimportant bit of nuance besides.  But I thought I’d help with the “Whaaa?”  Odd, that evolutionists cannot seem to understand the principles involved in tracing the evolution of an idea, something that is quite mutable and capable of evolution.  But it does remind one of the weakness of half-wits’ scholarship that is worth reiterating, a “…weakness [that] is due not to inferior training but to the mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiate[s] all moral and spiritual values.”
(Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship
in Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
By Max Weinreich
(New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :7)

It would be little wonder that some cannot trace the evolution of ideas thanks to the missing half of their wit, as ideas have a spirit to them.  As such is the usual weakness of the half-wits.

Comment #28197

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 4, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)

Lenny asks an idiotic question that I have answered too many times, but here goes again: I think my opinions are correct, because if I didn’t, I’d change them (duh). I do not think they authoritative, but I do think thet are correct. You see the difference? Lenny doesn’t. Do you hold to any opinions that you think are wrong?

Nice evasion, Davey, but THAT WASN’T THE QUESTION.

The question is not whether YOU think your religious opininns are correct — the question is why ANYONE ELSE should.

Other than your say-so.

After all, *I* am perfectly willing to say right here in public that my religious opinions are just that, my opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow my religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them. My religious opinions are right for *me*. Whether they are right for *you*, I neither know nor care.

YOU, of course, cannot choke those words past your lips.  I suspect that is because you are a prideful, self-righteous and holier-than-thou prick who thinks, quite literally, that he knows more about god than any other mere mortal does.

As I am happy to remind you, Davey, you are just a man.  <shrug>

Comment #28198

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 4, 2005 06:05 PM (e)