New Darwin-to-Hitler cartoons

-- a modification of a previous cartoon.

=======================================================


How about "Godwin mit uns"? From "Godwin's Law." LOL

========================================================

These cartoons are dedicated to the Anti-Defamation League, which called the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision "a victory for students."

READ MORE

Ich bin ein Darwinist (apologies to JFK)

==========================================

LOL. I know that the ADL will just LOVE this one.

READ MORE

New book links Darwin to Hitler and Stalin

A news article said,

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - The founder of a popular Kentucky Christian museum that rejects evolution says in a new book that Darwin's theory fuels racism and genocide.

Ken Ham, who opened the Creation Museum last year, and co-author Charles Ware, president of Crossroads Bible College in Indianapolis, have written ''Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots,'' arguing that the theory inspired the Nazi belief in racial superiority and the murderous policies of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

"What Darwinian evolution did I would say is provide what people thought was a scientific justification for separation of races," Ham said in an interview.

Ham is not the first to try to tie Darwin with racism. The charge has been made for years.

It came up last month in arguments over science curriculum at a South Carolina state school board meeting. In 2001, Louisiana's state legislature considered a bill that said Darwin supported racist ideologies. . . .

. . . "Stalin, Hitler and Mao were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions -- and it can be shown they did this because of the influence of Darwinian naturalism...," Ham writes . . .

In South Carolina, that state's board of education approved a biology textbook that references evolution. One board member had argued that the scientific theory was used by Nazi Germany as an excuse to kill millions of people.

People don't need a "scientific justification for separation of the races." For example, before Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859, the constitution of Illinois prohibited blacks from settling in the state.

I have previously stated my opinion that there is an unquestionable connection between Darwinism and Nazi eugenics programs. In the USA, the Eugenics Record Office merged with the Station for Experimental Evolution in 1920 to form the Carnegie Institution's Dept. of Genetics, and the Nazis were inspired by the American eugenics programs. However, Nazi anti-semitism did not target the mentally and/or physically handicapped and so was not a true eugenics program.

Linking Darwin to Stalin is something new to me.
.

READ MORE

Christian and Jewish Zionists

The Institute for Historical Review appears to blame the USA's excessive and one-sided support for Israel entirely upon the Israel lobby while ignoring the role of Christian Zionists. And yes, there is no question that the USA's support for Israel is excessive and one-sided -- for example, in approx. 40 US vetoes of proposed UN Security Council resolutions directed against Israel in the period 1972-2006, none of the other 14 members of the council ever voted with the US, and in several of those vetoes the vote against the US was 14-1, with no abstentions.

A special-report news article said,
.

Sondra Oster Baras is an Orthodox Jew doing an unorthodox job.

. . . . Baras stumps for money from evangelical Christians to support Jewish settlements in the occupied territories -- land she calls biblical Israel.

A recent stop finds her in Melbourne, Florida, visiting Pastor Gary Christofaro at his First Assembly Church of God.

Christofaro and his flock take their Jewish roots so seriously that on Friday nights they observe the Jewish Sabbath with Hebrew prayers.

This is not just religious ritual. They support Israel -- which to them includes Jewish settlements on the occupied West Bank. Church members tour settlements with Baras and have donated more than a $100,000 to support them.

. . . .A recent poll found that 59 percent of American evangelicals believe Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimates 85 million evangelicals believe God tells them to support Israel -- more than six times the world's Jewish population.

One of the most successful Jewish fundraisers, Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, raised $39 million last year from Christian Zionists to fund human services and humanitarian work in Israel and the settlements.

Christian Zionists often converge on Washington by the thousands to lobby members of Congress in support of Israel.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, was among the speakers at last month's convention of Christians United for Israel.

"There are a lot more Christian Zionists in America than Jewish Zionists," the former Democratic vice presidential candidate told the group.

However, the relationship between Jews and Christian fundies is not always cordial. The Anti-Defamation League in particular is very hostile towards the fundies. The ADL and the fundies have particularly clashed on the Darwin-to-Hitler and evolution controversies.
.

READ MORE

Wishy-washy article about kosherness of Darwinism

A Wall Street Journal article about Orthodox Jews' views of Darwinism first tries to give the impression that there is an Orthodox Jewish consensus supporting Darwinism and then waffles. The article begins,
.

