The debate was too short, but it seems to me Dr. Avalos clearly won his case, especially since Dr. Weikart admitted Hitler was a creationist in his closing statement. Most Christian theists accept evolutionary theory anyway, so just because Hitler talked of evolution doesn't mean much when compared to centuries of anti-Semitism. Weikart would also have to claim that Hitler's willing executioners were atheist evolutionists since they did his bidding willingly, and that’s extremely implausible given that Germany was the center of the Lutheran Protestant Reformation. It just seems more reasonable to suppose Hitler used evolutionary theory to support the racism he and many others had already accepted. And Dr. Avalos was convincing on that score even though Weikart seems to have researched into this more extensively than Avalos by publishing a book on the topic. It just goes to show you what the Christian blinders can do to someone when doing historical research, in my opinion. Even scholars can find what they're looking for if they try.
I'm in a situation where I can't listen to this right now, (I will as soon as I get the chance), but allow me to ask a question that has bugged me for awhile and I hope it doesn't deviate from the link in the post. If it does, just feel free not to post this and I'll ask again at a more appropriate time, I'm good with that.
My question is this: I understand the horrific deeds of Hitler, but I don't understand why so many Christians care if he was an atheist or not. In short, if he was an atheist, then he was an atheist that did horrific things. If he was a Christian, then he was a Christian who did horrific things. I fail to see how his religion or lack of belief has to do with current debates about the morality of modern atheists.
I have noticed that some Christians like to say that Hitler was fascinated with Darwin, therefore all atheists are immoral. I understand that it is an asinine statement, it's just like I said, I do not see what one thing has to do with the other. Maybe it's just a smear tactic against atheists and their isn't anything to understand beyond that.
There have been a lot of people in history that have done some absolutely unimaginable things against other human beings, but I've never cared what their religion or lack thereof was as it related to the religious choices of those around me now. Make sense?
Let me begin by agreeing with John on the outcome of the debate (Hitler directly cites Luther as an influence and never mentions Darwin). And let me compliment AR on his post (humanity is what it is; people who who normally do beneficial things sometimes do malevolent things and people who normally do malevolent things sometimes do good things and people who habitualy do malevolent things probably will continue...).
Having said that, Hector should have never debated the topic. It is a logical fallacy.
Let's say everything Weikart said is correct (obviously not based on the debate), would that prove evolution by natural selection incorrect?
NO!
That is called an argument from consequence. It is every bit as invalid as saying, "Since people who jump off of high buildings die from the impact, Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity are wrong."
What Avalos should have argued was this: "During the medieval period, Christians blamed, persecuted and killed Jews for causing the plague. Based on modern medical science, should we conclude that Christianity is wrong?"
There you go. End of the debate. We can all move on now.
Dr. Avalos obviously lost having skipped and dodged many points Weikart made. Weikart had his facts straight and fast. Avalos couldn't keep up at all. Virtually everything he brought up was knocked down by Weikart. The most laughable part was when Avalos thought that Hitler was a creationist just because he thought God instituted some natural law! Then that would mean people like Charles Darwin, Kenneth Miller, and John Haught are creationists, too. Talk about bad history! Hey Dr. Avalos, I'll be sure to let everybody know that you actually think Darwin was a creationist.
Psst -- Daddy Cool; It doesn't matter whether or not Darwin was a creationist, an evolutionist, or a Scientologist. His theory is what matters.
Anyway, I thought Dr. Weikart admitted Hitler was a creationist?
------------------
I must apologize here, though, for I tried to listen to the debate, but I couldn't. Not for any lack of technical know-how, or due to any network failure, or anything of the sort.
I just couldn't stand listening to Hector's voice any more.
Sorry.
I realize that's pretty shallow, but some people can't stand scratching on chalkboards and I, well, can't stand warbly voices. I am sure that Dr. Avalos' points were well-thought, and I would love to experience the debate via transcript, but I couldn't get through his opening statement before I had to stop it.
Sorry, Hector, no offense intended.
If anyone has access to the transcript, please post it here.
I will have a more detailed critique of Dr. Weikart’s claims in the near future. For now, let me respond to M. Tully’s comment.
He is correct in noting the logical fallacy involved in Weikart’s thesis. I and others have previously noted this fallacy.
But noting that fallacy still will not address two larger issues. One is purely historical, and involves the question of whether Darwinism was more important than Christian anti-Judaism in explaining the Holocaust. This argument has merit, even if it were not used to argue for or against evolution.
