MovieChat Forums > Creation (2009) Discussion > From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethi...

From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germ

posted 11 years ago by novimovieman
10 replies | jump to latest

"The most difficult thing to hear is that which you do not believe."
-Quote from movie "Prince of Darkness"

Release date: February 16, 2006
From Darwin to Hitler elucidates the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality throughout history. This book is a provocative yet balanced work that addresses a wide range of topics, from the value of human life to sexual mortality, to racial extermination.
An interesting book that evolutionists are sure to hate. But does that make it wrong? Perhaps Darwinism spawned more negative than positive effects. After all has an evolutionist actually contributed anything valuable to society? If we didn't know where we came from (actually even Professor Dawkins admits we don't know how the whole thing started) would it impact anyone's life? Evolution science may very well be less important than religion. I don't consider genetics and evolution science the same thing. Genetics does not have to get involved in descendent issues to exist.
You might also like to read "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions" by David Berlinksi. While not specifically on evolution, Berlinski, an atheist, dismantles Dawkins anti-religion positions fearing the Dawkins and others are positioning science as the new religion by involving itself with replacing philosophy with science.
The again there is "The Lie Evolution" by Ken Ham.

Of course I don't believe you non believers will actually read the above books.
Heaven forbid you should expand your horizons. I spent over 30 years as an ultra liberal atheist and now after much research have spent the last few decades doing a 180 degree turn.

Try it, you might like it.

As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

[–] greg-233 11 years ago

"Evolution science may very well be less important than religion."

You have to admit, evolution science gives a better explanation for diseases (and how we can cure them) than religion does. If someone ever finds a cure for AIDS, I've got a feeling it's going to be a scientist who knows a thing or two about evolution.

Why do people think Hitler killing the Jews had anything to do with Darwin? People have been killing Jews all through history, long before Darwin was around.

In late 2009 I made another thread on this board called "A list of tired old arguments that get trotted out again and again". I included the common misconception about "Hitler being a Darwinist". (He wasn't.)

[–] youngsmells 11 years ago

Hitler, like Stalin, was against modern ideas of evolution/ Darwinian ideas of natural selection while still promoting the concept that some people evolved on a micro evolutionary level; so to compare him to Darwin would be the same as comparing a today's creationist to Darwin.

[–] greg-233 11 years ago

"so to compare [Hitler] to Darwin would be the same as comparing a today's creationist to Darwin."

Hitler has more in common with Kent Hovind. They both had gullible followers. And they were both tax evaders.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] greg-233 11 years ago

I'm sure the OP was only trolling. He hasn't been back on this board since February 15.

[–] tieman64 9 years ago

"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Hitler

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Hitler

Creationists love to bash evolution by alligning Darwin with Hitler. That's what the original poster is doing. In reality, the Catholic Church was a bigger influence on Fascism than Darwin ever was. All the fascist regimes in Europe were founded with an alliance with the Vatican, which was long racist, anti-communist and anti-semitic, and genocidally so in some cases. Hitler himself disagreed with Darwin, and didn't really need Darwin to "justify" eugenics and racism. Creepy racial thinkers were a dime a dozen in those days, and they were all being synthesized and enfolded into Nazi thought. And even if they didn't exist, some other pretext would be found to kill.

[–] graham-167 9 years ago

The only question of any real relevance is "Is the theory of evolution true or not?"

What morality people might have drawn from it, wrongly or rightly, really has nothing to do with whether it's true or not, yes?

And why would anybody draw moral lessons from evolution at all? Evolution is an "is", not an "ought to".

--
Christianity : A god who loves you so much that he'll set fire to you if you don't love him back

[–] Navaros 9 years ago

Evolutionary Ethics

Funniest oxymoron I've seen all year, thanks for the laugh! Cheers! 

"Science creates fictions to explain facts" - Gilman

[–] vmelkon 8 years ago

Evolutionary ethics might mean how ethics changes over time.

Evolution just means change. This is from Webster
evolution = a process of change in a certain direction

Societies morals have evolved as well. Example: In the past, polygamy was ok in a lot of cultures but the practice has mostly been abandoned. It has been abandoned by the jews. It popped back with the rise of mormonism. It still exists in islamic countries.

Mistreating homosexual, bisexuals and transgenders was ok before but quickly changed in the 1980s (USA, Canada and such countries).
Pornography and pregnancy and sex was something always hidden before but it slowly changed since the 1960s.

So the word evolution isn't necessarily tied to the evolution theory of biology.

[–] Simon-140 8 years ago

It's true that evolution can create a semi-scientific basis for eugenics , an idea that was seized by the British and American Eugenics Societies (1907 and 1921 respectively), J.H. Kellogg, the breakfast cereal maker, poured vast sums into the American Eugenics Society, as did the Rockefeller Foundation.

Oddly, the German Eugenics movement was influenced mainly by the well-funded American Eugenics Society. The Rockefeller Foundation funded many of Dr. Mengeles experiments, before he moved to Auschwitz.

Many exponents of eugenics travelled from the U.S. to Germany to lobby for their cause. In fact, U.S. eugenicists were proud of the role that they played in the getting the "Nuremberg racial hygiene laws" (1935) passed by Hitler's "Third Reich."

In short, the Nazi's enthusiasm for eugenics was a consequence of Hitler's own anti-semitic hatred, fuelled by wealthy U.S. pro-eugenics industrialists and the American Eugenics Movement. (The involvement of the former isn't surprising, given the huge popularity of the Herbert Spencer's social-Darwinist writings in the U.S. Naturally, social-Darwinism has almost nothing to do with Darwinism: at best it's a crude analogy.)

After all has an evolutionist actually contributed anything valuable to society? ... Evolution science may very well be less important than religion. I don't consider genetics and evolution science the same thing. Genetics does not have to get involved in descendent issues to exist.

Darwinism has evolved into the neo-Darwinian Synthesis, which combines Darwinian Evolution, the mechanism of evolution via DNA and genetics, population genetics, and related subjects.

The fact that you "don't consider genetics and evolution science the same thing" is irrelevant: almost all scientists regard them both as part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, so it's up to you to show that the two are somehow different.

Obviously, it's in your interest to hive genetics off from the neo-Darwinian synthesis, as genetic therapies for an increasing number of diseases are being discovered (or engineered) with every passing year.

Even plain old Darwinism is used to treat many diseases.

____
"If you ain't a marine then you ain't *beep*