Last month, 600 people turned out for a Yeshiva University fund-raiser at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. The museum, which stands as a monument to science, houses one of the world's most extensive collections of dinosaur fossils. The dinner itself was held in the dramatic Milstein Hall of Ocean Life, which features a massive blue whale that hangs suspended in midair; intricate dioramas modeled on the flora and fauna of the planet's oceans line the walls. Everything about the affair suggested that Yeshiva, the intellectual epicenter of Modern Orthodox Jewish life in America, is very much at ease in the world of secular science.

This impression is confirmed by Carl Feit, who is an ordained rabbi and Talmudic scholar as well as chairman of the science division at Yeshiva College. Prof. Feit says that in nearly a quarter-century of teaching introductory biology, he has always taught evolution -- supported by traditional Jewish source material -- and that "there has never been a blip on the radar here." His assessment echoes the official line of the Modern Orthodox rabbinical association, which states that evolution is entirely consistent with Judaism.

The seeming ease with which this branch of Judaism has embraced science can in large part be credited to the towering intellectual legacy of Moses Maimonides.

The Milstein Hall of Ocean Life does seem like a strange place to hold a huge Yeshiva University fundraiser -- it seems that the place does not have much to do with Judaism. Furthermore, it is even more strange to interpret this choice of a fundraising site as an Orthodox Jewish endorsement of Darwinism.

The article later says,

Yet there are important exceptions to this tradition of moderation, and in certain parts of the ultra-Orthodox world, Darwinism has always been denounced as subversive and dangerous. Take the case of Rabbi Natan Slifkin. A boyish-looking ultra-Orthodox Israeli scholar and science writer, Mr. Slifkin, who publishes his books in English, is popularly known as the "Zoo Rabbi" because of his consuming fascination with the animal kingdom and his Steve Irwin-esque pedagogical style. In recent years he has emerged as a central figure in the ultra-Orthodox struggle to define the proper place of science within Judaism.

Rabbi Slifkin's work has been publicly denounced by 23 prominent ultra-Orthodox rabbis who attacked his beliefs as "nonsense" and ordered that Rabbi Slifkin himself "burn all his writings."

Also, the WSJ article said (I added this quote to this post on Friday afternoon),

According to Marc Swetlitz, co-editor of "Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism," "the Slifkin affair has forced both Jews and non-Jews to remember that there are Jews who oppose evolution and they are not afraid to say so. I think there is more Jewish anti-evolution writing out there now than ever before."

Also, a major Orthodox Jewish magazine's article titled "The Faith of Darwinism and the Science of Intelligent Design" said,

Belief in Darwinism and religious life are truly incompatible.

. . . . it is vital that all Jewish high school students, Orthodox or otherwise, and whether in a public or Jewish school, be fully aware of the religious implications of classic Darwinism. It is also important that we refute the misconception that ID is a Christian idea. It is Jewish to the core and one of our fundamental beliefs.

So it should be apparent that there is no Orthodox Jewish consensus supporting Darwinism. Also, a lot of Jewish support for Darwinism -- particularly that of the Anti-Defamation League -- is basically just anti-Christian and particularly anti-fundy. The ADL is paranoid about the proselytizing efforts of Christians and the efforts to turn the USA into a "Christian" nation. The ADL sees the teaching of criticisms of Darwinism in the public schools as a threat to the separation of church and state. The ADL probably also sees attempts to link Darwin to Hitler as attempts to reduce Christian anti-Semitism's responsibility for Hitler. The ADL sees criticisms of Darwinism as anti-Semitic. There are no other ways to explain the ADL's fanatical embrace of Darwinism. Otherwise, why would the ADL file amicus briefs opposing the teaching of criticisms of Darwinism in public schools. Why would the ADL website have an article titled, "Dover Intelligent Design Decision A Victory for Students." Why would the ADL have Judge Jones as a speaker at a national executive committee meeting. Why would ADL national director Abraham Foxman bitterly attack a fundy outfit's TV program -- the ADL called it a "Christian Supremacist TV Special" -- that linked Darwin to Hitler. What in the hell does the controversy over Darwinism have to do with anti-Semitism, anyway. Not very much. People are going to call me an anti-Semite for telling it like it is, but someone has to do it.

