Natural selection (evolutionism) => Eugenics => Nazi Germany

[rocketman]

I think the Theory of Evolution provides grounds to argue against eugenics. After all, eugenics would most likely reduce the genetic diversity of a species, and the Theory tells us how that could lead to the extinction of the species sans any daughter species.

I agree. Unfortunately, this is how Hitler saw it:

"The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all..."

"If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile..."

"By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency. The decrease in numbers therefore implies an increase of strength, as far as the individual is concerned, and this finally means the invigoration of the species."

"For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned."​

 

[painted wolf]

Hitler wasn't a scientist. He was a failed artist and a whack job. He also twisted Christianity to suit his goals. This doesn't invalidate Christianity or make Christianity a pre-requirement for Hitlers evil.

People took physics and used it to create the H-Bomb. There is no advance in technology/science that hasn't been twisted by someone into a tool of evil.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

I agree. Unfortunately, this is how Hitler saw it:

"The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all..."

"If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile..."

"By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency. The decrease in numbers therefore implies an increase of strength, as far as the individual is concerned, and this finally means the invigoration of the species."

"For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned."​

Very interesting. But, of course, it's logically irrelevant to my point.

 

[Father Heathen]

This thread is hilarious.

Personally, I find it sad.

 

[Sunstone]

Personally, I find it sad.

Oh come on now. This thread and the other thread Pete put up today on evolution are the most clownish threads the Forum has seen in a long time -- my joke threads included! How can you not love them!

 

[rocketman]

Very interesting. But, of course, it's logically irrelevant to my point.

It was merely a counterpoint for the purpose of showing how wrong Hitler was. Had they known what we now know about evolution (ie: what you said), it would have been harder for them to misuse the theory as justification.

 

[Sententia]

I see a very consistent pattern of intolerance towards people who believe in God. It's not a stretch of the imagination to accept this especially when no one has provided an ulterior motive for Stein.

Respectfully it was the faithful hanging and drowning the witches, killing the pagans and torturing the unbelievers. It was the blasphemers against god getting their tongues ripped out and the crusades were holy. The pilots of the planes on 9/11 did it because of their belief in their god.

But speak more on your consistent pattern of intolerance...

Regarding expelled: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/72188-expelled.html

 

[painted wolf]

It was merely a counterpoint for the purpose of showing how wrong Hitler was. Had they known what we now know about evolution (ie: what you said), it would have been harder for them to misuse the theory as justification.

Absolutely.
That is why I find the position that Expelled promotes so distasteful.
They are using the misuse of science to purposefully stoke rage against a science that is counter to evils it is said to promote.

Again, it would be like using Hiroshima to argue that we shouldn't teach quantum physics.

wa:do

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's hard to accuse you of having a closed mind when you come right out and admit it!

It's hard to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're interested in honest debate when you twist the meaning of my sentence by quoting only half of it.

Wait? Are you trying to re-write history here? Are you saying Hitler had no quest to establish the master race?

No, I'm saying that Hitler's ambitions had nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

I am not asking if he made sense, I am asking if he USED the science to justify committing an atrocity.

No, he didn't use the science. He may have used the word "evolution" (I'm not sure if he did), but that's not the same thing.

That is a non sequitur. Just look at their emblem.

Ah - an emblem. That changes everything. :sarcastic

I'll take that as your admission that you don't understand what evolution actually says.

Which is what I have pointed out for many wars that appear to be religious. But, whether they were right or not, makes no difference. Did they USE IT?

No, they didn't. Calling eugenics "evolution" doesn't make it evolution any more than calling a hot air balloon a submarine makes it a submarine.

 

[rocketman]

Absolutely.
That is why I find the position that Expelled promotes so distasteful.
They are using the misuse of science to purposefully stoke rage against a science that is counter to evils it is said to promote.

Again, it would be like using Hiroshima to argue that we shouldn't teach quantum physics.

wa:do

I didn't get that out of the film when I watched it. I checked it out again and about an hour and fifteen minutes in Stein says:

"I know that Darwinism does not automatically equate to Nazism. But if Darwinism inspired and justified such horrific events in the past, could it be used to rationalise similar initiatives today?"

But he never answers his own question. It is left hanging...

The point to me is clear: we must not allow it to happen again, and if we close ranks to outside ideas too much, then it possibly could.

 

[rocketman]

No, I'm saying that Hitler's ambitions had nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

No, he didn't use the science. He may have used the word "evolution" (I'm not sure if he did), but that's not the same thing.

