…and this is a 
I cannot stand the Huffington Post, that bastion of Newage folly. I really despise the Intelligent Design creationists. So when Huffpo gives space to creationist cretins, I'm done with them. Even worse, it's an idiot creationist parroting the same old story, that Hitler was Darwin's fault. I'll mention just one paragraph of this dishonest bunk.
Hitler's ideas, Dr. Berlinski carefully notes, "came from many different sources but no honest account will omit Darwin." A reading of Mein Kampf makes that clear. Certainly, Berlinski says, the men who formulated Nazi ideology "weren't reading the Gospels."
Here you go, a link to Mein Kampf on Project Gutenberg. Go to town. Search for Darwin — nothing. Or evolution — that is there, but only used in the sense of "higher" and "lower" organisms, and some bizarre notion that nature abhors crossbreeding. God is all over the book, as is Christianity, even if we do grant that Hitler is pushing an idiosyncratic version of that cult.
If you really want to find the roots of Nazism, look to Houston Stewart Chamberlain, author of the "gospel of the Nazi movement", who hated Darwinism. No honest account will omit Chamberlain…but then, the Discovery Institute writes no honest account.
Comments
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 5, 2010 8:46 PM
Berlinski!!!
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
July 5, 2010 8:48 PM
Hitler had more to do with occultic woo than darwinism
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 5, 2010 8:53 PM
One of the oldest debating tactics in the book... assert something as fact and then blithely make the claim "no honest person will deny this" or "no honest account would omit this"...
Posted by: James F
|
July 5, 2010 8:53 PM
PZ,
That quotation is exactly what jumped out at me, too. The DI really depends on people not making pesky internet searches.
Posted by: Brian
|
July 5, 2010 8:54 PM
Berlinski, you flaming nutbag.
Posted by: Westcoaster
|
July 5, 2010 8:54 PM
1. Hitler did not base anything on Darwinism.
2. Even if he did, that would provide no support to Creationism, nor would it argue against Evolution.
3. Berlinski is a dick.
That is all.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
July 5, 2010 8:55 PM
Even if the theory of evolution was Hitler's prime motivating force this would in no way alter the veracity of the theory.
So not only are they making shit up, they're not even making shit up that helps their arguement.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
July 5, 2010 8:59 PM
Maybe not, but they were certainly reading Martin Luther as well as the pronouncements of various popes. Christian clergy had been proposing burning synagogues and killing Jews for centuries before Darwin was born.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 5, 2010 8:59 PM
OH! Don't get me started on Huffpo. They bamboozled all the atheists there by starting a new series on religion and science that has been completely dominated by religious screwballs with trigger fingers on the pearl clutching panic button. This, though, ugh. Time to permanently divorce myself from that publication.
Posted by: woozy
|
July 5, 2010 9:04 PM
My favorite quote:
Hitler did nothing more than translate the competition of species into obsessively racial terms.
Kinda speaks for itself...
Posted by: MS
|
July 5, 2010 9:09 PM
Very sad. Huffpo is on the right side of many--maybe most--political issues, but I just can't read it anymore. Too much crap like this, and it takes way too much time to separate the wheat from the chaff.
At least the vast majority of the comments there are solidly against the article.
Posted by: M31
|
July 5, 2010 9:13 PM
So that's why Hitler banned Darwin's writings!
From a list of things to be banned, 1935, cited here:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism"
And some other dangerous ideas:
"Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes"
Posted by: anthrosciguy
|
July 5, 2010 9:14 PM
And why exactly did the Nazis ban Darwin's works?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 5, 2010 9:18 PM
Even if Hitler were influenced by Darwin, so what? Hitler believed 2+2=4. Should arithmetic be abolished because of the Hitlerian connection? The argumentum ad consequentum is still a logical fallacy.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/LcOD7OoCwZ855g050nrNjh3i5FSZ24WgbYI-#67c03
|
July 5, 2010 9:22 PM
Looking through the text of Mein Kampf, which I had never bothered to read, you can find references to some evolutionary ideas which are all pretty bizarre. But, I suspect this is what might induce some to consider Hitler an evolutionist:
“the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a
fundamental law--one may call it an iron law of Nature--which compels
the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own
life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind. Each animal
mates only with one of its own species.
Every crossing between
two breeds … it must eventually succumb in any struggle
against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the will of Nature
towards the selective improvements of life in general. … if
such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher
development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.