For related articles in this blog, click on the "Darwin-to-Hitler" label below or in the sidebar of the home or archive pages. "Darwin-to-Hitler" is not particularly appropriate as the sole label for this post, but if I created a new label I would have to go back and relabel a lot of old posts. I may create a new label later. Also, some of the old posts with the Darwin-to-Hitler label do not particularly concern the Darwin-to-Hitler issue but generally concern Jewish views of the controversy over Darwinism.
.

READ MORE

Red State Rabble babble about Discovery Institute

A post titled "Discovery's Disturbing Legacy" on the Red State Rabble blog is a long smear of the Discovery Institute and other critics of Darwinism. That post is so full of lies that I scarcely know where to begin in refuting them.

The post described the following public testimony at a Kansas hearing for the new state science standards:
.

"Auschwitz did not come from the Nazi high command,” John James confided to the crowd, "it came from the teachings of the scientific and philosophical worlds, which produced nihilism, and I submit to you that much of that, if not vast proportions of it, came due to the teaching of evolution which, in turn, produces nihilism. So what are we doing? Are we producing little Kansas Nazis?"

IMO it is better to have that point of view than to believe -- as Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman believes --- that any discussion of a possible link between Darwin and Nazism should be considered taboo. Anyway, my Darwin-to-Hitler posts here show that the connection between Darwin and Hitler is undeniable.

Red State Rabble said,

Jones' ruling was a humiliating defeat for Discovery because it knocked the legs out from under that carefully crafted strategy.

"Humiliating defeat"? LOL. Jones' ruling is one of the most thoroughly discredited court decisions in American history -- even many articles in mainstream law journals have been attacking it.

RSR said,

The depth of Discovery's crisis was revealed by a series of embarrassingly lame attempts to label Jones, an observant Lutheran and conservative Republican appointed to the bench by George Bush

If judges typically bend over backwards -- as Judge Jones did -- in an effort to show that their backgrounds are no indication of bias, then IMO it would have been better if the Kitzmiller v. Dover case had been decided by a radical godless blasphemous Clinton-appointed Democratic fundy-hating atheistic Darwinist. As for Jones being an "observant Lutheran," he said in his Dickinson College commencement speech that organized religions are not "true" religions.

RSR said,

When the activist judge label failed to stick, Discovery attempted to smear his ruling as plagiarized.

I am not against Jones' "plagiarism" per se -- what I am against is the one-sidedness of his plagiarism. The ID-as-science section of the opinion was virtually entirely copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs. If the defendants' arguments were really bad, there was all the more reason for Jones to address them in order to refute them.

The Kitzmiller decision is a dud. For example, "Monkey Girl," a generally highly touted book about the case, has attracted only 19 customer reviews on Amazon.com in the three months since the book's release. A highly touted new book about a popular subject would have attracted hundreds of customer reviews in that time.

RSR said,

Thwarted by the court in their central strategic objectives, increasingly shunted off to the side by the news media, at odds with their creationist allies, and unable to produce any credible science of their own, the Discovery Institute has now adopted a cynical Plan B: If you can't build your own house, you may as well tear your neighbor's down.

"Shunted off to the side by the news media"? Intelligent design is now a bigger topic than ever -- and the publicity over the Kitzmiller trial is a major reason for that.

RSR said,

Discovery’s Plan B has popped up with increasing frequency over a number of months, but got its official launch with speeches in Washington and Philadelphia earlier this week by Discovery fellow John West that quickly cut the Nazi’s six million victims to “hundred of thousands.”

That's ridiculous. I have never seen either of the Discovery Institute's websites -- here and here -- engage in holocaust denial or revisionism.

RSR said,

This week’s events were preceded by the broadcast of “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy,” a production of Coral Ridge Ministries, on Christian television last August. The program, which explicitly links the crimes of Hitler to Charles Darwin featured Discovery fellows Richard Weikart, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, and Michael Behe.

That is better than just burying our heads in the sand in regard to the Darwin-to-Hitler question, like the ADL's Abraham Foxman wants us to do.

RSR said,

If what Weikart, West, Coulter, and Discovery say is true, one might think that Jewish organizations would welcome their support. However, just the opposite is true.