Second, Tully misses the larger context of the movie Expelled and the whole ID movement, which promotes the idea that belief in a creator would somehow prevent something like the Holocaust.
So it is important to show that: 1) the Holocaust was carried out by many people who were religious and believed in a creator; 2) one could develop, without and before Darwinism, a belief in the right to exterminate entire groups mostly on the basis of religious and biblical grounds, as has been amply demonstrated in my book, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence (2005) and in my essay "Creationists for Genocide": http://www.talkreason.org/articles/ Genocide.cfm
Until Dr. Avalos writes a more detailed critique of Dr. Weikart's views you should read chapter 12 of Avalos's book where he deals with the Nazi Holocaust. It is the best chapter in print dealing with this whole topic. He also effectively deals with Stalinism in the next chapter.
Whenever I speak somewhere I repeatedly get asked two questions by Christians. They ask about Hitler and they ask about Stalin. These questions are annoying for several reasons not the least of which because they want to blame atheism for their atrocities. I want to be done with such questions because they don't prove anything and because they are just plain wrongheaded.
agnostic rationalist - It seems like there are two different kinds of arguments that people make regarding Hitler and Darwinism. The first is the fallacious and goes something like - Hitler was bad and he thought Darwinism was true, so Darwinism is false. But the second is different and seems like a legitimate argument form - The principles of Darwinism justify Hitler's actions, but we know Hitlers actions are bad, therefore Darwinism is false. The truth of the premises is another matter, but the form seems to be a legitimate reductio.
Of course the Nazi's claimed support from both science and religion for their policies, however right- or wrongheadedly. And obviously the truth of evolutionary science doesn't hinge on whatever misuse of it the Nazi's promulgated. But as far as overt influence goes, I would say that Christian antisemitism, and expecially Martin Luther, were far stronger sources than Charles Darwin. Hitler mentions Luther several times in his writings- Darwin is not mentioned once (as far as I know). And whose books were burned in the Third Reich? Not Luther's. Among others:
"Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel). (Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279)
"Writings of a philosophical and social character, whose content is the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel)" (my translation)
cheers from rainy Vienna, which also had a certain influence on Hitler...
My question is this: I understand the horrific deeds of Hitler, but I don't understand why so many Christians care if he was an atheist or not. In short, if he was an atheist, then he was an atheist that did horrific things. If he was a Christian, then he was a Christian who did horrific things. I fail to see how his religion or lack of belief has to do with current debates about the morality of modern atheists.
While I don't always agree with Hitchens, he poses an excellent challenge.
Name one moral action or ideal held by a theist that could not be performed or held by an atheist. Name one evil action or idea which was said to be supported by God.
God's knowledge is said to transcend human knowledge. This is what supposedly gives him "authority" and "authorship" over human beings.
If Hitler was a Christian, this becomes one of he most devastating examples of how the idea that we can somehow "know the mind of God" is dangerous, unverifiable and can be used to control others.
Christianity wants to sweep under the rug as God must have sat idol while Hitler misled people about his real position on the killing of millions of Jews.
Christianity wants to sweep under the rug as God must have sat idol while Hitler misled people about his real position on the killing of millions of Jews.
I had never thought of it that way. One of the things I love about this blog is that I am always learning new information, finding different angles to look at old beliefs, and in general greatly enjoying the intellectual discourse between the authors and those who comment.
There is no doubt in my mind that you are correct in the larger context of the discussion (the title of my post, by the way was a teaser, not intended seriously). But still, it grinds at me that creationists are allowed to conflate the two issues and get away with it.
I can't believe a person with Weikart's background and intelligence doesn't know what he is doing when he makes fallacious arguments. And yet, it is still necessary to act like he is actually trying to put forth an honestly reasoned position.
Dr., I am sure the way you are handling the overall discussion is by magnitudes more effective than what I would do if I were in your place. That said, I feel being in a position where it is necessary to refrain from condemning, what I would consider to be, intentional intellectual dishonesty, somehow deeply offends my sense of justice.
1) Weikart did not make an argument against Darwinism from consequences. He made the argument that it had a greater influence on his racial ideology than those of Christian origins.
2) The idea that Hitler was a "creationist" is a lame conflation of several philosophical ideas that highly confuse the historical context the word usually denotes. If we accept the idea that there is a supernatural cause/ordering to natural law that means people like Kenneth R. Miller, Francis Collins, Anthony Flew, and Alister McGrath are "creationists"--something they each deny. Why do they deny it? Because creationism is connected to people who argued for scientific support of the Genesis Record. Avolos conflates theism with creationism and obfuscates the term severely.