The
struggle for the daily livelihood leaves behind in the ruck everything
that is weak or diseased or wavering; while the fight of the male to
possess the female gives to the strongest the right, or at least, the
possibility to propagate its kind. And this struggle is a means of
furthering the health and powers of resistance in the species.
Nature supplies this by establishing rigorous conditions of life to which the weaker
will have to submit and will thereby be numerically restricted;
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.
The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will
of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged.
And the point of all this is, as they say, history.
Here we meet the insolent objection, which is Jewish in its inspiration
and is typical of the modern pacifist. It says: "Man can control even
Nature." "
What confusion!
Posted by: tresmal
|
July 5, 2010 9:23 PM
The good news is that the commenters there do a good job of tearing Klinghoffer a new one.
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 5, 2010 9:25 PM
"Christian clergy had been proposing burning synagogues and killing Jews for centuries before Darwin was born."
And getting away with it.
Posted by: raven
|
July 5, 2010 9:26 PM
The roots of the Holocaust lie deep in German xianity. Martin Luther wrote a virulent anti-Jewish book complete with a Final Solution. The Nazis just carried it out a few centuries later.
Hitler's ideas, Dr. Berlinski carefully notes, "came from many different sources but no honest account will omit Darwin."
No honest account will omit German xianity or the NT bible, which is also filled with anti-Jewish sentiments. God or jesus is mentioned 33 times in Mein Kampf. Darwin isn't mentioned at all. Hitler was a Catholic and also a creationist.
Berlinkski would't know honesty if it crawled down his throut.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
July 5, 2010 9:26 PM
But Berlinski says he's an atheist. Of course I believe him. Why would he lie? It's not like he's ever lied bef... oh, never mind.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
July 5, 2010 9:30 PM
"This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed."
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chap. 11
Species are immutable, according to Hitler. Can you possibly get closer than this to Darwinian "descent with modification"?
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered in Berlin, October 24, 1933; from Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 378.
My hunch: those who parrot this line of slander have read neither the Origin of Species nor Mein Kampf.
Posted by: raven
|
July 5, 2010 9:35 PM
The Gospel of John has a lot of antisemitism in it. Xians have been using the bible for 2 millennia to justify persecuting the Jews.
Any honest account of the Holocaust would notice that it was German Catholics and Lutherans pushing Jews into the gas chambers.
Berlinski gets some of his money from Xian Dominionists of the Dishonesty Institute. You won't hear this from him.
Posted by: johnnycannuk
|
July 5, 2010 9:36 PM
The Scientology ad at the bottom of the comments section was a nice touch...Huffpo is pandering to all the wingnuts...
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 5, 2010 9:37 PM
That lying a-hole Klinghoffer has had everything explained to him exhaustively, he's given no honest response or even a pretense at having listened to anyone who tells the truth, and he just tells the same worthless lies once more at HuffPo.
That place is the worst cesspool this side of world-nut daily.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 5, 2010 9:40 PM
Lies: they're one of the two things religions depend on. Sadly, the other thing it depends on is people who will believe the lies no matter how illogical and/or demonstrably untrue they are.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
July 5, 2010 9:45 PM
If there was a shred of honesty in these Discoturds, they would be damning a whole different set of scientists. Koch and Pasteur were the great figures in the promulgation of the germ theory of disease and the theoretical underpinning of the search for antibiotics. Hitler referred to Jews as vermin or an infection among the volk. Quarantine and eventual murder was the solution. Quarantine was advocated as early as pre-Mosaic times and codified in Leviticus. And the wholesale slaughter of people - hardly invented in the 20th century. The First Crusade wiped out Jerusalem, Ghengis Khan wiped out Baghdad and a whole lot more. And think of the Jebusites!
Posted by: ebruns
|
July 5, 2010 9:47 PM
Wait, wait, wait. He is basing this on a CABLE TV documentary. It must be true.
You evilutionists spend too much time listening to "scientists" and "historians." Sure, people have killed in the name of religion since the beginning of time, but that is not important. Hitler (and now pol pot and Stalin) did bad things because of Darwin. If you doubt that, you should really watch more FamilyNet TV. Home of quality family entertainment like Judy Byrd's Kitchen (add spunk to your menu), The Wacky World of Bruce Barry and What has Darwin Wrought? (hosted by the freakishly tall, slightly germaphobic host of Wretched, Todd Friel)?
Seriously, it must be true. I mean, FamilyNet is watched by like 15 BIGILLION people.
