| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
30 Jun 2004 07:33:31 AM |
| Object: |
Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
.
|
|
| User: "Michael R. James" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 01:21:39 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
What is the Wright Brothers' contribution to September 11th?
mike
--
mrjames@swcp.com http://www.swcp.com/~mrjames/
"When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it
in numbers you know something about it; but when you cannot express
it in numbers your knowledge is a meagre and unsatisfactory kind"
- Lord Kelvin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 04:10:38 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I dunno. What was Catholicism's contribution to the Holocaust? How about
Protestantism?
What a despicable fishing expedition, David. Shame on you.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 09:00:58 PM |
|
|
In article <slrnce6b8i.2cb.mightymartianca@mp1.alberni.net>,
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
I dunno. What was Catholicism's contribution to the Holocaust? How about
Protestantism?
What a despicable fishing expedition, David. Shame on you.
Perhaps I took him too seriously. However, if you interpret his question
a little differently, as I did, then it's hard not to admit that misuse
of Darwin's concepts did contribute to the philosophy of racial struggle
that ultimately led to the Holocaust. However, the way he phrased the
question does seem to imply that the Holocaust was a natural extension
of Darwin's ideas, which is clearly ridiculous. I don't know if he's a
troll or not, but, taken neutrally, asking whether Darwin's concepts
contributed to the Holocaust is not an unreasonable question. For a
thorough discussion of how Darwinism was distorted and perverted into
Racial Hygiene and then how Racial Hygiene was enthusiastically embraced
by the Nazis as part of their justification for their racial policies,
the T4 Euthanasia Program, and later the Holocaust, I highly recommend
"Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis" by Robert N. Proctor.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 04:08:21 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 08:45:43 PM |
|
|
In article <0596e016b5ps0o79kjilma2toj2uqais8c@4ax.com>,
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
I don't know if it's reasonable, but certainly Darwin's ideas were used
by various political persuasions for different ends. Socialists tended
to stress the fact of evolution; whereas conservatives tended to stress
the mechanism of evolution (natural selection, the struggle to survive
and reproduce).
"Social Darwinism" and eugenics were popular in the early 1900's, and
not just in Germany, but in much of Europe and in the U.S. as well.
Indeed, in Germany Social Darwinism and eugenics coalesced into a
"science" that was considered respectable quite respectable many years
before WWII, with multiple scientific journals devoted to it and a major
scientific society devoted to its study. This "science" was called
racial hygiene. It developing mainly from the ideas of Alfred Ploetz
published in 1895. As an extension to the work of Charles Darwin Ploetz
proposed the technocratical selection of intelligent and solidary people
to reach a better and more just world. He suggested what he considered
to be a more "humane" form of natural selection; i.e., that a panel of
doctors should decide if a new-born child would live or die (by a small
dose of morphine; healthy parents would have another child without
problems), believing that the emphasis on medical treatment of the
individual often allowed the "unfit" to survive and propagate. In other
words, what was healthy for the individual could be unhealthy for the
race, and it was the race he was concerned with. In 1904, Ploetz founded
the Journal of Racial and Social Biology, and in 1905 he founded a
society for racial hygiene in Berlin. It had 350 members (mostly
professors) until the First World War.
Ploetz's ideas were eagerly adopted by the Nazis and grafted onto their
anti-Semitism. Racial hygiene was used as one of the justifications for
the race laws, persecution of Jews, involuntary sterilization of Jews,
and later the extermination of Jews. If you believed, as the Nazis did,
that Jews were subhuman, then, logically, to protect the race their
reproduction had to be limited as much as possible and at all costs they
must not be allowed to interbreed with "true" Germans.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald Dean" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 11:43:46 PM |
|
|
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-90E2CC.21483430062004@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
In article <0596e016b5ps0o79kjilma2toj2uqais8c@4ax.com>,
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
I once read that Hitler's book entitled *Mine Kamph* is translated
to mean *My Struggle*. Is this true: and what is the significance of
the title? How did Hitler derive this title?
Ron
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
I don't know if it's reasonable, but certainly Darwin's ideas were used
by various political persuasions for different ends. Socialists tended
to stress the fact of evolution; whereas conservatives tended to stress
the mechanism of evolution (natural selection, the struggle to survive
and reproduce).
"Social Darwinism" and eugenics were popular in the early 1900's, and
not just in Germany, but in much of Europe and in the U.S. as well.