3) Avolos did not deal with the idea of eugenics that was prevalent in early 20th century that lead to Nazi "racial hygiene" programs. One only needs to see the exhibit "Deadly Medicine" sponsored by the US Holocaust Museum to see the obvious connection between Darwin's ideas, Haeckel's racial profiling on the "tree of life", Mendel's hereditary ideas co-opted into human evolution, the rise of eugenics ("fitter family" contests), positive policy (marry well!), negative policy (forced sterilization, euthanasia, starving disabled children), and the "final solution." (An overview of the exhibit can be found here on my blog).
With these three things in mind, it is clear that Weikart made a better case. It is true that Avalos made good points with the connection of Luther's ideas. There is no doubt that his ideology was part of Hitler's motives. Nevertheless, Weikart conceded this.
A question for Avalos: Why was the page 9 quote from the Origin Species so important to your case? It was not clear to me why you spent so much time harping on that. I am not asking to make a point, but out of genuine curiosity. What relevance did it have that was so important?
It seems to me that this is an argument which cannot have a clear answer, for several reasons. One- there aren't that many Nazi's around to ask. My wife Barbara's uncle Herbert was an SS officer, and I had lots of arguments with him, but I never thought to ask him about the respective influences of Darwinism and Christianity. He mostly just went on and on about how the Jews controlled the world and ruined everything, real Protocols of the Elders of Zion stuff. The truly scary thing is that Herbert was a nice guy- that made me realize that Nazism and related mindsets are still a real danger, and not just something that only monsters succumb to.
In any case, it's problematic to assign weights to such complex and abstract things as ideologies influencing policies. Certainly, the Nazi's embraced what they saw as the endorsement of science for their racist mindset. But racism and antisemitism, especially as encouraged by Christians including Martin Luther, had led to pograms long before Darwin came on the scene.
It's already been pointed out that the truth of evolutionary theory has nothing to do with whatever the Nazi's did with it: it must stand or fall on the evidence, not on political applications of it. Even if something is "bad", that doesn't mean that it's not "true". That's what makes the movie Expelled so dishonest in this regard: Ben Stein is attempting to cast doubt on evolutionary theory because the Nazi's misused it. I haven't heard any fundamentalist Christians complain about this transparent ploy, however. It's blindingly obvious that using the natural world to justify policies is an example of the is-ought fallacy- Richard Dawkins, among others, has pointed out that patterning human societies along the lines of natural selection would be cruel and must be fought against.
I suppose I need not point out that Darwin never said anything about killing Jews? And while some of his followers, including Herbert Spencer and Haekel, were real pieces of work, that doesn't say anything about Darwin.
What, then, is meant by "Darwinism" as an influence on the Nazi's when it scarcely has anything to do with what Darwin said at all? Shall I call vegetarians Nazi's because Hitler was a vegetarian?
The fact remains, that whatever scientific support the Nazi's felt they found for their policies, Darwin's books were blacklisted, Hitler mentioned God and Martin Luther several times and Darwin never, and the belt buckles worn by the Wehrmacht said "Gott mit uns" and not "Darwin mit uns".
There's no proving that Christian antisemitism played more of a role than Darwinism in the Nazi's minds, but the evidence would seem in its favor: Christian antisemitism had been a pervading factor in Europe for many centuries before Darwin, and as Dr. Avalos points out here, extending the name "Darwinism" to cover the racist blatherings of Haekel et. al. is a severe distortion of Darwin's work.
Psst -- Daddy Cool- if you tried listening to reason, you'd know that evolution had a great deal to do with the Holocaust, as it has had a great deal to do with all that we do, because the Holocaust was perpetrated by humans, who are products of evolution. This doesn't tell us much about why the Holocaust happened, though.
The question here is whether the misguided application of evolutionary theory played a greater role in the Holocaust than centuries of Christian antisemitism did.
19 comments:
Have I recently said that Dr. Hector Avalos is one of my heroes? He did an excellent job!