Posted by: raven
|
July 5, 2010 9:52 PM
The Jews themselves don't buy the Darwin killed the Jews lies of Berlinski and the xian Domionists.
Research using or in evolutionary biology is done at Israeli universities. They even have their own journal.
Posted by: Zeno
|
July 5, 2010 9:57 PM
Anyone who quotes Berlinski as an authority on anything other than supercilious pseudo-intellectual posturing can be automatically dismissed from serious consideration.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
July 5, 2010 10:10 PM
Ariana, I dipped in your blog,
And now I’m a woo-slimed Smog.
It stinks of bad science and lies!
How can you abide all the flies?
The Discoverup Institute knows,
That distortion inexorably grows.
So they trot out articulate blimps,
Who perform like lobotomised chimps:
“There’s a line of descent from the Beagle,
To the wrong-facing Teutonic eagle,
For the Parteiadler’s really a finch,
And one can’t give real science an inch.”
But, Dear Ari, you don’t seem to care,
That Klinghoffer speaks out of his rear,
And Berlinski’s a mindless buffoon,
And John West’s a fish-canning poltroon,
And, not least, there’s poor Richard Weikart,
Whose brain is his tiniest part,
And collectively, these men of doG,
Are fucking up bits of your blog.
You see, there’s no true intersection,
Between Nazi- and Natural- selection,
And nor, I would say, in explication,
Between extermination and random mutation.
Just as God and Adolf enjoyed killing,
So Nazis and Christians were thrilling,
To pogroms, and torture and death,
All crying, ‘We’re right!’ with one breath.
So if we’re all gonna parcel out blame,
Then I think I am winning the game,
As a symbol of influence malign,
The cross is the ultimate sign.
'Cos it wasn’t in Darwinism’s name
That the church sent poor souls to the flame.
And it won’t be bronze-age superstition,
That enables our moral progression.
Now put up or shut up, Huffpo!
If you don't want real science, then show
Some honest consistence,
Dumb down your existence,
And live by the woo that you sow.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
July 5, 2010 10:19 PM
Ben Stein.:smuggerest:
Posted by: Romeo Vitelli
|
July 5, 2010 10:31 PM
The eugenics movement that eventually inspired Hitler can be argued to have begun with Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton. Of course, there were multiple contributors who added to the mess that eugenics eventually became.
http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2009/10/saving-civilization.html
Posted by: raven
|
July 5, 2010 10:34 PM
The roots of antisemitism trace back to the NT which has a lot of anti-Jewish statements.
Those who formulated Nazi ideology most certainly got much of their inspiration from the bible directly and through leaders like Martin Luther.
Berlinski is simply lying. Again.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 5, 2010 10:41 PM
As has been discussed here before, a reading of Mein Kampf, Chapter XI: "Race and People", shows clearly that Hitler denied evolution:
(See here for the source of the quote, and here for who found the quote.)
Berlinski knows this. He is not some poor misled or deluded innocent. Furthermore - watch almost any question and answer session with Berlinski. When he is asked difficult questions, he deliberately lies about the questions he is asked. He is mendaciously dishonest.
Posted by: raven
|
July 5, 2010 10:51 PM
Berlinski is an entertainer, pandering to a low class subset with books, articles, and speeches full of lies and bias for money. Like much of Hollywood and most of TV news.
Nothing wrong with working for a living, we all need to eat. Many of us have just chosen more honest and socially worthwhile ways to pay the bills.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 5, 2010 10:53 PM
He is mendaciously dishonest.
*eye twitches*
ah, sorry, was having a bit of a Kwok moment there.
Posted by: denacelesteauthor
|
July 5, 2010 10:59 PM
*blink blink blink* Wow. That was...a fascinating amount of misinformation (in the Huffpo, not this article).
And here I thought that much of Hitler's beliefs were occult in nature (among a mix of other things, of course).
Hitler is Darwin's fault? *cough* Erm, I think I'll blame Hilter for his own actions...considering all he did, I think he would've cobbled much of it together somehow no matter what.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 5, 2010 11:15 PM
...It's the fucking Dishonesty Institute, it's their JOB to post disinformation like this; it's what they get paid to do.
they don't care who knows it, because they know the rubes will eat it up anyway. Decades of listening to Kennedy (the religious fucktard, not the lineage of politicians) has proven it.
Those who embrace religion are simply open to believing any nonsense that keeps their house of cards from disintegrating.