Indeed, in Germany Social Darwinism and eugenics coalesced into a
"science" that was considered respectable quite respectable many years
before WWII, with multiple scientific journals devoted to it and a major
scientific society devoted to its study. This "science" was called
racial hygiene. It developing mainly from the ideas of Alfred Ploetz
published in 1895. As an extension to the work of Charles Darwin Ploetz
proposed the technocratical selection of intelligent and solidary people
to reach a better and more just world. He suggested what he considered
to be a more "humane" form of natural selection; i.e., that a panel of
doctors should decide if a new-born child would live or die (by a small
dose of morphine; healthy parents would have another child without
problems), believing that the emphasis on medical treatment of the
individual often allowed the "unfit" to survive and propagate. In other
words, what was healthy for the individual could be unhealthy for the
race, and it was the race he was concerned with. In 1904, Ploetz founded
the Journal of Racial and Social Biology, and in 1905 he founded a
society for racial hygiene in Berlin. It had 350 members (mostly
professors) until the First World War.
Ploetz's ideas were eagerly adopted by the Nazis and grafted onto their
anti-Semitism. Racial hygiene was used as one of the justifications for
the race laws, persecution of Jews, involuntary sterilization of Jews,
and later the extermination of Jews. If you believed, as the Nazis did,
that Jews were subhuman, then, logically, to protect the race their
reproduction had to be limited as much as possible and at all costs they
must not be allowed to interbreed with "true" Germans.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 12:57:40 AM |
|
|
"Ronald Dean" <rond@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:eEMEc.5312$hz1.30@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
"Orac" <orac@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-90E2CC.21483430062004@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
In article <0596e016b5ps0o79kjilma2toj2uqais8c@4ax.com>,
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
I once read that Hitler's book entitled *Mine Kamph* is translated
to mean *My Struggle*. Is this true: and what is the significance of
the title? How did Hitler derive this title?
The original title was "A Four-and-a-half Year Struggle Against Lies,
Stupidity, and Cowardice." His publisher shortened it, thereby vastly
simplifying the task of mentioning it in Usenet posts. His struggle, of
course, from the end of World War I to his brief imprisonment for treason in
1923, was to build up a party that would remake Germany in the image Hitler
wanted it to hold, against various rivals for power in the party and various
other proponents of combinations of nationalism, militarism, socialism, and
racism -- in short, it was a political struggle rather than a national,
biological, racial, or class struggle. Part of that struggle was to unify
the party and Germany behind Hitler's particular racial views, but the
"Kampf" in the title does not refer to the Darwinian "struggle for
existence."
Ron
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 09:07:53 PM |
|
|
In article <orac-90E2CC.21483430062004@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:
In article <0596e016b5ps0o79kjilma2toj2uqais8c@4ax.com>,
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
I don't know if it's reasonable, but certainly Darwin's ideas were used
by various political persuasions for different ends. Socialists tended
to stress the fact of evolution; whereas conservatives tended to stress
the mechanism of evolution (natural selection, the struggle to survive
and reproduce).
"Social Darwinism" and eugenics were popular in the early 1900's, and
not just in Germany, but in much of Europe and in the U.S. as well.
Indeed, in Germany Social Darwinism and eugenics coalesced into a
"science" that was considered respectable quite respectable many years
before WWII, with multiple scientific journals devoted to it and a major
scientific society devoted to its study. This "science" was called
racial hygiene. It developing mainly from the ideas of Alfred Ploetz
published in 1895. As an extension to the work of Charles Darwin Ploetz
proposed the technocratical selection of intelligent and solidary people
to reach a better and more just world. He suggested what he considered
to be a more "humane" form of natural selection; i.e., that a panel of
doctors should decide if a new-born child would live or die (by a small
dose of morphine; healthy parents would have another child without
problems), believing that the emphasis on medical treatment of the
individual often allowed the "unfit" to survive and propagate. In other
words, what was healthy for the individual could be unhealthy for the
race, and it was the race he was concerned with. In 1904, Ploetz founded
the Journal of Racial and Social Biology, and in 1905 he founded a
society for racial hygiene in Berlin. It had 350 members (mostly
professors) until the First World War.
Ploetz's ideas were eagerly adopted by the Nazis and grafted onto their
anti-Semitism. Racial hygiene was used as one of the justifications for
the race laws, persecution of Jews, involuntary sterilization of Jews,
and later the extermination of Jews. If you believed, as the Nazis did,
that Jews were subhuman, then, logically, to protect the race their
reproduction had to be limited as much as possible and at all costs they
must not be allowed to interbreed with "true" Germans.
And just to add one thing I forgot (having thought of it right after
hitting the "Post" button). The theory of evolution by natural selection
does NOT necessarily lead atrocities like those committed by the Nazis.