The debate was too short, but it seems to me Dr. Avalos clearly won his case, especially since Dr. Weikart admitted Hitler was a creationist in his closing statement. Most Christian theists accept evolutionary theory anyway, so just because Hitler talked of evolution doesn't mean much when compared to centuries of anti-Semitism. Weikart would also have to claim that Hitler's willing executioners were atheist evolutionists since they did his bidding willingly, and that’s extremely implausible given that Germany was the center of the Lutheran Protestant Reformation. It just seems more reasonable to suppose Hitler used evolutionary theory to support the racism he and many others had already accepted. And Dr. Avalos was convincing on that score even though Weikart seems to have researched into this more extensively than Avalos by publishing a book on the topic. It just goes to show you what the Christian blinders can do to someone when doing historical research, in my opinion. Even scholars can find what they're looking for if they try.
I'm in a situation where I can't listen to this right now, (I will as soon as I get the chance), but allow me to ask a question that has bugged me for awhile and I hope it doesn't deviate from the link in the post. If it does, just feel free not to post this and I'll ask again at a more appropriate time, I'm good with that.
My question is this: I understand the horrific deeds of Hitler, but I don't understand why so many Christians care if he was an atheist or not. In short, if he was an atheist, then he was an atheist that did horrific things. If he was a Christian, then he was a Christian who did horrific things. I fail to see how his religion or lack of belief has to do with current debates about the morality of modern atheists.
I have noticed that some Christians like to say that Hitler was fascinated with Darwin, therefore all atheists are immoral. I understand that it is an asinine statement, it's just like I said, I do not see what one thing has to do with the other. Maybe it's just a smear tactic against atheists and their isn't anything to understand beyond that.
There have been a lot of people in history that have done some absolutely unimaginable things against other human beings, but I've never cared what their religion or lack thereof was as it related to the religious choices of those around me now. Make sense?
WHY AVALOS FAILS!
Let me begin by agreeing with John on the outcome of the debate (Hitler directly cites Luther as an influence and never mentions Darwin). And let me compliment AR on his post (humanity is what it is; people who who normally do beneficial things sometimes do malevolent things and people who normally do malevolent things sometimes do good things and people who habitualy do malevolent things probably will continue...).
Having said that, Hector should have never debated the topic. It is a logical fallacy.
Let's say everything Weikart said is correct (obviously not based on the debate), would that prove evolution by natural selection incorrect?
NO!
That is called an argument from consequence. It is every bit as invalid as saying, "Since people who jump off of high buildings die from the impact, Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity are wrong."
What Avalos should have argued was this: "During the medieval period, Christians blamed, persecuted and killed Jews for causing the plague. Based on modern medical science, should we conclude that Christianity is wrong?"
There you go. End of the debate. We can all move on now.
Dr. Avalos obviously lost having skipped and dodged many points Weikart made. Weikart had his facts straight and fast. Avalos couldn't keep up at all. Virtually everything he brought up was knocked down by Weikart. The most laughable part was when Avalos thought that Hitler was a creationist just because he thought God instituted some natural law! Then that would mean people like Charles Darwin, Kenneth Miller, and John Haught are creationists, too. Talk about bad history! Hey Dr. Avalos, I'll be sure to let everybody know that you actually think Darwin was a creationist.
Psst -- Daddy Cool; It doesn't matter whether or not Darwin was a creationist, an evolutionist, or a Scientologist. His theory is what matters.
Anyway, I thought Dr. Weikart admitted Hitler was a creationist?
------------------
I must apologize here, though, for I tried to listen to the debate, but I couldn't. Not for any lack of technical know-how, or due to any network failure, or anything of the sort.
I just couldn't stand listening to Hector's voice any more.
Sorry.
I realize that's pretty shallow, but some people can't stand scratching on chalkboards and I, well, can't stand warbly voices. I am sure that Dr. Avalos' points were well-thought, and I would love to experience the debate via transcript, but I couldn't get through his opening statement before I had to stop it.
Sorry, Hector, no offense intended.
If anyone has access to the transcript, please post it here.
--
Stan
I will have a more detailed critique of Dr. Weikart’s claims in the near future. For now, let me respond to M. Tully’s comment.
He is correct in noting the logical fallacy involved in Weikart’s thesis. I and others have previously noted this fallacy.
But noting that fallacy still will not address two larger issues. One is purely historical, and involves the question of whether Darwinism was more important than Christian anti-Judaism in explaining the Holocaust. This argument has merit, even if it were not used to argue for or against evolution.
Second, Tully misses the larger context of the
movie Expelled and the whole ID movement, which promotes the idea that belief in a creator would somehow prevent something like the Holocaust.
