Evolution ok with Hitler? Stalin?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
MikeH
Sage
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Florida

Evolution ok with Hitler? Stalin?

Post #1

Post by MikeH »

So, I can see this thread quickly getting out of control, but the purpose really is not to entice flame throwing. I was just cruising around the web, trying to find out some info on intelligent design, since I don't really know anything about it. I came across a site with this following excerpt, which claims that Hitler and Stalin killed millions in the name of evolution. I never heard this viewpoint before, and was quite taken aback. What do you guys think of it?

From: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/
Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models.

And so we see how a worldview can impact human behavior. Here, we see murder, a most disapproved human behavior, not only condoned, but encouraged. So, does it matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. However, even more important than what we believe to be true is what actually is true. Someone might not believe in gravity, for example. Nevertheless, if that person were to step off a tall building, that person would splat on the ground below, regardless of what they believed. And so, once again, we have the question: are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? Don't rely on hearsay. Investigate the evidences for yourself.

User avatar
Undertow
Scholar
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:01 am
Location: Australia

Post #11

Post by Undertow »

QED wrote:
Undertow wrote: They should be? Sais who? The theory itself states nothing of what should be done in a social context, just what leads to a healthier gene pool.
But here's another example of the kind of language that critics of evolution jump on to feed their rhetoric: to some people healthier sounds like blond-haired, blue-eyed Arians enjoying a hike in Berchtesgaden :roll: A healthier gene pool is one which has a higher frequency of expression in its resulting populations. The population could look like anything -- including things that admirers of Hitler's youth would say looked distinctly unhealthy.

Describing natural selection using terms that do not apply (even though they might sound kind of right) is how evolution gets caught-up in the crossfire.
Fair cop. The term healthy was a bad choice, in retrospect.
Image

User avatar
Furrowed Brow
Site Supporter
Posts: 3720
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Here
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #12

Post by Furrowed Brow »

I had a poke around the site to supplied the link to - allaboutphilosophy.org.
Is there a God, or isn't there a God, depends on our ability to disprove God. The burden of proof rests upon atheism to validate its position.

This is not really all about philosophy. It is about grinding axes - and it does it very badly. Like someone who should never be allowed to sing in public grabbing hold of the Karaoke microphone - and think they are pretty darn good.

Sadly someone has gone to some effort to produce the site and write-up up its arguments, and honestly think they are making a valid contribution. I don't know whether to feel sorry for them, or be disturbed.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #13

Post by QED »

Furrowed Brow wrote:I had a poke around the site to supplied the link to - allaboutphilosophy.org.
Is there a God, or isn't there a God, depends on our ability to disprove God. The burden of proof rests upon atheism to validate its position.

This is not really all about philosophy. It is about grinding axes - and it does it very badly. Like someone who should never be allowed to sing in public grabbing hold of the Karaoke microphone - and think they are pretty darn good.

Sadly someone has gone to some effort to produce the site and write-up up its arguments, and honestly think they are making a valid contribution. I don't know whether to feel sorry for them, or be disturbed.
"allaboutphilosophy.org" #-o

It's disturbing to think that there's a sizable, ready-made, market willing to swallow this kind of illogic. Imagine if one day G.W.Bush goes to the United Nations and announces that God has come to him and told him to start a holy war against Iran -- and that the burden of proof is on the UN to show this never happened.
Is there a X, or isn't there a X, depends on our ability to disprove the existence of X
I'm begining to doubt my own sanity now. Can such a claim ever be justified for any X?

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #14

Post by Cathar1950 »

Doubt is the begining of wisdom QED.
Yet how many people believe something because God told someone else something?

Post Reply