Posted by: Orac
|
July 5, 2010 11:23 PM
What, all the anti-vaccine nonsense and quackery weren't enough? You can't dismiss HuffPo as a bastion of pseudoscientific nonsense on that basis alone? It takes a creationist screed to finally get you to be "done with" HuffPo?
Posted by: co
|
July 5, 2010 11:26 PM
You too, eh? At least there wasn't some intellectual pornography, too.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
July 5, 2010 11:27 PM
I think we have seperate understandings of the word "honest" here. Clearly, Berlinski's "honest" is a doublespeak.
Posted by: gregod
|
July 5, 2010 11:38 PM
Puff Ho
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 5, 2010 11:41 PM
It saddens me that at the fundamental level that there is such perpetual dishonesty. Talking to individuals about issues of ID, most of them are completely genuine in their desire for fairness. They truly perceive what's happening as a scientific disagreement, and why shouldn't they? That's how it's portrayed and that's how it comes off to the regular person.It's a great disservice that there are those who are willing to lie for the sake of ideology, because all they do is create a false controversy. Which is why I think it's so important to come down on the liars themselves, they're abusing the system of trust in order to push their ideology.
Posted by: eleusis
|
July 5, 2010 11:50 PM
Articles like that are infuriating, and after the third or fourth time of not having a comment to an article (by Klinghoffer, Chopra, and others) approved, I finally deleted my account.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 5, 2010 11:58 PM
It takes a creationist screed to finally get you to be "done with" HuffPo?
*psst*: it's rhetoric.
oh wait, that's obvious isn't it. my bad.
say, while you're here, can I encourage you to keep following what Montagnier is up to?
I posted a request on your blog, and got a link to a nice summary, but it just seems something that really should be right up your alley, so to speak.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
July 6, 2010 12:04 AM
I used the link they provide for reporting errors in their publication. I informed them that the entire article is in error and that it discredits the Huffington Post.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 6, 2010 12:05 AM
Fucking Chopra. He can't take any criticism that doesn't end with your mouth suckling his quantum fluctuating cock, and he swings that thing far and wide on Huffpo to ensure that you consciously observe it.
Posted by: cosmic-ikahana
|
July 6, 2010 12:18 AM
Oh, David Klinghoffer from the Discovery Institute. Did Playboy Bunny and star of MTV's game show "Singled Out" Jenny McCarthy start charging too much for her in depth science coverage for the Huff, or is she devoting all of her time now to promoting Amazing! New! Super Science! Chelation Therapy? I don't watch QVC so I am not on the cutting edge of scientific studies and technology.
Posted by: jonwell
|
July 6, 2010 12:21 AM
I replied (and quoted a textbook to contradict the 'honest account' BS) but I imagine I'm wasting my time. I don't think Huff has any editorial process worth noting, and I doubt that will change.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 6, 2010 12:28 AM
gregod made me laugh, ergo
Jesus! er, wins the thread!Posted by: mistereveready
|
July 6, 2010 12:34 AM
even if nazi's loved darwin and evolution so much that they masturbated to his bushy beard every night, it still does not mean evolution is some how incorrect or knowledge of it is necessarily detrimental to humanity. That is what the idea i get from the constant hitler was an atheist/evolutionist argument.
creationist/theist seem to love to dodge personal responsibility. I'm really seeing plenty of evidence that theism is a form of mental retardation and not just being a wrong or hasty conclusion.
Posted by: JagyrEbonwood
|
July 6, 2010 12:38 AM
#46;
Oh god, what a horrible horrible image. It did make me laugh though, so I forgive you.
Posted by: chief
|
July 6, 2010 12:42 AM
Wow, thanks for the heads-up PZ. Definitely done with HuffPo.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/AOPBqtIegMWwlhosTpczDC6W5me9Pw--#af269
|
July 6, 2010 1:14 AM
Yeah, then the Presbyterians (who supported Eugenics), Catholics (duh), Lutherans (who fueled anti-semitism) etc. also gave rise to Hitler.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 6, 2010 1:34 AM
"even if nazi's loved darwin and evolution so much that they masturbated to his bushy beard every night.."
*vomits*
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
July 6, 2010 1:51 AM
Creationists/IDiots always manage to Godwin themselves. BTW, I don't think these IDiots haven't read this warning.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
July 6, 2010 2:04 AM
My account is deleted. Gone. I can't believe I just read DI apologetics on the Huffpo; it makes me want to take several showers and burn my clothing in a waste basket.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
July 6, 2010 2:16 AM
Hitler used the idea of artificial selection,i.e.breeding, if anything, which wasnt Darwin's invention in the first place, and had been around for 10000 years prior.
