Religion

Tralhob, I just thought I would update you on what I have read in “Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany” about Hitler’s influence from Darwinism. I also had a couple of thoughts in relation to eugenics and it’s legitimate application in light of evolution.

First; The author (who is/was a professor of modern European history at California State University) states in no uncertain terms that “no one to my knowledge has ever questioned the common assertion by scholars that Hitler was a social Darwinist, it is too obvious to deny.”
The author takes it for granted that Hitler believed in Darwinism and that the public knows this. The book is littered with comments such as “they refer to his [Hitler’s] views of Darwinism as crude or vulgar” and “many mainstream scientists….upheld views about Darwinism and eugenics quite similar to Hitler’s” and “My study [the author’s book] will demonstrate that many of Hitler’s ideas derived ultimately from respectable scientists and scholars who were grappling with the implications of Darwinism”.

I haven’t gotten to the chapters that deal with Hitler and the Nazi party yet, so rest assured that the best is yet to come! But even just these quotes above, coupled with the quote from “Mein Kampf” is plenty of evidence for Hitler’s belief in evolution, you really have to ‘draw a long bow’ to assert otherwise.

I was thinking about your previous comments that suggested that Hitler’s eugenics programs had nothing to do with ‘real’ evolution and that no one can really know which species or organisms are ‘fitter’ or ‘stronger’. After pondering this I came to the realization that you are totally wrong in asserting this.
This is because, if as you say (and all evolutionist do), evolution has no direction or purpose, than eugenics, or any selective action, is evolution ‘in action’. This makes more sense in relation to the common tautology that is used to define evolution, that evolution is “the survival of the fittest”; So who are the ‘fittest’? The fittest are the ones who survive. But which ones survive? The fittest are the ones who survive! So if the fittest are just those who survive, then any action (like eugenics) that results in the survival of an organism over the death of another, is evolution. You don’t have to do exhaustive genetic studies to see who is fitter according to evolution, the only criteria is to define which organisms survive.
To summarize, if evolution has no purpose, goal or rules then you have no justification for saying what does or does not constitute ‘evolution’, evolution is every action!

Any thoughts?

owm:

You seem to have not noticed that I stopped engaging you.

But since you seem to want my attention, what the hell.

"Taking it for granted" that Hitler believed in Darwinism sounds like shoddy scholarship to me. I thought the whole point of the book was to prove the connection.

Social Darwinism is not Darwinism.

The quotes you selected prove nothing. They are simply bald assertions by the author. Maybe he backs them up in his book; I don't know. If he does, that's what you should be quoting. As it stands now, all you've done is cite his credentials and then quote his unsupported (by you) opinion. The mention of his professorship is a blatant appeal to authority.

For example, in your last quote, you are simply quoting his hypothesis...as proof of his hypothesis?

The Mein Kampf quote you provided proves nothing until you can prove that the German word Entwicklung is better translated as "evolution" than "development," and that Hitler was envisioning a 'change in kinds' rather than mere improvement in health and constitution, which is all he ever alludes to in those sections of Mein Kampf that touch on 'biology' at all, which are a very, very, very small sliver of the book.

But you won't have to do that, because I'm going to admit now that Hitler was probably influenced by Darwinism. I found something that convinced me I was wrong in my initial assessment.

Which is not to say you're right, because it (evolution) still seems to me to have been a small twig on the tree of influences on Hitler. And this is not to deny the role of religion on his thinking. What I found does not begin to outweigh all the religious references i've found in his writing and speeches.

The bigger question than 'did Hitler believe in evolution' or 'was Hitler inspired by evolution' is, 'So what? Is evolutionary theory to blame for what he did?' This is where you fail. You see, all your pseudo-justifications for "evolutionary" eugenics use words like "should" and "must" and other such moralisms. Which only goes to show how you utterly fail to understand what science is, and is not.

"Survival of the fittest" is not a tautology. Organisms are not fit because they survive, they survive because they are fit.