Any scientific theory can be misused, not just Darwin's, and boy did the
Nazis misuse Darwinism, mixing it in as a major ingredient of their
toxic brew of racial superiority, mysticism, and sense of entitlement to
Lebensraum ("breathing space") to the East. It is the use, misuse, and
perversion of Darwin's ideas by fanatics like the Nazis that led to
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 06:11:55 PM |
|
|
In article <2ea7e0t905pm2p6t6psmalvnht3vjet185@4ax.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:46:59 +0000 (UTC), Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:
In article <cbvaj0$gg0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>,
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote:
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
Darwin's THEORY itself had nothing to do with the Holocaust. However,
the IDEOLOGICAL MANIPULATION of his theory and its perversion had a lot
to do with the Holocaust.
If it did then you should be able to cite some of this ideological
manipulation.
I already did, at length, in my other posts about racial hygiene.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
04 Jul 2004 04:39:58 PM |
|
|
In article <5qage0psla12g53bf6tg9f68pmfdougjik@4ax.com>,
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
[Snippage]
To artificially quarantine the theory of evolution from any
possibility of being used to justify other disreputable theories is
dishonest. You seem to be of the mindset that this would make Darwin's
theories less respectable. I do not see it that way.
I tend to see this quarantining as a manifestation of the "circle the
wagon" phenomenon. We scientists have been so used to creationists
attacking Darwin for so long that, when anyone suggests a link between
Darwin's theory and later ideas or movements that are disreputable (such
as the racial hygiene movement), there is a tendency to deny them
vociferously, even if the linkage is not unreasonable. I suspect the
reason is the all-too-human tendency not to want to give our opponents
something they will certainly try to use (whether appropriately or
inappropriately) as ammunition against the theory of evolution. My
tendency is more to point out that it is not reasonable to hold Darwin
responsible for how people decades later use or misuse his work, and
that Darwin's concepts do not inevitably lead to racial hygiene or
social Darwinism. It is people, for ideological reasons, who take from
Darwin what they want to take and ignore the aspects of Darwin that do
not fit into their ideology, in order to produce such ideas.
Darwin's theory has been used and misused for political and ideological
ends almost since it was first published. As Robert Proctor has said,
people see in Darwin what they want to see.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 06:14:35 PM |
|
|
In article <slrnce7d30.b4m.mightymartianca@mp1.alberni.net>,
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:46:59 +0000 (UTC),
Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:
In article <cbvaj0$gg0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>,
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote:
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
Darwin's THEORY itself had nothing to do with the Holocaust. However,
the IDEOLOGICAL MANIPULATION of his theory and its perversion had a lot
to do with the Holocaust.
Can you show where evolutionary theory was so perverted?
I discussed this at length, in my other posts about racial hygiene, how
it was derived from a misapplication of the concept of natural selection
to society, and how the Nazis eagerly embraced the concept of racial
hygiene as part of their justification for destroying the Jews. I see no
need to repeat myself, since I just made that post last night. Read
about Alfred Ploetz, for starters.
Hitler, at least,
appears to have been far closer to a Creationist.
Can you show where Hitler demonstrated himself to be a creationist?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 04:13:06 PM |
|
|
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
--
Richard Crawford (http://www.mossroot.com)
AIM: Buffalo2K / Y!: rscrawford
Ask me about my opposable thumb!
"When you lose the power to laugh at yourself, you lose the power to
think straight." --Clarence Darrow
.
|
|
|
| User: "Orac" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 08:46:59 PM |
|
|
In article <cbvaj0$gg0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>,
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote:
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
Darwin's THEORY itself had nothing to do with the Holocaust. However,
the IDEOLOGICAL MANIPULATION of his theory and its perversion had a lot
to do with the Holocaust.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 01:47:50 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:46:59 +0000 (UTC),
Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:
In article <cbvaj0$gg0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>,
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote:
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
Darwin's THEORY itself had nothing to do with the Holocaust. However,
the IDEOLOGICAL MANIPULATION of his theory and its perversion had a lot
to do with the Holocaust.
Can you show where evolutionary theory was so perverted? Hitler, at least,
appears to have been far closer to a Creationist.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 05:06:57 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnce7d30.b4m.mightymartianca@mp1.alberni.net>...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:46:59 +0000 (UTC),
Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:
In article <cbvaj0$gg0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>,
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote:
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
Darwin's THEORY itself had nothing to do with the Holocaust. However,
the IDEOLOGICAL MANIPULATION of his theory and its perversion had a lot
to do with the Holocaust.