But since creationists don't know what evolution means, we always get this bullcrap.
And HuffPo, Berlinski, really ?
Posted by: Autumn
|
July 6, 2010 2:28 AM
My comment might get through, as the only source I quote is the Bible, but I doubt it.
On the other hand, this being the internet and all, I'd like to take credit for a term that I just typed out without thinking, but which I think is funny and appropriate to articles of this sort.
"Godwin-Fapping": when an author not only mentions Hitler or Stalin in an attempt to make an invalid argument, but gives the impression that he or she is really getting off by doing so.
Posted by: Moggie
|
July 6, 2010 3:33 AM
I was under the impression that Germany of the 1930s and 1940s was a heavily Christian nation. Even if one accepts (which I don't) that the Nazis were motivated more by evolution than by ideas of racial "purity" which predated Darwin, Christians still need to explain how the Nazi programme received such enthusiastic support in a predominantly Christian country.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
July 6, 2010 3:34 AM
#34
Many of us have just chosen more honest and socially worthwhile ways to pay the bills.
And most of us have standards.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
July 6, 2010 4:18 AM
This whole xian generated NAZI spurt fest meme is done for the sole benefit of the sheeple.
It is not intended to win hearts and minds of intelligent folks, because they cannot get away with trying to hood wink those folks.
That someone like Berlinski would utter such contemptible sweaty bollocks is exactly what the retards in chief wants.
It is just a simple trick, equate Evolutionary Theory with the horror of NAZI shenanigans and bingo, a Pavlovian whistle.
That Berlinski repeats such utter tosh does pitch his intellectual ability into grave doubt.
The man should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.
And any institution that either hires him or deals with him should be politely informed that they have a certifiable fraudulent fool pedalling lies and fatuous nonsense.
Then the board that hired the lying son of a bitch should resign immediately because they are obviously not capable of the position to which they aspire, let alone their lamentable absence of intelligent thought.
In a way it is indicative that for the most part the cretins have given up trying to actually prove Evolutionary theory wrong, now it is just linking it to abominable acts.
Damned by association in the mind, further evidence that xianity is for liars that either do it to themselves or mostly to others.
And it is endemic.
What they cannot achieve through evidence or debate they simply make up.
It also means they are rather desperate and hope no one actually checks the claims made in jeebus's name.
Mind you the marks they aim this crap at are unlikely to be able to read so they are on fairly safe ground in a cynical way.
They seem to hope that the bilge gets disseminated on the net which is a practicality, they further hope the crud trickles down and gets distributed in Sunday worship by the ones that can read but don't think.
Someone obviously never read 'Mein Kampf'
Someone is parroting from a crib sheet issued by the Dishonourable Institute.
Someone is being Dishonest in the extreme.
No honest account will omit that fact.
The idiot should be shunned by polite society, and ridiculed in the media as well as being laughed at ...HARD!
At least Pharyngula is a start in that endeavour.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
July 6, 2010 4:29 AM
Someone is parroting from a crib sheet issued by the Dishonourable Institute.
um, Klinghofer actually is a DI employee.
fyi.
it would explain why it looks like he's reading from a sheet from the DI.
He probably wrote the fucking thing!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
July 6, 2010 5:08 AM
Always ironic that the people trying to claim the moral high-ground are the ones who engage in manipulations of the truth and misrepresentations of their opponents in order to push their ideological agenda. Also, it's sad that people would resort to such tactics because they can't defend their ideas without resorting to such petty actions.And people wonder how I can be moral without religion... it's because I don't have religion fucking up my thought processes!
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 6, 2010 5:17 AM
- Aratina Cage @9Best mixed metaphor - ever.
Posted by: raistlinombrone
|
July 6, 2010 7:08 AM
That' of course an old and trashy idea. A part of everything we can say against it, i would like to add a little bit of usefull information to fight against it.
Darwin it was so a basement of nazi thought that actually evolutionist book were FORBIDDEN. :-)
For example in the 1935 version of the "Principles for the Cleansing of Public Libraries" it was specified to exclude:
"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism"
If it was the basis of Nazi thought why hell excluding darwinism book from the libraries?
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 6, 2010 7:31 AM
The commenters to Klighoffer's article are doing a great job correcting the article's factual and logical errors.