So it is important to show that: 1) the Holocaust was carried out by many people who were religious and believed in a creator; 2) one could develop, without and before Darwinism, a belief in the right to exterminate entire groups mostly on the basis of religious and biblical grounds, as has been amply demonstrated in my book, Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence (2005) and in my essay "Creationists for Genocide":
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/
Genocide.cfm
Dr. Hector Avalos
Until Dr. Avalos writes a more detailed critique of Dr. Weikart's views you should read chapter 12 of Avalos's book where he deals with the Nazi Holocaust. It is the best chapter in print dealing with this whole topic. He also effectively deals with Stalinism in the next chapter.
Whenever I speak somewhere I repeatedly get asked two questions by Christians. They ask about Hitler and they ask about Stalin. These questions are annoying for several reasons not the least of which because they want to blame atheism for their atrocities. I want to be done with such questions because they don't prove anything and because they are just plain wrongheaded.
agnostic rationalist - It seems like there are two different kinds of arguments that people make regarding Hitler and Darwinism. The first is the fallacious and goes something like - Hitler was bad and he thought Darwinism was true, so Darwinism is false. But the second is different and seems like a legitimate argument form - The principles of Darwinism justify Hitler's actions, but we know Hitlers actions are bad, therefore Darwinism is false. The truth of the premises is another matter, but the form seems to be a legitimate reductio.
Of course the Nazi's claimed support from both science and religion for their policies, however right- or wrongheadedly. And obviously the truth of evolutionary science doesn't hinge on whatever misuse of it the Nazi's promulgated. But as far as overt influence goes, I would say that Christian antisemitism, and expecially Martin Luther, were far stronger sources than Charles Darwin. Hitler mentions Luther several times in his writings- Darwin is not mentioned once (as far as I know). And whose books were burned in the Third Reich? Not Luther's. Among others:
"Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel). (Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279)
"Writings of a philosophical and social character, whose content is the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel)" (my translation)
cheers from rainy Vienna, which also had a certain influence on Hitler...
zilch,
welcome back! I missed you!
My question is this: I understand the horrific deeds of Hitler, but I don't understand why so many Christians care if he was an atheist or not. In short, if he was an atheist, then he was an atheist that did horrific things. If he was a Christian, then he was a Christian who did horrific things. I fail to see how his religion or lack of belief has to do with current debates about the morality of modern atheists.
While I don't always agree with Hitchens, he poses an excellent challenge.
Name one moral action or ideal held by a theist that could not be performed or held by an atheist. Name one evil action or idea which was said to be supported by God.
God's knowledge is said to transcend human knowledge. This is what supposedly gives him "authority" and "authorship" over human beings.
If Hitler was a Christian, this becomes one of he most devastating examples of how the idea that we can somehow "know the mind of God" is dangerous, unverifiable and can be used to control others.
Christianity wants to sweep under the rug as God must have sat idol while Hitler misled people about his real position on the killing of millions of Jews.
Thanks, Lee. I missed you too. I hope to get around to reading more here in the weeks to come, now that I've got a bit of leisure time.
Thank you Scott and Brandon.
Scott said :
Christianity wants to sweep under the rug as God must have sat idol while Hitler misled people about his real position on the killing of millions of Jews.
I had never thought of it that way. One of the things I love about this blog is that I am always learning new information, finding different angles to look at old beliefs, and in general greatly enjoying the intellectual discourse between the authors and those who comment.
Thanks again!
Dr. Avalos,
There is no doubt in my mind that you are correct in the larger context of the discussion (the title of my post, by the way was a teaser, not intended seriously). But still, it grinds at me that creationists are allowed to conflate the two issues and get away with it.
I can't believe a person with Weikart's background and intelligence doesn't know what he is doing when he makes fallacious arguments. And yet, it is still necessary to act like he is actually trying to put forth an honestly reasoned position.
Dr., I am sure the way you are handling the overall discussion is by magnitudes more effective than what I would do if I were in your place. That said, I feel being in a position where it is necessary to refrain from condemning, what I would consider to be, intentional intellectual dishonesty, somehow deeply offends my sense of justice.
Thank goodness you have more patience than I do.
A few things after listening to the debate:
1) Weikart did not make an argument against Darwinism from consequences. He made the argument that it had a greater influence on his racial ideology than those of Christian origins.