Some Jews and Jewish organizations did actually support Coral Ridge Ministries, which produced the "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" TV show. One leader of a Jewish organization actually apologized for Foxman's vitriolic attack on Coral Ridge Ministries.

RSR said,

Next week, Discovery is participating in the World Congress of Families in Warsaw. In doing so, they are joining with a motley crew of far-right anti-immigrant zealots who claim Muslims and other immigrants are contributing to the "demographic destruction" of Europe, extreme homophobes, misogynists, and anti-abortion fanatics who, holding life sacred, call openly for the murder of abortion providers.

Unless the above charge can be proven, it borders on libel.

A Panda's Thumb post supporting the RSR post is here.
.

READ MORE

Article about Darwin-to-Hitler issue

I decided to post this link to an article about the Darwin-to-Hitler issue because this article has a lot of good info and bears upon several posts in this blog.

I feel that the Darwinist idea of "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection" did not directly influence the Nazis' social policies because most of the people who were targeted by the Nazis were not physically or mentally unfit. Indeed, many of the first people who were targeted by the Nazis had high levels of mental and physical fitness. Jewish professionals were among the first victims of Nazi discrimination. In the 1936 Berlin Olympic Games, two Jewish runners were pulled at the last minute from the USA's 400 meter relay team and were replaced by Jesse Owens and another black runner, even though blacks must have been lower than Jews on the Nazis' genetic totem-pole. I think that the main influence of Darwinism on Nazi policies towards Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. was to create the idea -- through Social Darwinism and eugenics -- that it was morally OK to eliminate undesirables. Anyway, we are not going to learn anything about the Darwin-to-Hitler connection by burying our heads in the sand as the ADL's Abraham Foxman wants us to do. And "Fatheaded Ed" Brayton is of course trying to shift all of the blame to Christianity.

Related articles in Wikipedia:

Nazi eugenics

Racial policy of Nazi Germany

Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service

To see this blog's other articles about the Darwin-to-Hitler issue, just click on the label below.

READ MORE

John West and Larry Arnhart debate Darwin-to-Hitler issue

John West, a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, wrote,

Political science professor Larry Arnhart, author of the book Darwinian Conservatism, is probably the most thoughtful and articulate proponent of Darwinism as a support for conservatism. My recent book Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest is largely framed as a response to Arnhart's arguments. I appreciate how seriously Arnhart takes the debate over the implications of Darwin’s theory, and also how committed he is to a civil discussion.

In A Further Response to Larry Arnhart, pt. 4: Darwinism, Capitalism, and Limited Government, West wrote,

Arnhart argues that Darwinism provides support for limited government, and he attempts to disassociate Darwin’s theory from the utopian crusades of “Social Darwinism” such as eugenics. Indeed, he argues that Charles Darwin is unfairly blamed for eugenics and that “much of what has been identified as social Darwinism... is a distortion of Darwinian science.” However, in my book I show how Darwin himself in The Descent of Man provided the rationale for what became the eugenics movement, and how the vast majority of evolutionary biologists early in the twentieth century were right to see negative eugenics as a logical application of Darwin’s theory. In his response, Arnhart continues to insist that eugenists and other Social Darwinists “were not really acting out of a clear and accurate understanding of Darwinian science” and contends that blaming Darwinism for Social Darwinism is tantamount to claiming that “Christianity was responsible for Hitler’s anti-Semitism because Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism was often cited by the Nazis.” The Luther comparison is inapt. Martin Luther was not the founder of Christianity, and so any claims he may have made are not necessarily authoritative interpretations of the Christian tradition. But Charles Darwin was most certainly the founder of his own theory. So if Darwin himself provided a logical rationale for eugenics in his writings, it is hard to see how others can be accused of “distorting” his teachings in their embrace of negative eugenics. Moreover, the fact that virtually all leading evolutionary biologists in the first part of the twentieth century embraced eugenics on Darwinian grounds should make one think twice about claiming that eugenics was simply a distortion of Darwin’s theory. (emphasis added)

For starters, I think that West's statement, "Martin Luther was not the founder of Christianity, and so any claims he may have made are not necessarily authoritative interpretations of the Christian tradition," is nitpicking. Luther was not the founder of Christianity, but he was certainly the founder of Lutheranism, a denomination of Christianity. And Arnhart is wrong, too -- Europe's long history of anti-Semitism was partly based on Christianity.