HuffPo must have fired all its editors and factchecker and is now crowdsourcing those functions.
Oh wait, it never had any editors and factcheckers.
Posted by: DLC
|
July 6, 2010 7:41 AM
Smoggy @29: Well done.
Posted by: Citizen Z
|
July 6, 2010 8:10 AM
I'd guess partly because the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, specifically lauded by Hitler in Mein Kampf, described "Darwinism" as a Jewish plot.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
July 6, 2010 8:33 AM
This really is a sad and pathetic rhetorical device. The idea is as simple as it is mendacious.
They hate evolutionary theory or 'Darwinism' as they insist on calling it, so they decide to associate it with something that is all but universally reviled. What is the very worst thing most people can think of? Nazism. So they try to construct a link between evolution and nazism to taint the theory by association. Their 'arguments' are nonsensical given that Hitler was openly opposed to evolutionary theory outside a butchered version that he used to try to justify his genocidal bigotry, but the fundies are relying on an observation made (I think, correct me if I am wrong) by Hitler himself; If you tell a big enough lie often enough, people will start to believe it.
By the time their attempt to associate evolution with fascism is exposed as the calculated lie it is, the damage is already done. The gullible will already have absorbed the idea that 'Darwinism' = Nazism. The sensational lie is away and running, and it is doubtful that the mundane truth will ever catch up, especially among those elements of society that want to believe that the scary scientists who are blowing their beloved woo out of the figurative water are part of an evil (not to mention unamerican) conspiracy.
Posted by: PS9
|
July 6, 2010 9:06 AM
Rorschach (#57) said, "Hitler used the idea of artificial selection, i.e. breeding, if anything, which wasnt Darwin's invention in the first place, and had been around for 10000 years prior."
And "social Darwinism" was only given that name after Charles Darwin published his masterpiece. The concept and practice of eliminating so-called "undesirables" (by killing or sterilizing them) had existed for decades, promoted and promulgated by the wealthy and religious for a long time, for their own agenda. The false name of "social Darwinism" remained when killing the poor and unhealthy became unfashionable and unacceptable, despite Darwin's work having nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Yoav
|
July 6, 2010 10:21 AM
That joke Ariana Huffington is basically the mirror image of Glenn Beck. The same promotion of fake science the same spewing of slogans and talking points without actually thinking. I cringe every time I see her cast in a talk show panel as a representative of left wing liberalism.
Posted by: stvs
|
July 6, 2010 11:04 AM
Teddy Roosevelt's review of Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. I've emphasize the parts where Teddy talks about evolution:
Posted by: rcaseybouch
|
July 6, 2010 11:09 AM
Saying that Hitler's ideas came from Darwin is an empty argument anyway.
Even if Mein Kempf WERE filled with more "Darwinian" ideas than contorted "judeo-christian" scape-goating, that doesn't reflect on the validity of either set of viewpoints either way. I could quote-mine and cite almost any peer-reviewed work to support almost any crackpot hypothesis and my citation would reflect nothing other than my own interpretation of the evidence offered therein.
"On the Origin of Species" is a well-thought-out, objective, evidence-based piece of science-writing. Scientific truth, however politically or economically "inconvenient", is just that SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. There is no politics to it; a set of objectively collected observations supporting one hypothesis over another is (ideally) impartial.
Data are even impartial to whatever villain/future dictator may encounter them--effective government (which mein-kempf, unambiguously, does not describe) cannot be built around fanciful mythologies. Regardless of who says it, evolution is indisputably supported by the available evidence, vaccines prevent diseases, anthropogenic global warming is happening, and Bob Dole probably has syphilis.
I would much rather live under a despot guided by empirical evidence, than under a system of quarreling demagogues willing to hijack the common distrust of scientific expertise for short-term political gain.
For their willingness to blatantly disregard facts and play to poignant outdated images of the American ethnicity, Beck and Huffington are far more similar to Hitler (and other infamous nationalist dictators) than any of their political opponents could ever dream of being. Beneath the fiery rhetoric, Beck and Huffington's side in the "culture war" is driven by the interests of old white men in business suits--not greater social good.
The "progressive" Huffington Post is simply a wolf in sheep's clothing--sowing the seeds of scientific distrust in a form palatable to most otherwise educated rational people.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 6, 2010 11:34 AM
My impression of Berlinski is that he's an autotheist.Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
July 6, 2010 12:06 PM
#62
You know it is getting damndably difficult to differentiate b'twixt'n' b'tween Poe and religiosity these days.
