Adolph Darwin and his admirer Charles Hitler!

Interesting and mischievous essay by Richard Weikart in the American 'Speccie' offering a variety of ways in which Darwin's theory of natural selection was seized upon by the Nazis to bolster their philosophy.  I don't think anyone could argue against the proposition that Hitler thought in terms of social and political 'Darwinism'.  Every biography of him quotes at length his views on "survival of the fittest", even if he completely misconstrued the meaning of that much misunderstood phrase.  Weikart is careful to make clear that Nazi-ism did not derive its ideology from Darwinism, only that it used it as a prop to support its world view.

It is only necessary to linger for a short moment on the notions held dear by Darwinists to see how useful they might be to people of a Hitlerian bent. They deny absolutely the existence of any spiritual element in humanity, and insist that we, humankind, hold no special place in the universe, or indeed, any special place on this globe; we are, to put it bluntly, just another type of animal.  You can see instantly that anyone with psychopathic tendencies would seize on that as an excuse for mass-murder.  Of course, Darwinists will protest, accurately, that there was plenty of mass-murder going on during the 2000 centuries of Judeo-Christianity.  Indeed there was, but the huge difference was that it was considered a sin, an immorality, a crime, and the perpetrator was required to offer an explanation or an excuse for such vileness.  But in the 20th century, such mea culpas are less and less required.  Demand of some dictator why he slaughtered millions of people and he would snort a reply to the effect that they weren't people, they were Jews, or bourgeoisie, no better, no different, than animals - and today he has a rational, scientific theory to back up his murderous actions.

This reduction of the human to the merely animal has social as well as political implications.  The Judeo-Christian view that human life is special, indeed, sacred, is sapped to its very core by Darwinism.  If we humans are only just another breed of animal, well, we put animals down, don't we? So, if you wonder at the cause of the increasing strength of the abortion and euthanasia movement, look no further than Darwin and his pernicious theory.  Similarly, if we humans are simply the product of chance mutation that has passed the strictures of a potentially life-threatening habitat, then there can be no such thing as morality.  This was recognised by the absurd Richard Dawkins who actually admitted that morality did not exist, indeed, could not exist, in a Darwinian world and therefore we should all set about teaching ourselves morality because it was, er, actually rather 'A Good Thing'!

I enjoyed Weikart's essay and I confess that part of my pleasure emanated from my hope and expectation that Dawkins would have a fit if he ever read it.

Comments

[Larry Teabag]

Ha-ha-ha, ha-ha-ha, ha-ha-ha!

[Cue David: "And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen,..."]

[Tatyana]

Er, David, I see no tie between "we humans are simply the product of chance mutation" and "there can be no such thing as morality". Morality is as much a useful trait as ability to hold a fork. It's needed for survival - as you said, during 2000 (as a Jew, I'd politely correct you - 6000) years of humanity's conscious existence only morality was holding us from annihilating each other in constant wars.
What if you assume that morality is a positive mutation? And belief in spiritual planes is a negative one, needed only for times when people are vulnerable and weak - for childhood period of human growth?

This is what I do, and I find my system very plausible.

[David Duff]

Hmmmn! 'Lunched not wisely but too well', Larry?

Tatyana, Darwin,and his followers, insist that all life forms, including Man, come about following chance mutations which are then tested in a harsh, real world which will kill off those unfitted to survive allowing those that are fitted to prevailing conditions to live longer and breed more often. Thus all creatures are 'programmed' to seek and take maximum advantage. (Indeed, Dawkins would have us believe that we are all totally controlled robots going about our business at the behest of little globules of protein inside us which he actually calls our "selfish genes". I know, I know, but there are people out there who believe that baloney whilst simultaneously sneering at people who go to church!)

According to Darwin and his disciples there is no escape from this unremitting struggle for existence. In such a world, where is the advantage in holding life as sacred and struggling to preserve it? After all, saving people means less resources for you, and demands that you spend valuable resources of your own. Truth-telling and promise-keeping puts you at a disadvantage against liars and cheats. In the rest of the animal world, even those that co-operate, it is almost unheard of for an animal to lose its life in an attempt to save the life of another, other than very occasionally for a parent in protection of an off-spring. Given this relentless and remorseless struggle for life where-in lies the utility of morality? And from what source has it been derived?

[Tatyana]

You don't see the point because you think in terms of survival of an individual. And the point is - survival of the species.

[David Duff]

But, Tatyana, you must understand that I do *not* accept Darwinism! I think it is an excellent explanation for variations *within* species, but it fails to convince me that natural selection together with tiny, incremental changes lead to entirely new species.

Also, the Darwinists themselves have split three ways; some believe that natural selection takes place at the level of species, some that it takes place at the level of individual organisms, whilst others, like Dawkins, believe that it takes place at the genetic level, that is, the blind struggle of genes to propogate. That is just one of the reasons why it is so difficult to debate with Darwinists.

Finally, no Darwinist has ever explained to my satisfaction why a stranger will dash into a burning building to rescue another person. Altruism is a constant feature of human life but it does not occur in the other animals, and yet, according to the Darwinists, we are *all*, with no exceptions, totally subject to the inexorable demands of survival of the fittest just as we are all subject to gravity. And altruism is simply the positive, pro-active side of morality.

So the question remains, why and how in a Darwinian world has morality arisen?

[Larry Teabag]

...and don't forget to tune in next week, when David blames Isaac Newton for the Defenestrations of Prague.

[Tatyana]

Larry, which of the horrible fates fallen on Prague you alluded to in your cryptic message, #1 or #2?

[Larry Teabag]

#1 please, Tatyana. (The one in which psychopaths murder people using 'gravity', and are provided with intellectual justification for their crimes by the pernicious dogmatism of fanatical Newtonists.)

[Tatyana]

oh, that. sounds fascinating - much more promising than rants dripping from academic nutcases @crooked timber.

I can't wait.

[Tatyana]

DD, here's a post (with about 50 comments!) on related subject.
I'm sure you can guess whose side of the argument I align with.

[David Duff]

Thanks, Tatyana. I read most of it, and the links, and about half of the comments. I tend to agree with the commenter (and I paraphrase him) who reminded us that it is not science (or religion, or politics) that murders people - it's people who do that, using any justification that comes easily to hand.