Have you read the quotes in post #21, (or the rest of Mein Kampf)? He justified much of his ambition based on evolution as they understood it at the time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you read the quotes in post #21, (or the rest of Mein Kampf)? He justified much of his ambition based on evolution as they understood it at the time.

I haven't read Mein Kampf, and I didn't read post 21 before I responded to Pete's reply, but I'll address it now:

"The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all..."

This touches on the fallacy inherent in eugenics that I mentioned before: if there's any sort of "law" like this that "directs the process of evolution", then no special action is needed to follow it; it will happen regardless.

"If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile..."

There is no such thing as "higher" in evolutionary terms. There's only immediate adaptation to the local environment.

"By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency. The decrease in numbers therefore implies an increase of strength, as far as the individual is concerned, and this finally means the invigoration of the species."

This part's just factually wrong. In evolutionary terms, genetic diversity strengthens a species; it doesn't weaken it.

"For as soon as the procreative faculty is thwarted and the number of births diminished, the natural struggle for existence which allows only healthy and strong individuals to survive is replaced by a sheer craze to ‘save’ feeble and even diseased creatures at any cost. And thus the seeds are sown for a human progeny which will become more and more miserable from one generation to another, as long as Nature’s will is scorned."

This is the other part of the fallacy that I talked about: science does not create moral imperatives. "Nature's will" doesn't matter a hill of beans to what we must consider right or wrong. Even setting aside the factual errors in the ideas that Hitler put forward, saying that evolution demands eugenics is like saying that meterology demands we live without rooves.
​

 

[Sunstone]

Have you read the quotes in post #21, (or the rest of Mein Kampf)? He justified much of his ambition based on evolution as they understood it at the time.

By "they" you mean Hitler?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By "they" you mean Hitler?

I think it would be interesting to try and cross-reference Hitler's claims about evolution against, say, On the Origin of Species. I'd wager that there wouldn't be much correlation.

 

[Sunstone]

I think it would be interesting to try and cross-reference Hitler's claims about evolution against, say, On the Origin of Species. I'd wager that there wouldn't be much correlation.

Hitler could have easily gotten his ideas -- and probably did -- from the eugenics of the time, rather than from the science of the time. And it seems to me eugenics was rooted more in what was known of artificial breeding than in what was known of evolution.

 

[rocketman]

By "they" you mean Hitler?

The Nazis too. Some of the earliest roots of their 'Social Darwinism' can be traced back to Haeckel. In those days the 'survival of the fittest' aspect of the theory was of the most interest to the eugenics crowd, who were sure of their own judgement when it came to decide who was fit and who was not.The Nazis played on the popular idea common at the time that some peoples were 'proven' by Darwin's work to be inferior, and therefore should be treated differently. The original subtitle to Darwin's first book could have been better chosen ("The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". ) People soon began to read their own beliefs into Darwin's work. As Gould pointed out:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

...the horrible apex of which became the holocaust. But of-course there were other contributing factors. Evolution (even a poorly understood version of it) simply made them feel better about their pre-existing racism. Hitler's writings are full of these 'justifications'.

 

[painted wolf]

I didn't get that out of the film when I watched it. I checked it out again and about an hour and fifteen minutes in Stein says:

"I know that Darwinism does not automatically equate to Nazism. But if Darwinism inspired and justified such horrific events in the past, could it be used to rationalise similar initiatives today?"

But he never answers his own question. It is left hanging...

The point to me is clear: we must not allow it to happen again, and if we close ranks to outside ideas too much, then it possibly could.

And the implication is that expecting ID to prove itself based on scientific evidence, experimentation and sound theory is somehow "allowing it to happen again".

It implies that "godless evolution" is a danger to society and that the only cure is "godly Creation/Intelligent Design".

It isn't about closing ranks against outside ideas, it's about making sure that alternative scientific theories actually are scientific. ID/creationism has been trying to make an end run around the scientific method to get themselves accepted by popular vote.

Science doesn't work on popular vote.

wa:do

 

[Scuba Pete]

It implies that "godless evolution" is a danger to society and that the only cure is "godly Creation/Intelligent Design".

Which is JUST as heinous as forcing everyone to accept atheism as the State Religion... just like they did with the CCCP.

It isn't about closing ranks against outside ideas, it's about making sure that alternative scientific theories actually are scientific.

We will never know if research is crushed time and time again.

 

[Father Heathen]

Which is JUST as heinous as forcing everyone to accept atheism as the State Religion...

Who is doing this (answer: no one) and what does it have to do with evolution (answer: nothing).

 

[Scuba Pete]

Who is doing this (answer: no one) and what does it have to do with evolution (answer: nothing).

Don't disturb this man with facts, his mind is already made up! Let me know when you decide to open your eyes.