Columbus has been blamed for Custer, which is a lot more far-fetched than blaming Darwin for Hitler. A link between Darwin and Nazism is indisputable, however tenuous that link may be. At least three books -- described here, here, and here -- have been written linking two or more of the following: Darwinism, Social Darwinism, eugenics, and Nazism. Also, a recent TV program linked Darwin to Hitler. Either these books and the TV show are just full of lies or there is some link between Darwinism and Nazism. The founders of Social Darwinism -- e.g., Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton (considered to be the founder of eugenics), Thomas Huxley, and Ernst Haeckel -- were influenced by Darwin. The Nazis were influenced by American eugenics programs. The Carnegie Institution's Department of Genetics was formed in 1920 by the merger of the Eugenics Record Office and the oddly titled "Station for Experimental Evolution." It is believed that William Jennings Bryan's anti-Darwinist activism was based on his opposition to Social Darwinism. Of course, none of this means that Darwinism itself is bad.

Arnhart's statement that "these 'social Darwinists' were not really acting out of a clear and accurate understanding of Darwinian science," even if true, would not sever the link between Darwin and Hitler. To claim that there is no link between Darwin and Hitler is simply disingenuous.

READ MORE

Some Jews love Darwinism because they hate Christian fundies

This blog has previously noted that some Jews and Jewish organizations are strongly opposed to any criticism of Darwinism. Jews and Jewish organizations have often been co-plaintiffs and submitted supporting amicus briefs in lawsuits against teaching or even mentioning criticisms of Darwinism in the public schools. And Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, bitterly denounced a TV program about Social Darwinism's influence on Nazism. I assert that the reason for many Jews' fanatical love of Darwinism is their hatred of Christian fundies. These Jews associate anti-Darwinism with the Christian fundies' efforts to break down the separation of church and state and turn the USA into a "Christian" nation. A Time article gives the following description of paranoid Jewish hatred of Christian fundies:

In early November 2005, the Prime Minister of Iran stated his intention to wipe Israel off the map. At almost exactly the same time, leaders of the American Jewish community declared war on the Christian Right.

Abe Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, issued the first call to arms. The Jews, he said, faced an organized, sophisticated coalition of enemies. He described as "openly arrogant" the supposed Evangelical goal: "To Christianize us, to save us!" Within a few weeks, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, leader of the liberal Reform Movement, America's largest Jewish denomination, and Rabbi James Rudin of the ultra-establishment American Jewish Committee, reprised Foxman's complaint.

Never before in U.S. history had Jewish leaders shown such bold hostility toward Evangelical Christians, the largest Protestant community in America and, by most measures, the most philo-Semitic and pro-Israel. In normal times, this would be paradoxical. In an age of jihad it was dangerously perverse.

. . . . . .The Democratic party, with its many Jewish activists, has traditionally supported Israel. But the Republicans have no such ethnic affinity. It is the Evangelicals, major stakeholders in the G.O.P., who have made it a bastion of pro-Israel and pro-Jewish sentiment.

This blog has the following related articles:

Culture war over "Darwin and Hitler" is in full swing

Jewish IDism

READ MORE

Nazi Social Darwinism: Aryan breeding program

This breeding program is described in an AOL news article.

Funny, but those purebred Aryans in the pictures could be mistaken for Jews.

READ MORE

Yet another Darwin-to-Hitler book!

I have already discussed two Darwin-to-Hitler books on this blog, in Book links Darwin to Hitler and Another book links Darwin to Hitler. Now I have discovered yet another Darwin-to-Hitler book: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany. This book is discussed on Panda's Thumb.

I wonder why Anti-Defamation League national director Abraham Foxman recently had a conniption fit over the Coral Ridge Ministries' TV special titled "Darwin's Deadly Legacy", which linked Darwin to Hitler. One would think that Foxman would be accustomed to this stuff by now.

READ MORE

Jewish IDism

The Darwinian Fundamentalism blog reported three articles about ID that were published in the Fall 5767/2006 edition of Jewish Action. One of these articles, titled "The Faith of Darwinism and the Science of Intelligent Design" by Arnold Slyper, director of Pediatric Endocrinology at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Illinois, is pro-ID and has several errors. This article says:

Belief in Darwinism and religious life are truly incompatible.