Can you show where evolutionary theory was so perverted? Hitler, at least,
appears to have been far closer to a Creationist.
He claimed to be a Christian.
He didn't claim to be an evolutionary biologist.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "Courageous" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 08:53:34 AM |
|
|
He claimed to be a Christian.
He didn't claim to be an evolutionary biologist.
He was fond of Nitzche. That's about as close as
we can get.
C//
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 01:03:59 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:46:59 +0000 (UTC), Orac <orac@mac.com> wrote:
In article <cbvaj0$gg0$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>,
"Richard S. Crawford" <rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com>
wrote:
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
Darwin's THEORY itself had nothing to do with the Holocaust. However,
the IDEOLOGICAL MANIPULATION of his theory and its perversion had a lot
to do with the Holocaust.
If it did then you should be able to cite some of this ideological
manipulation.
Mitchell Coffey
_________________________________________
Ray Charles was *my* Commander-in-Chief
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 06:18:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:13:06 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
<rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
My paragraph above was intended to say that Hitler used whatever he
could to justify his beliefs. I believe that, If anything, Darwins
theories presented a problem for Hitler's view of the world. If you
are claiming that Hitler had never heard of Darwin's theories, then I
am curious as to how you think this information was kept from him.
There are those who disagree.
Richard Weikart, Fellow - CSC
Articles by Richard Weikart
Richard Weikart is an Associate Professor of History at California
State University, Stanislaus. He completed his Ph.D. in modern
European history at the University of Iowa in 1994, receiving the
biennial prize of the Forum for History of Human Sciences for the best
dissertation in that field. His revised dissertation, Socialist
Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to
Bernstein, was published in 1999. With an extensive background in
modern German and modern European intellectual history, he has
published articles in journals such as Isis, Journal of the History of
Ideas, German Studies Review, History of European Ideas, European
Legacy, and Fides et Historia. One such article received the Selma V.
Forkosch Prize for the best article in 1993 in the Journal of the
History of Ideas. His book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, which documents the influence
of naturalistic evolution on ethical thought, euthanasia, militarism,
and racism—and ultimately Hitler's ideology—will appear with Palgrave
Macmillan in the spring of 2004. For more information on this book, go
to: From Darwin to Hitler.
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER:
EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
by Richard Weikart
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in
Germany was recently released (2004) with Palgrave Macmillan in New
York, a major publisher of historical scholarship.
Dustjacket blurb:
In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual
history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism
had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading
Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that
Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment
ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life.
Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously
exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence
and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that
Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also
in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all
ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing
argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles
rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative
yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical
impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth
century.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard S. Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
30 Jun 2004 06:24:43 PM |
|
|
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:13:06 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
<rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
=20
=20
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust=
?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do=20
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your=
=20
head before it does you more harm.
=20
=20
=20
My paragraph above was intended to say that Hitler used whatever he
could to justify his beliefs. I believe that, If anything, Darwins
theories presented a problem for Hitler's view of the world. If you
are claiming that Hitler had never heard of Darwin's theories, then I
am curious as to how you think this information was kept from him.
Perhaps I've just seen too many "Darwinism and evolutionism caused the=20
Holocaust and Hitler was an atheist evolutionist just like YOU!" morons=20
on this forum lately.
=20
There are those who disagree.
=20
Richard Weikart, Fellow - CSC
Articles by Richard Weikart
=20
Richard Weikart is an Associate Professor of History at California
State University, Stanislaus. He completed his Ph.D. in modern
European history at the University of Iowa in 1994, receiving the
biennial prize of the Forum for History of Human Sciences for the best
dissertation in that field. His revised dissertation, Socialist
Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to
Bernstein, was published in 1999. With an extensive background in
modern German and modern European intellectual history, he has
published articles in journals such as Isis, Journal of the History of
Ideas, German Studies Review, History of European Ideas, European
Legacy, and Fides et Historia. One such article received the Selma V.
Forkosch Prize for the best article in 1993 in the Journal of the
History of Ideas. His book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, which documents the influence
of naturalistic evolution on ethical thought, euthanasia, militarism,
and racism=97and ultimately Hitler's ideology=97will appear with Palgra=
ve
Macmillan in the spring of 2004. For more information on this book, go
to: From Darwin to Hitler.=20
=20
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER:
EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
by Richard Weikart
=20
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in
Germany was recently released (2004) with Palgrave Macmillan in New
York, a major publisher of historical scholarship.