That this is the case, that klingon' is a DI clone, no reason to believe otherwise, just goes to show that the unscrupulous religious seem to be abandoning all pretence at serendipity to find quotes or blurb that they use as strawman argument that would seem to back their contentions.
They are going for obvious in your face out and out bogus propaganda!
I really thought it was far far to obvious therefore just a cynical paranoid suspicion on my part.
Just WTF is Berlinski playing at then?
I thought the least an educated bunny does is check facts before pontificating on such matters in a public forum?
Or is the clue in the name of the good Dr?
One might see a correlation about Nazi extremism and a antipathy towards said crew, but where Darwinian attitude enters this party is not so clear, unless someone was plying the smelly red fish for an alternate agenda?
If that is so then shame on the ignorance and naivety of Dr B!
Posted by: TomS
|
July 6, 2010 12:11 PM
Check out the comments at the RationalWiki article "Hitler and evolution"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution
Posted by: RickK
|
July 6, 2010 12:29 PM
Just curioius - why does this blog entry appear in Google with the author "Richard Dawkins" instead of "PZ Myers"?
Posted by: Foggg
|
July 6, 2010 1:34 PM
Trailer for the DI's revisionist Darwin movie:
http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/3yta
Posted by: tbriggs
|
July 6, 2010 1:56 PM
They must be feeling mighty touchy over at HuffPo if they refuse to run my comment suggesting Ms. H. apologize for posting such inanity under her name.
Posted by: phoenixwoman
|
July 6, 2010 1:58 PM
They're getting slammed on the front page at DKos, too: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/6/881996/-Huffington-Post-descends-into-creationist-madness
Posted by: Scott
|
July 6, 2010 2:17 PM
I can honestly say that I'm 100% ignorant on what the offensive part of the article is, but I would appreciate it if someone could explain it to me like one might to a ten year old, because I really don't want to offend anyone.
There was a large eugenics movement in Germany, led by folks like Ploetz, who founded the Gesellschaft für Rassenhygiene and Archiv für Rassen- und Gesellschaftsbiologie in 1904-5. The Textbook of Research Ethics, Sana Loue, Kluwer, 2000, links this to an extreme form of Social Darwinism as applied to Nordic Supremacy. While Hitler might or might not have used this to develop his particular brand of insanity, he seemed to have taken advantage of the attitudes this generated, particularly in the medical community. Loue claims that between 1925 and 1944, physicians joined the Nazi party at three times the rate of the general population. Dr.'s were required to register "genetic illness", including feeble-mindedness, schizophrenia, and alcoholism, with a Genetic Health Court determining the patients' reproductive future. Eventually the sterilization program was replaced by a Euthanasia program, leading, one can argue, to genocide and really nasty human experiments.
Is it unreasonable to link this to "social Darwinism"? Is the politically correct viewpoint that creationists are using this to bash Darwinism in general and advance creationist ideas?
I have zero info on the history of the author of the offending article, so I'm really speaking out of ignorance, but this book I'm citing really highlights a nasty situation where scientists, physicians, and the intelligentsia seem to have bastardized a great idea that drove a Kuhnian scientific revolution and used it to justify a reprehensible school of thought and action. Reflection on such matters eventually brought about the Nuremberg Code, and our own Belmont Report. Regardless of whether some absurdly use this to bash Darwin, there are ethical and scientific issues that certainly need to be explored and remembered. Darwin's ideas are here to stay, and don't need to be defended from the fringe to the extent that we can't point out that good ideas can be hijacked to justify reprehensible things.
Am I thinking wrong? Is there a way to discuss the evils that Eugenics have given rise to without showing that its an absurd projection of Natural Selection??
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 6, 2010 2:40 PM
the Rational Wiki cited above (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hitler_and_evolution) provides pretty clinching evidence that Hitler didn't disbelieve in evolution--contrary to an assertion that's often made here.
It's really not that difficult: Hitler probably had no direct knowledge of Darwin; but he did pick up some Social-Darwinian tags from somewhere (e.g. the struggle for existence, which he applied with abandon to nations and races--and also in some passages to species). The relationship, however, of Social Darwinism to Darwin is at best (or at worst) tenuous.
The ideas Hitler did have of evolution are a confused jumble (e.g. the Rational Wiki cites statements from Mein Kampf congruent with an acceptance of-natural selection-though mistakenly treating it as progressive--but also other statements making human beings the result of purposive activity. His stated opinions make a bad enough hash of evolution to undercut pretty effectively any claim that he was meaningfully influenced by Darwin.
