Think There's No Link Between Darwinism and Nazism?

[Sojourner<><]

Biology is not theology. Evolutionary theory makes no prescriptive judgments as to right and wrong it just says what IS.

You can't really argue against the truth because you don't like the consequences of how people use that truth to their own twisted means.

For instance, Atomic theory is not incorrect because people twisted it to make weapons.

The ironic thing here is that science has never proven that evolutionary theory is true, nor can it absolutely. A theory is not truth, it's an idea or a guess at what is true, and it must be argued against or else we can't call it valid science.

I do agree with you that the evolutionary theory's sociological implications can't be used as an argument against it. But it is at least an important topic, don't you think?

 

[quatona]

I do agree with you that the evolutionary theory's sociological implications can't be used as an argument against it.

There are no such implications.

 

[Mling]

The two primary methods of mass murder during the Holocaust were, first, carbon monoxide, and later, Zyklon B (cyanide gas).

The carbon monoxide was used by hooking up a truck exhaust pipe to a vent in the room. The Zyklon B was originally designed to kill microorganisms as part of a water purification system.

I think it is important to keep in mind the role that transportation and hygiene played in the Holocaust. In fact, any conversation or study of automotive repair or construction, or of waste-water treatment and purification, *Must,* ethically, involve some acknowledgment that they are inherently dangerous and easily-corruptible fields, the natural conclusion of which is mass murder.

Study clean water if you must. Discuss hot cars it if you must. But never allow it to slip your mind what that study has wrought, and where it may lead again.

 

[variant]

The ironic thing here is that science has never proven that evolutionary theory is true, nor can it absolutely. A theory is not truth, it's an idea or a guess at what is true, and it must be argued against or else we can't call it valid science.

Scientific theories aren't guesswork they a well researched explanations that stand the test of evidence. When they fail to stand the test of evidence they are discarded or modified. Truth can be uncovered and knowledge can be gained via scientific investigation.

The germ theory of disease could still be wrong too, but I doubt it. We aren't just making this stuff up.

I do agree with you that the evolutionary theory's sociological implications can't be used as an argument against it. But it is at least an important topic, don't you think?

Then my example holds, under your reasoning atomic theory is false and invalid because we can make horrible killing devices with it.

Maybe we should be wary of this whole “molecular chemistry” approach that gives us the ability to make high explosives such as TNT and Agent Orange.

Note the issue here; your argument is IRRELEVANT to the validity of evolutionary theory. Science tells you how, not should.

If you want to wallow in irrelevance be my guest.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Scientific theories aren't guesswork they a well researched explanations that stand the test of evidence. When they fail to stand the test of evidence they are discarded or modified. Truth can be uncovered and knowledge can be gained via scientific investigation.

The germ theory of disease could still be wrong too, but I doubt it. We aren't just making this stuff up.

Then my example holds, under your reasoning atomic theory is false and invalid because we can make horrible killing devices with it.

According to my reasoning? I don't recall stating anything along those lines.

Maybe we should be wary of this whole &#8220;molecular chemistry&#8221; approach that gives us the ability to make high explosives such as TNT and Agent Orange.

Note the issue here; your argument is IRRELEVANT to the validity of evolutionary theory. Science tells you how, not should.

If you want to wallow in irrelevance be my guest.

I'm sorry, what exactly do you think my argument is? The point of the thread is that Darwinism is linked to the holocaust, and I've spelled out at least two valid reasons as to why I believe this is true. This has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory itself.

 

[Sojourner<><]

There are no such implications.

Are you suggesting Darwinism has nothing to do with Social Darwinism?

 

[Mling]

According to my reasoning? I don't recall stating anything along those lines.


I'm sorry, what exactly do you think my argument is? The point of the thread is that Darwinism is linked to the holocaust, and I've spelled out at least two valid reasons as to why I believe this is true. This has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory itself.

But everybody knows that social darwinism played a role in the Holocaust. The connection is so glaringly obvious that there is no need to point at it, *unless* you're trying to make a deeper point.

It's the same as pointing out, "Yah know that bank robber that's been all over the news? Well...you know he's black, right? I mean, I'm not saying anything about *all* black people, of course. I would never say something like that because that's A Bad Thing To Say. It's just something to keep in mind. That guy is black."

Well DUH! Like I can't see that for myself? If the only thing you really want to say is "the Holocaust involved Social Darwinism, isn't that an interesting little bit of historical trivia?" or "The melanin content in that person's skin suggests he is of African origin, isn't it interesting that we can note his heritage like that?" Well, those sorts of things don't need to be said, because anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see it for himself.