=20
Dustjacket blurb:=20
=20
In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual
history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism
had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading
Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that
Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment
ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life.
Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously
exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence
and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that
Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also
in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all
ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing
argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles
rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative
yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical
impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth
century.
=20
=20
--=20
Richard Crawford (http://www.mossroot.com)
AIM: Buffalo2K / Y!: rscrawford
Ask me about my opposable thumb!
"When you lose the power to laugh at yourself, you lose the power to=20
think straight." --Clarence Darrow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Carr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 05:37:24 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
<skip>
There are those who disagree.
Richard Weikart, Fellow - CSC
Articles by Richard Weikart
Richard Weikart is an Associate Professor of History at California
State University, Stanislaus. He completed his Ph.D. in modern
European history at the University of Iowa in 1994, receiving the
biennial prize of the Forum for History of Human Sciences for the best
dissertation in that field. His revised dissertation, Socialist
Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to
Bernstein, was published in 1999. With an extensive background in
modern German and modern European intellectual history, he has
published articles in journals such as Isis, Journal of the History of
Ideas, German Studies Review, History of European Ideas, European
Legacy, and Fides et Historia. One such article received the Selma V.
Forkosch Prize for the best article in 1993 in the Journal of the
History of Ideas. His book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, which documents the influence
of naturalistic evolution on ethical thought, euthanasia, militarism,
and racism—and ultimately Hitler's ideology—will appear with Palgrave
Macmillan in the spring of 2004. For more information on this book, go
to: From Darwin to Hitler.
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER:
EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
by Richard Weikart
Advance praise for this book
"The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught
as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed.
Every parent ought to know this story, which Weikart persuasively
explains." --Phillip Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of
California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial and Reason in the
Balance
"If you think moral issues like infanticide, assisted suicide, and
tampering with human genes are new, read this book. It draws a clear
and chilling picture of the way Darwinian naturalism led German
thinkers to treat human life as raw materials to be manipulated in
order to advance the course of evolution. The ethics of Hitler's
Germany were not reactionary; they were very much 'cutting edge' and
in line with the scientific understanding of the day. Weikart's
implicit warning is that as long as the same assumption of Darwinian
naturalism reigns in educated circles in our own day, it may well lead
to similar practices." --Nancy Pearcey, co-author of The Soul of
Science and How Now Shall We Live
"Richard Weikart's masterful work offers a compelling case that the
eugenics movement, and all the political and social consequences that
have flowed from it, would have been unlikely if not for the cultural
elite's enthusiastic embracing of the Darwinian account of life,
morality, and social institutions. Professor Weikart reminds us, with
careful scholarship and circumspect argument, that the truth uttered
by Richard Weaver decades ago is indeed a fixed axiom of human
institutions: 'ideas have consequences.'" --Francis J. Beckwith,
Associate Director, J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, and
Associate Professor of Church-State Studies, Baylor University
http://www.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/FromDarwintoHitler.htm
'"Richard Weikart's outstanding book shows in sober and convincing
detail how Darwinist thinkers in Germany had developed an amoral
attitude to human society by the time of the First World War, in which
the supposed good of the race was applied as the sole criterion of
public policy and 'racial hygiene'.'
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Hitler have more to do with the
Second World War?
Weikart has also published two articles
"Progress through Racial Extermination: Social Darwinism, Eugenics,
and Pacifism in Germany, 1860-1918," German Studies Review 26 (2003):
273-94.
"Darwinism and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany, 1860-1920,"
Journal of the History of Ideas 63 (2002): 323-344.
The immediate connection to events of 1933-1945 is not evident....
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=4475985369635
has an interesting quote on Weikart's work :- 'He shatters two
dominant myths: that Marxists applied Darwinism directly to social
theory and that "the introduction of evolutionary biological ideas
into socialist theory in the late nineteenth century stripped Marxism
of its revolutionary edge by replacing dialectical materialism and
praxis with mechanical materialism, and by fostering gradualism"
Hitler, himself, was, of course, a creationist, at least when it came
to human beings, and doubted that humans could have evolved from
ape-like animals.
Another interesting quote is :-
'Eugenicists wanted a purely Germanic and Nordic super race, enjoying
biological dominion over all others.'
That quote comes from
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/chapter1.php
Is that true? Did eugenicists want a purely Germanic and Nordic super
race?