2) The idea that Hitler was a "creationist" is a lame conflation of several philosophical ideas that highly confuse the historical context the word usually denotes. If we accept the idea that there is a supernatural cause/ordering to natural law that means people like Kenneth R. Miller, Francis Collins, Anthony Flew, and Alister McGrath are "creationists"--something they each deny. Why do they deny it? Because creationism is connected to people who argued for scientific support of the Genesis Record. Avolos conflates theism with creationism and obfuscates the term severely.
3) Avolos did not deal with the idea of eugenics that was prevalent in early 20th century that lead to Nazi "racial hygiene" programs. One only needs to see the exhibit "Deadly Medicine" sponsored by the US Holocaust Museum to see the obvious connection between Darwin's ideas, Haeckel's racial profiling on the "tree of life", Mendel's hereditary ideas co-opted into human evolution, the rise of eugenics ("fitter family" contests), positive policy (marry well!), negative policy (forced sterilization, euthanasia, starving disabled children), and the "final solution." (An overview of the exhibit can be found here on my blog).
With these three things in mind, it is clear that Weikart made a better case. It is true that Avalos made good points with the connection of Luther's ideas. There is no doubt that his ideology was part of Hitler's motives. Nevertheless, Weikart conceded this.
A question for Avalos: Why was the page 9 quote from the Origin Species so important to your case? It was not clear to me why you spent so much time harping on that. I am not asking to make a point, but out of genuine curiosity. What relevance did it have that was so important?
It seems to me that this is an argument which cannot have a clear answer, for several reasons. One- there aren't that many Nazi's around to ask. My wife Barbara's uncle Herbert was an SS officer, and I had lots of arguments with him, but I never thought to ask him about the respective influences of Darwinism and Christianity. He mostly just went on and on about how the Jews controlled the world and ruined everything, real Protocols of the Elders of Zion stuff. The truly scary thing is that Herbert was a nice guy- that made me realize that Nazism and related mindsets are still a real danger, and not just something that only monsters succumb to.
In any case, it's problematic to assign weights to such complex and abstract things as ideologies influencing policies. Certainly, the Nazi's embraced what they saw as the endorsement of science for their racist mindset. But racism and antisemitism, especially as encouraged by Christians including Martin Luther, had led to pograms long before Darwin came on the scene.
It's already been pointed out that the truth of evolutionary theory has nothing to do with whatever the Nazi's did with it: it must stand or fall on the evidence, not on political applications of it. Even if something is "bad", that doesn't mean that it's not "true". That's what makes the movie Expelled so dishonest in this regard: Ben Stein is attempting to cast doubt on evolutionary theory because the Nazi's misused it. I haven't heard any fundamentalist Christians complain about this transparent ploy, however. It's blindingly obvious that using the natural world to justify policies is an example of the is-ought fallacy- Richard Dawkins, among others, has pointed out that patterning human societies along the lines of natural selection would be cruel and must be fought against.
I suppose I need not point out that Darwin never said anything about killing Jews? And while some of his followers, including Herbert Spencer and Haekel, were real pieces of work, that doesn't say anything about Darwin.
What, then, is meant by "Darwinism" as an influence on the Nazi's when it scarcely has anything to do with what Darwin said at all? Shall I call vegetarians Nazi's because Hitler was a vegetarian?
The fact remains, that whatever scientific support the Nazi's felt they found for their policies, Darwin's books were blacklisted, Hitler mentioned God and Martin Luther several times and Darwin never, and the belt buckles worn by the Wehrmacht said "Gott mit uns" and not "Darwin mit uns".
There's no proving that Christian antisemitism played more of a role than Darwinism in the Nazi's minds, but the evidence would seem in its favor: Christian antisemitism had been a pervading factor in Europe for many centuries before Darwin, and as Dr. Avalos points out here, extending the name "Darwinism" to cover the racist blatherings of Haekel et. al. is a severe distortion of Darwin's work.
Stan,
Psst -- Daddy Cool; It doesn't matter whether or not Darwin was a creationist, an evolutionist, or a Scientologist. His theory is what matters.
Psst -- Stan; if you tried listening to the debate you'd know it was about whether Evolution had anything to do with the Nazi Holocaust.
Daddy
Psst -- Daddy Cool- if you tried listening to reason, you'd know that evolution had a great deal to do with the Holocaust, as it has had a great deal to do with all that we do, because the Holocaust was perpetrated by humans, who are products of evolution. This doesn't tell us much about why the Holocaust happened, though.
The question here is whether the misguided application of evolutionary theory played a greater role in the Holocaust than centuries of Christian antisemitism did.
Post a Comment