That you feel the need to say it, *does* mean that you are trying to say something else, too. And what you *are* saying is nothing more than poisoning the well.

And, for the record, the idea of an Ubermensch and the pursuit of the most perfect race of people predates Darwin.

 

[Sojourner<><]

But everybody knows that social darwinism played a role in the Holocaust. The connection is so glaringly obvious that there is no need to point at it, *unless* you're trying to make a deeper point.

It's the same as pointing out, "Yah know that bank robber that's been all over the news? Well...you know he's black, right? I mean, I'm not saying anything about *all* black people, of course. I would never say something like that because that's A Bad Thing To Say. It's just something to keep in mind. That guy is black."

Well DUH! Like I can't see that for myself? If the only thing you really want to say is "the Holocaust involved Social Darwinism, isn't that an interesting little bit of historical trivia?" or "The melanin content in that person's skin suggests he is of African origin, isn't it interesting that we can note his heritage like that?" Well, those sorts of things don't need to be said, because anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see it for himself.

That you feel the need to say it, *does* mean that you are trying to say something else, too. And what you *are* saying is nothing more than poisoning the well.

And, for the record, the idea of an Ubermensch and the pursuit of the most perfect race of people predates Darwin.

The reason why I said it's important to think about is because the loss of a society's ethical standards is a very big deal. Think about it... man learns about darwinism... man loses faith in God... man loses a rational foundation for his ethical standards... man is free to redefine his own standards of conduct in any way that he wishes.

I'm not trying to imply anything that I haven't said and the fact that I have to even defend myself here shows me that your only argument against me is one that discredits my character. That's ok though, it just means I have a good argument, so fire away.

 

[quatona]

Are you suggesting Darwinism has nothing to do with Social Darwinism?

As I said, I am suggesting that evolution theory doesn´t imply Social Darwinism.
In the same way that gravity theory doesn´t imply pushing others off cliffs.

 

[variant]

I'm sorry, what exactly do you think my argument is? The point of the thread is that Darwinism is linked to the holocaust, and I've spelled out at least two valid reasons as to why I believe this is true. This has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory itself.

Sorry, I seem to have been misreading you. My apologies.

A misreading of Darwinian natural selection called social Darwinism had some influence in the holocaust, though it was probably just used as one justification for the sheer anti-Semitism that existed in that day.

I agree that biological evolution should not be used as an ethical guideline, or misused to justify existing prejudices or extreme genocidal actions.

It's not what science is for.

 

[Mling]

The reason why I said it's important to think about is because the loss of a society's ethical standards is a very big deal. Think about it... man learns about darwinism... man loses faith in God... man loses a rational foundation for his ethical standards... man is free to redefine his own standards of conduct in any way that he wishes.

I'm not trying to imply anything that I haven't said and the fact that I have to even defend myself here shows me that your only argument against me is one that discredits my character. That's ok though, it just means I have a good argument, so fire away.

Ahh...the "everybody I'm talking to thinks my idea is ridiculous, that just means I'm being persecuted, which means I'm right," argument. That's fun, isn't it? What's really fun is that you can say it about anything. Christians say it about non-Christians, Muslims say it about non-Muslims (Christians just hate us because they know we're right), geeks say it about the cool kids (they're just jealous because I'm so smart), the cool kids say it about geeks (they hate us because they wish they could be like us).

A perfectly universal argument!

 

[Sojourner<><]

Ahh...the "everybody I'm talking to thinks my idea is ridiculous, that just means I'm being persecuted, which means I'm right," argument. That's fun, isn't it? What's really fun is that you can say it about anything. Christians say it about non-Christians, Muslims say it about non-Muslims (Christians just hate us because they know we're right), geeks say it about the cool kids (they're just jealous because I'm so smart), the cool kids say it about geeks (they hate us because they wish they could be like us).

A perfectly universal argument!

Um, no. I was just pointing out that your response was ad hominem. You're the only one suggesting that I have some sort of hidden agenda. The others were actually having a discussion with me.

By the way, if what I had to say was so obvious, then why does it bother you so much? Everyone must already know, so... no harm, no foul.

 

[LightHorseman]

Maybe not formally but at that time Darwinism had so permeated the thoughts of intellectuals that I don't think you can separate the two. Even Americans were becoming Social Darwinists.

Not to mention that Eugenics was an AMERICAN invention, not a German one, as was mandatory sterilisation of the unfit.

Yes, Americans were doing it before the Nazis.

 

[Sojourner<><]

No problem. I know how it gets on these forums. You were probably just reacting to a dozen other arguments all at once.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Not to mention that Eugenics was an AMERICAN invention, not a German one, as was mandatory sterilisation of the unfit.