Out of curiosity, who is the DeJarnette Center in Virginia named
after? One of the leading German eugenicists? Or a leading American
eugenicist?
http://home.rica.net/airedale/Forced.htm is also an interesting
article
Steven Carr
steven@bowness.demon.co.uk
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 01:03:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:13:06 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
<rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
My paragraph above was intended to say that Hitler used whatever he
could to justify his beliefs. I believe that, If anything, Darwins
theories presented a problem for Hitler's view of the world. If you
are claiming that Hitler had never heard of Darwin's theories, then I
am curious as to how you think this information was kept from him.
The issue is not whether he had heard of those theories, it's if and
in what why he was influenced by them. If you have any facts at your
command, please command them forth.
There are those who disagree.
Richard Weikart, Fellow - CSC
Articles by Richard Weikart
Richard Weikart is an Associate Professor of History at California
State University, Stanislaus. He completed his Ph.D. in modern
European history at the University of Iowa in 1994, receiving the
biennial prize of the Forum for History of Human Sciences for the best
dissertation in that field. His revised dissertation, Socialist
Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to
Bernstein, was published in 1999. With an extensive background in
modern German and modern European intellectual history, he has
published articles in journals such as Isis, Journal of the History of
Ideas, German Studies Review, History of European Ideas, European
Legacy, and Fides et Historia. One such article received the Selma V.
Forkosch Prize for the best article in 1993 in the Journal of the
History of Ideas. His book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary
Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, which documents the influence
of naturalistic evolution on ethical thought, euthanasia, militarism,
and racism—and ultimately Hitler's ideology—will appear with Palgrave
Macmillan in the spring of 2004. For more information on this book, go
to: From Darwin to Hitler.
FROM DARWIN TO HITLER:
EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS, EUGENICS, AND RACISM IN GERMANY
by Richard Weikart
From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in
Germany was recently released (2004) with Palgrave Macmillan in New
York, a major publisher of historical scholarship.
Dustjacket blurb:
In this compelling and painstakingly researched work of intellectual
history, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism
had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading
Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that
Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment
ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life.
Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously
exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence
and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that
Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also
in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all
ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing
argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles
rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative
yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical
impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth
century.
In previous writings Weikart made obvious errors and demonstrated that
he didn't understand some basic issues in evolutionary theory and
interpreted economic liberalism as social darwinism. Now he's been
paid by the Discovery Institute to write a slash attack on Darwin.
Meanwhile, you're responsible for your own statements of fact. If all
you can cite in your defense is the dust jacket blurb of an
unpublished polemic, you really don't have anything.
Mitchell Coffey
_________________________________________
Ray Charles was *my* Commander-in-Chief
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 05:29:58 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 06:03:32 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:13:06 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
<rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
My paragraph above was intended to say that Hitler used whatever he
could to justify his beliefs. I believe that, If anything, Darwins
theories presented a problem for Hitler's view of the world. If you
are claiming that Hitler had never heard of Darwin's theories, then I
am curious as to how you think this information was kept from him.
The issue is not whether he had heard of those theories, it's if and
in what why he was influenced by them. If you have any facts at your
command, please command them forth.
So, is it your belief that Hitler was not influenced in any way by the
emerging theories of evolution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
02 Jul 2004 12:27:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:29:58 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 06:03:32 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:13:06 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
<rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
My paragraph above was intended to say that Hitler used whatever he
could to justify his beliefs. I believe that, If anything, Darwins
theories presented a problem for Hitler's view of the world. If you
are claiming that Hitler had never heard of Darwin's theories, then I
am curious as to how you think this information was kept from him.
The issue is not whether he had heard of those theories, it's if and
in what why he was influenced by them. If you have any facts at your
command, please command them forth.
So, is it your belief that Hitler was not influenced in any way by the
emerging theories of evolution?
It is my belief that you made assertions of fact and should at least
outline your evidence. I believe that people who respond to requests
for evidence with questions have discovered a evidentiary problem in
their argument and hope they won't be again asked for their evidence.
Again, what's your evidence?
Mitchell Coffey
_________________________________________
Ray Charles was *my* Commander-in-Chief
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
03 Jul 2004 11:46:13 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:27:18 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:29:58 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 06:03:32 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:13:06 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
<rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
My paragraph above was intended to say that Hitler used whatever he
could to justify his beliefs. I believe that, If anything, Darwins
theories presented a problem for Hitler's view of the world. If you
are claiming that Hitler had never heard of Darwin's theories, then I
am curious as to how you think this information was kept from him.
The issue is not whether he had heard of those theories, it's if and
in what why he was influenced by them. If you have any facts at your
command, please command them forth.
So, is it your belief that Hitler was not influenced in any way by the
emerging theories of evolution?