. . . . it is vital that all Jewish high school students, Orthodox or otherwise, and whether in a public or Jewish school, be fully aware of the religious implications of classic Darwinism. It is also important that we refute the misconception that ID is a Christian idea. It is Jewish to the core and one of our fundamental beliefs.

Wow. Them's fighting words. However, there are many Jews who do not share those beliefs. Some Jewish organizations, particularly the Anti-Defamation League, have been particularly hostile to the teaching or even mention of criticisms of Darwinism in the public schools. The American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and the American Jewish Committee were organizational co-plaintiffs in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982), though some Christian clergy members were also co-plaintiffs; the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress filed amicus briefs in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987); and the ADL, the AJC, and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State jointly filed an amicus brief in the appeal of Selman v. Cobb County (now on remand in a federal district court). The ADL applauded the Darwinist Kitzmiller v. Dover decision -- in fact, the judge, Judge John E. Jones III, was a guest speaker at the annual meeting of the ADL national executive committee. I presume that these Jewish organizations' opposition to criticisms of Darwinism in the public schools is primarily motivated by church-state separation issues rather than scientific issues.

Slyper says,

The controversy [i.e., the Kitzmiller case] elicited little interest in the Jewish community.

See above. Also, the controversy in the Jewish community is discussed in an article titled "Evolution cases expose Orthodox vs. liberal rifts".

Slyper says,

By turning a blind eye to the debate, religious leaders are unwittingly giving credence to the type of arguments proposed by Judge Jones.

Religious leaders up to an including the pope have not turned a blind eye to the debate, but have been quite vocal about it.

Slyper says,

By World War I, many of the implications of social Darwinism, such as colonialism and the extremes of capitalism, had largely become untenable from both a political and moral standpoint. Nevertheless, the Jewish people were to experience first-hand the horrors of this theory when it resurfaced, unbridled, in Nazi Germany.

It was not just in Nazi Germany that social Darwinism continued after WW 1 -- the eugenics movement was quite active and influential in the USA between the world wars. See here, here, and here.

Also, Slyper's above statement about Nazi Germany contrasts sharply with ADL national director Abraham Foxman's vitriolic condemnation of a TV program that linked Darwinism to Nazism.

Also, as for the statement about colonialism, colonialism was still strong in the years between the world wars. Nations that had colonies held on to them, and some nations established new colonies -- e.g., Italy took over Ethiopia and Japan took over Manchuria. It was not until after WW 2 -- in some cases, well after WW 2 -- that colonialism was abandoned.

About Jewish Action magazine (from Wikipedia) --

Jewish Action is an American Orthodox Jewish magazine published by the Orthodox Union. The magazine generally presents a Modern Orthodox viewpoint . . . . .Published since 1940, it is printed quarterly, with a special Passover issue. Its regular quarterly editions have a mail readership of 50,000, and its Passover issue has a distribution of 100,000. Though generally sold via mail subscription, it is also distributed through retail stores and food outlets throughout North America.

READ MORE

Another book links Darwin to Hitler

A book titled "The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism" by Stefan Kuhl, which links the American eugenics movement to Nazism, was published about nine years before a book on the same subject, "The War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race".

One reviewer of "The Nazi Connection" noted that the son of Charles Darwin attended a meeting of the eugenics movement:

Kühl explores the international nature of the eugenics movement, beginning with the first international meeting organised by the International Society for Racial Hygiene in Dresden in 1911. The meeting drew people from all over Europe and the United States. A further meeting the following year included the son of Charles Darwin and Winston Churchill as representatives -- the latter being the Home Secretary at the time.

Other reviews of the book are here and here.

Also, it has been claimed that the opposition of William Jennings Bryan -- the politician who was the prosecutor at the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial -- to Darwinism was motivated by his opposition to Social Darwinism -- see this and this

So it seems that this idea of Darwin-to-Hitler is hardly new, which makes it surprising that the recent TV show on this subject sparked such shock and outrage.

READ MORE

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory -- birthplace of the holocaust?