Yes, Americans were doing it before the Nazis.

Yeah but keep in mind that it probably wasn't seen as being 'evil' or anything like it is now, and that doesn't mean that Americans were on board with what the Nazis were doing.

 

[Received]

Darwinism ain't tantamount to Social Darwinism, and once you get to man you get to consciousness; and once you get to consciousness, you've gotten to something that allows for a pretty ingenius manipulation of one's environment; and once you get there, competition really isn't a reality, except for in more primitive areas of the world. Civilization supersedes biological fitness. Anyone who claims that certain people or cultures aren't "fit" and therefore deserve annihilation is enshrouding a bad doctrine in evolutionary garb. Evolutionary "fittedness" makes sense only in the context of a will-to-survive. And we're obviously not struggling to survive. We're all, in this sense, becoming biologically unfit. This happens when times are nice.

 

[WorldIsMine]

Who cares? First of all, evolution is not 'Darwinism' and it's really disingenuous to call it by a name that aren't acknowledged by anyone who has ever actually accepted the idea. Nobody calls Christianity "Jesusism", because whether or not it is accurate (and 'Darwinism' certainly is not) it has nothing to do with what anyone actually calls the idea, and can only be interpreted as dismissive or pejorative.
Secondly, who cares if some Nazi or some guy in his room who probably knows nothing about Nazism, much less evolutionary theory, saw a connection between the two? The fallacy of Nazism lies in its Statism, collectivism and socialistic doctrines; that its quasi-biological theories were wrong is a pretty minor point next to these. It's akin to criticizing Plato because he gets the geography of Athens wrong; it's insubstantial to the real ideas and motivating forces behind it.

 

[Sojourner<><]

That's obvious. But again, in regards to the OP, the question is more appropriately stated as: was Darwinism used to justify the murderous actions carried out by the nazis during the holocaust? The answer to this question says nothing about Darwinism other than whether or not it can be used to justify genocide.

What I would like to know is why this is such a sensitive topic. Should we really leave Darwinism out of it and ignore its influence on modern thought?

 

[quatona]

That's obvious. But again, in regards to the OP, the question is more appropriately stated as: was Darwinism used to justify the murderous actions carried out by the nazis during the holocaust?

Yes, that would be the more appropriate question.

The answer to this question says nothing about Darwinism other than whether or not it can be used to justify genocide.

And since pretty much everything can and has been used to justify pretty much everything, the answer doesn´t say anything about Darwinism.
Darwinism has been used to justify totalitarianism, so has Christianity, so has communism.

What I would like to know is why this is such a sensitive topic.

It becomes a sensitive topic when the way people have used it to justify something is used to discredit the something itself. This is what "Expelled" did, and it is disingenious.

Should we really leave Darwinism out of it and ignore its influence on modern thought?

The only relevant question is: Does Darwinism really imply the conclusions that Social Darwinism drew from it. Or, likewise: Does Christianity - which Hitler also used to justify his ideology - really imply Nazism.
Else the entire thing is merely an appeal to Hitler´s authority.

If you think that Nazism and Social Darwinism is "modern thought" - oh well.

 

[Sojourner<><]

It becomes a sensitive topic when the way people have used it to justify something is used to discredit the something itself. This is what "Expelled" did, and it is disingenious.

Really? The impression that I got from Expelled was that it was comparing the actions of the scientific community to a totalitarian regime. I don't remember anything about a link between Darwinism and the holocaust being used as an actual argument against ToE. Besides, wasn't the focus of the movie about the actions taken against proponents of intelligent design?

The only relevant question is: Does Darwinism really imply the conclusions that Social Darwinism drew from it.

Of course that depends on why we are asking the question in the first place. For me, it's pretty clear. The roots of the holocaust should be understood so that we can avoid similar tragedies in the future.

If through Darwinism one can reasonably draw the conclusion that genetically 'inferior' individuals must die for the betterment of the human race, then there would be a logical implication between Darwinism and genocide.

Or, likewise: Does Christianity - which Hitler also used to justify his ideology - really imply Nazism.

As I stated earlier, yes, Christianity was a factor, but it takes alot of twisting to get from "love your neighbor as yourself" to "destroy inferior races for the good of humanity". In this case there is no logical implication between the two.

I think it's fair to say that a rational viewpoint that leads to genocide is much more dangerous than one that is irrational. But so what and why does that matter? It's obvious. You can't avert or fix a problem without first staring it in the face.

If you think that Nazism and Social Darwinism is "modern thought" - oh well.

Well, since the modern era usually refers to the period of history beginning with the Enlightenment, why is that a problem?