But just to play with your argument a bit, let's pretend it is a tautology:

If everything is evolution, then by saying eugenics is evolution, you are saying nothing at all. If everything is evolution, then eugenics and the Holocaust are not particularly or specially evolutionary; there is no need to single them out; they are no more exemplary or paradigmatic of evolution than anything else, they are just part of the same big reality in which everything is evolution. Medicine and health care and social programs are just as evolutionary, then.

"any action (like eugenics) that results in the survival of an organism over the death of another, is evolution"

The "death of another" part is unnecessary. Why not save everybody? Then everyone would be the fittest (according to your argument), resulting in...survival of the fittest!!

Your comments on "tautology" really show how poorly you grasp the subject matter.

Tralhob,

You have said over and over that Hitler’s eugenics programmes were useless because Hitler could not have possibly known what races and people were fit and what ones were unfit. Do you now concede that if evolution has no goal, path or criteria then there is no wrong selective choice? This seems quite obvious to me. Or instead are you going sidestep the issue again and criticize terms that I have used such as ‘evolution’ and ‘or’ and ‘it’?

“Social Darwinism is not Darwinism.”
I’m sorry, did I say that it was??? If you knew what social Darwinism was then you would know that it is useless without biological Darwinism. The mere fact that the term ‘Darwinism’ is used is ample evidence that they are entwined. Hitler would have been severely out of step with the science of the time if he didn’t believe in biological Darwinism.

The author of the book is an authority on the subject, I think that his position as professor of modern European history testifies to that. The last two quotes that I provided are clear indication that Hitler was influenced by Darwinism. It defies belief that you would still resist this even after admitting that Hitler indeed did believe in evolution!

So not only were you wrong about the main thesis of that lengthy thread, you are also wrong that ‘no one can not know who truly is the fittest’. So on both points that we have been discussing your position has been shown to be wrong.

Btw, what happened to the Po radiohalo discussion? It seems like a quite legitimate model to me.

"Do you now concede that if evolution has no goal, path or criteria then there is no wrong selective choice?"

If the goal of eugenics is to do exactly what unencumbered natural selection would do - to "mimic natural selection," as you put it earlier - than yes, there clearly is a wrong choice. Wrong as in 'incorrect,' not morally wrong.

Remember, your argument rests on your false belief that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology. Because it is not a tautology, it is entirely possible to kill off individuals with a higher probability of reproductive success.

I have to ask why you've totally changed your approach from 'evolution says we should' to 'evolution doesn't tell us we shouldn't.'

"If you knew what social Darwinism was then you would know that it is useless without biological Darwinism."

Social Darwinism is based on analogy with Darwinism. The assumption is that the analogy is valid. The general idea of social Darwinism - that competition between humans drives social evolution - could easily exist without any reference to Darwinism at all; it just wouldn't be called that. The basic idea is compatible with creationism. You don't need to preassume biological evolutionary theory to believe that competition drives social evolution. And yes, you did imply that they were the same thing.

"The mere fact that the term ‘Darwinism’ is used is ample evidence that they are entwined."

Right, because misnomers don't exist. I guess the Christian Identity movement is Christian, then? I guess the Democratic Republic of the Congo must be democratic?

"Hitler would have been severely out of step with the science of the time if he didn’t believe in biological Darwinism."

I've seen no evidence that Hitler knew the slightest thing about science, Darwinian evolution included.

"The author of the book is an authority on the subject, I think that his position as professor of modern European history testifies to that."

So what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appealtoauthority

"The last two quotes that I provided are clear indication that Hitler was influenced by Darwinism."

No, they're just Weikart's unsupported say-so.

"It defies belief that you would still resist this even after admitting that Hitler indeed did believe in evolution!"

I'm only attacking your logic here. It's weak. You have proved nothing. I admitted what I did on my own, after doing my own research.

"So on both points that we have been discussing your position has been shown to be wrong."

I was wrong about Hitler, but that was never an important point. What else have I been wrong about?. Certainly your 'tautology' argument is based on your own ignorance. I shouldn't have 'played along' with your argument; you seem to have missed the fact that I was showing that your argument was invalid even if your assumption was true. Which it is not. (Note to self: keep it really simple for owm.)

"Btw, what happened to the Po radiohalo discussion?"

Same thing that happened here. I stopped engaging you.