Posted by: Scott
|
July 6, 2010 2:42 PM
Aaah, got it now! This guy actually wants to blame Darwin for Social Darwinism! Just when I thought things couldn't get much wackier, somebody shows me how wrong I was.
Posted by: hkdharmon
|
July 6, 2010 2:46 PM
#72
I have always regarded Teddy Roosevelt as a one of the most bad-ass presidents ever, and he just went up a notch in my estimation.
Posted by: RickK
|
July 6, 2010 3:01 PM
Scott,
Here is the argument that Klinghoffer and his cronies at the Discovery Institute are making:
Darwin led to Social Darwinism which led to the Nazis and eugenics, therefore biological evolution is false and Genesis should be taught in public school science classes.
It's not rational, but the Discovery Institute is not about "rational" - it's about establishing negative impressions of evolution in the public consciousness.
Google "The Wedge Strategy" to see the secret-but-leaked mission statement of the Discovery Institute. While you're at it, google "Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr." to see the type of people funding the Discovery Institute and therefore driving the underlying purpose.
Posted by: Leon
|
July 6, 2010 3:12 PM
Don't forget "On the Jews and Their Lies"! Hitler had more of Martin Luther's ideas than Darwin's.Posted by: KG
|
July 6, 2010 4:27 PM
Aaron Baker@82,
According to Timothy Ryback's Hitler's Private Library, Hitler was much influenced by Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race, which applied what could be called quasi-Darwinian ideas of racial competition and struggle for survival to long-term history. However in this context, I think it's possibly misleading to think of these ideas as deriving from Darwin; rather, Darwin's work was one (important) aspect of an upsurge of "evolutionary" ideas in the natural and social sciences, which began decades before he published; and his specific emphasis on natural selection as an impersonal, non-progressive, locally-operating process acting on individuals was largely swamped until the rise of the "Neo-Darwinian synthesis" of natural selection with Mendelian and population genetics.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
July 6, 2010 4:29 PM
Heh, the HuffBlow was quite interesting during the election but I have to say that I notice the woo on it far more these days.
At least there are no positive responses to the article! Klinghoffer? What a fucking scumbag.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 6, 2010 5:07 PM
Thanks for the pointer to Madison Grant, KG. (I think you may know a lot more about the history of Social Darwinism than I do.)
You wrote:
If you're right about this, it would go a large part of the way toward explaining why such evolutionary statements as Hitler made don't really sound much like Darwin.
Posted by: Aaron Baker
|
July 6, 2010 5:09 PM
Italic fail. It should be "a lot more about the history of Social Darwinism than I do."
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
July 6, 2010 5:36 PM
If I remmeber correctly, Klinghoffer also said in another article that anal sex is objectively more pleasurable than vaginal sex, therefore if homosexuality is normalized lots of men will exclusively have sex with men by choice, leading to a population crisis. But he's totally not gay.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
July 6, 2010 5:39 PM
Before delving too much into hero worship, remember he was a racist and a big proponent of American imperialism.
He also set the precedent for the federal government having a strong role in conservation.
Like a lot of effective leaders, he did some good and some evil.
Posted by: hermetically sealed
|
July 6, 2010 6:42 PM
Certainly Berlinski needs to look at those Gospels himself: "spawn of Satan"? John Chrysostom? Martin Luther? Hello!
Posted by: ckitching
|
July 6, 2010 7:42 PM
@Scott, #81
The problem is that none of that requires natural selection. The principles of selective breeding were fairly well understood for centuries before Darwin's birth. Breed animal A and animal B together and you'll get a specimen with some of the attributes of each parent. Repeat this for generation after generation, and you can create some very noticeable changes in the decedents.
Furthermore, if natural selection exists and works as well as it apparently does, why meddle in the process? If you were to believe that Darwinism is entirely about survival of the fittest, then sterilizing or executing people in the name of eugenics doesn't really change anything.
Lastly, although it took Darwin's work to give it an air of scientific validity, many of the things done in the name of eugenics were not new, and date back at least as far as Plato. Government controlled reproduction, forced sterilization, and infanticide for 'unworthy' types has existed for a very long time.
Posted by: Michael Hawkins
|
July 7, 2010 7:08 PM
Why is it that people don't mention that Hitler was a fucking creationist?