It is my belief that you made assertions of fact and should at least
outline your evidence. I believe that people who respond to requests
for evidence with questions have discovered a evidentiary problem in
their argument and hope they won't be again asked for their evidence.
Again, what's your evidence?
Assertions of fact? Where did I do that?
Most people don't preface facts with "may have..." and "It is not
unreasonable to speculate that......."
What is you're evidence that I made assertion of fact? My post was a
speculation of what may of happened if Darwin had not published his
work. The only thing that I may have stated as fact was my
observations that Darwin was a meticulous scientist. Is this the
statement that you are questioning?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
04 Jul 2004 02:36:07 AM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6nlde0113qemrnf37alkqs17timamujg71@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:27:18 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:29:58 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 06:03:32 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:13:06 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
<rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
My paragraph above was intended to say that Hitler used whatever he
could to justify his beliefs. I believe that, If anything, Darwins
theories presented a problem for Hitler's view of the world. If you
are claiming that Hitler had never heard of Darwin's theories, then I
am curious as to how you think this information was kept from him.
The issue is not whether he had heard of those theories, it's if and
in what why he was influenced by them. If you have any facts at your
command, please command them forth.
So, is it your belief that Hitler was not influenced in any way by the
emerging theories of evolution?
It is my belief that you made assertions of fact and should at least
outline your evidence. I believe that people who respond to requests
for evidence with questions have discovered a evidentiary problem in
their argument and hope they won't be again asked for their evidence.
Again, what's your evidence?
Assertions of fact? Where did I do that?
Most people don't preface facts with "may have..." and "It is not
unreasonable to speculate that......."
What is you're evidence that I made assertion of fact? My post was a
speculation of what may of happened if Darwin had not published his
work. The only thing that I may have stated as fact was my
observations that Darwin was a meticulous scientist. Is this the
statement that you are questioning?
I'm referring to your comment above: "It is not unreasonable to
speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda."
This appears to me to make the assumption that Hitler used Darwin's
"formulation" to some significant degree. In fact, it's surprising
how few referrences to Darwin or Darwinist metaphors seem to have been
made by leading Nazis.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
04 Jul 2004 11:50:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 07:36:07 +0000 (UTC), (Mitchell
Coffey) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6nlde0113qemrnf37alkqs17timamujg71@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:27:18 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:29:58 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 06:03:32 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:13:06 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
<rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
My paragraph above was intended to say that Hitler used whatever he
could to justify his beliefs. I believe that, If anything, Darwins
theories presented a problem for Hitler's view of the world. If you
are claiming that Hitler had never heard of Darwin's theories, then I
am curious as to how you think this information was kept from him.
The issue is not whether he had heard of those theories, it's if and
in what why he was influenced by them. If you have any facts at your
command, please command them forth.
So, is it your belief that Hitler was not influenced in any way by the
emerging theories of evolution?
It is my belief that you made assertions of fact and should at least
outline your evidence. I believe that people who respond to requests
for evidence with questions have discovered a evidentiary problem in
their argument and hope they won't be again asked for their evidence.
Again, what's your evidence?
Assertions of fact? Where did I do that?
Most people don't preface facts with "may have..." and "It is not
unreasonable to speculate that......."
What is you're evidence that I made assertion of fact? My post was a
speculation of what may of happened if Darwin had not published his
work. The only thing that I may have stated as fact was my
observations that Darwin was a meticulous scientist. Is this the
statement that you are questioning?
I'm referring to your comment above: "It is not unreasonable to
speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda."
This appears to me to make the assumption that Hitler used Darwin's
"formulation" to some significant degree. In fact, it's surprising
how few referrences to Darwin or Darwinist metaphors seem to have been
made by leading Nazis.
Mitchell Coffey
Darwin's version was the most popular formulation of the theory at
the time. If Hitler used any of the ideas related to the theory of
evolution, it most certainly would include influence from Darwin's
input. Whether it gave support to Hitler's ideas is not something I
could know, and I suggested that the opposite is more likely true. To
suggest that Hitler gave so much attention to eugenics and racism yet
was not influenced by the theory of evolution is absurd.
To artificially quarantine the theory of evolution from any
possibility of being used to justify other disreputable theories is
dishonest. You seem to be of the mindset that this would make Darwin's
theories less respectable. I do not see it that way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
06 Jul 2004 11:47:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 16:50:23 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 07:36:07 +0000 (UTC), (Mitchell
Coffey) wrote:
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<6nlde0113qemrnf37alkqs17timamujg71@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004 17:27:18 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:29:58 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 06:03:32 +0000 (UTC), Mitchell Coffey
<mdotcoffeyatstarpowerdotnet@hunter.news.rcn.net> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:18:08 +0000 (UTC), LP
<whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 21:13:06 +0000 (UTC), "Richard S. Crawford"
<rscrawfordDUCK@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
LP wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Darwin was not the only one who had theories about how species
evolved. If Darwin had not published his research, then another less
well researched version of the theory may have become popular. The
fact that Darwin was such a meticulous and careful researcher enabled
him to do a comprehensive job moving the theory forward. He did this
without a bunch of extraneous subjective mistakes that some
researchers make (e.g., S.Frued). It is not unreasonable to speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda.
Please. Darwin and the theory of natural selection had nothing to do
with the Holocaust. Get this bit of vile misrepresentation out of your
head before it does you more harm.
My paragraph above was intended to say that Hitler used whatever he
could to justify his beliefs. I believe that, If anything, Darwins
theories presented a problem for Hitler's view of the world. If you
are claiming that Hitler had never heard of Darwin's theories, then I
am curious as to how you think this information was kept from him.
The issue is not whether he had heard of those theories, it's if and
in what why he was influenced by them. If you have any facts at your
command, please command them forth.
So, is it your belief that Hitler was not influenced in any way by the
emerging theories of evolution?
It is my belief that you made assertions of fact and should at least
outline your evidence. I believe that people who respond to requests
for evidence with questions have discovered a evidentiary problem in
their argument and hope they won't be again asked for their evidence.
Again, what's your evidence?
Assertions of fact? Where did I do that?
Most people don't preface facts with "may have..." and "It is not
unreasonable to speculate that......."
What is you're evidence that I made assertion of fact? My post was a
speculation of what may of happened if Darwin had not published his
work. The only thing that I may have stated as fact was my
observations that Darwin was a meticulous scientist. Is this the
statement that you are questioning?
I'm referring to your comment above: "It is not unreasonable to
speculate
that if Darwin had not formulated and published his theories, Hitler
would have used an alternate, but much weaker formulation of the
theory. This would have likely enabled Hitler to more extensively
misrepresent the premise to suit his agenda."
This appears to me to make the assumption that Hitler used Darwin's
"formulation" to some significant degree. In fact, it's surprising
how few referrences to Darwin or Darwinist metaphors seem to have been
made by leading Nazis.
Mitchell Coffey
Darwin's version was the most popular formulation of the theory at
the time. If Hitler used any of the ideas related to the theory of
evolution, it most certainly would include influence from Darwin's
input. Whether it gave support to Hitler's ideas is not something I
could know, and I suggested that the opposite is more likely true. To
suggest that Hitler gave so much attention to eugenics and racism yet
was not influenced by the theory of evolution is absurd.
To artificially quarantine the theory of evolution from any
possibility of being used to justify other disreputable theories is
dishonest. You seem to be of the mindset that this would make Darwin's
theories less respectable. I do not see it that way.
It's a good thing you used the word "mindset" rather than "paradigm,"
else I would have had to resort to sarcasm.
I have not argued that Hitler was not influenced by the theory of
evolution. I do argue that the evidence for a strong influence is
surprisingly weak. This absence is notable given that Hitler wrote
and commented widely, declaimed opinions on nearly everything and was
neither shy nor proud about discussing his influences.
Whatever biases I drag behind me are irrelevant to the underlying
reality. If you are right, and I wrong, you should be able to support
your argument with evidence.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick James" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
03 Jul 2004 02:53:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:46:13 -0500, LP wrote
(in article <6nlde0113qemrnf37alkqs17timamujg71@4ax.com>):
It is my belief that you made assertions of fact and should at least
outline your evidence. I believe that people who respond to requests
for evidence with questions have discovered a evidentiary problem in
their argument and hope they won't be again asked for their evidence.
Again, what's your evidence?
Assertions of fact? Where did I do that?
Hypothesis confirmed.
--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
01 Jul 2004 11:34:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 12:33:31 +0000 (UTC), (david
ford) wrote:
What is Darwin's contribution, if any, to the coming of the Holocaust?
T. H. Huxley's?
Haeckel's?
Nietzsche's?
Perhaps you could say it was Gutenberg that contributed most to the
Holocaust.
It was the easy reproduction of text which allowed the spread of
anti-semitism form publicists such as Lanz von Liebenfels, whose
pamphlets Hitler read.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin Contribute to Holocaust? |
11 Jul 2004 01:37:26 AM |
< | |