Well, if you believe the book "War Against the Weak" by Edwin Black, then you might think that CSHL was the birthplace of the holocaust. The introduction of this book says,

Within these pages you will discover the sad truth of how the scientific rationales that drove killer doctors at Auschwitz were first concocted on Long Island at the Carnegie Institution’s eugenic enterprise at Cold Spring Harbor.

Wikipedia gives a good short history of CSHL. An early director of the CSHL, Charles B. Davenport, was a rather unsavory racist character. Contrary to the negative image that Black's book gives it, CSHL is actually a very prestigious laboratory where a lot of important research on genetics was done.

A detailed history of CSHL is starts here (this history incorrectly says that the Eugenics Record Office closed in 1940 -- it closed in 1944).

The Eugenics Record Office was part of CSHL:

In 1910, the Eugenics Record Office was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, as a center for the study of human heredity and a repository for genetic data on human traits. It merged with the Station for Experimental Evolution in 1920 to become the Department of Genetics at the Carnegie Institution, and under the direction of Charles B. Davenport and later of Albert Blakeslee and Milislav Demerec, it became the most important center for eugenic research in the nation. However with intellectual currents shifting, the Carnegie Institution stopped funding the office in 1939. It remained active until 1944, when its records were transferred to the Charles Fremont Dight Institute for the Promotion of Human Genetics at the University of Minnesota. When the Dight closed in 1991, the genealogical material was filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah and given to the Center for Human Genetics; the non-genealogical material was not filmed and was given to the American Philosophical Society Library.

It is believed that distaste for the Nazi eugenics programs is what caused the Carnegie Institution to stop funding the office.

There are legitimate forms of eugenics that are being practiced today, like genetic counseling.

Anyway, I oppose the "politically-correct" notion that any mention of a connection between Darwin and Hitler is taboo. I also oppose the notion that the study of this connection is or should be of no practical consequence and is therefore pointless. This is history and should be studied for history's own sake, if for no other reason. The connection between Darwin and Hitler is not a subject that I am crazy about, but I just feel that the subject should be studied objectively.

I have been following this Darwin-to-Hitler debate for some time, and I am surprised that I am now learning about CSHL's role for the first time. I didn't see the TV program "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" because of an error in the announced show time on the Coral Ridge Ministries website, and I am wondering if the show mentioned CSHL.

READ MORE

Book links Darwin to Hitler

The above title was a little sensationalized in the hope of attracting visitors' attention. Actually, the book only directly links the American eugenics movement and Hitler. It is Sir Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin who was influenced by him, who is regarded as the founder of eugenics. So there is a link, however tenuous and/or indirect, between Darwin and Hitler. Is blaming Darwin for Hitler any worse than blaming Columbus for Custer, which American Indians do? BTW, it seems that no one has noticed that Darwin, despite his fame, was never knighted and/or lorded, unlike many other well-known Britons (how does "Sir Charles Darwin, Lord So-and-so" sound?).

The website of a book titled "War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race", written by Edwin Black, author of the absurd book "IBM and the Holocaust", says that the book describes "[h]ow American corporate philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States, helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele — and then created the modern movement of 'human genetics.' " The website says,

American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide. During the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany's program. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists. Once WWII began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia to genocidal murder. One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in the program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was Josef Mengele who continued his research in Auschwitz, making daily eugenic reports on twins.

Daniel J. Kevles, who teaches history at Yale and who wrote a book titled ''In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity,'' panned Black's book in a New York Times op-ed piece, which said,

Black is the author previously of ''IBM and the Holocaust,'' a work strongly suggesting that the company, with its punch-card machines, knowingly assisted Hitler's brutalities. His ''War Against the Weak,'' apparently written with similar intent, is a muckraking book about a subject incontestably awash in muck. In the vein of the genre, it is a stew rich in facts and spiced with half-truths, exaggerations and distortions. The most pungent ingredient is its central thesis: eugenic doctrines and policies favoring ''Nordic superiority'' were in fact invented in the United States, were developed in alliance with American wealth and power, and were then exported, inspiring Hitler and achieving their ultimate realization in the Holocaust . . . . . . .

True enough, eugenic actions were pioneered in the United States, and a number of American eugenicists praised the Nazi sterilization law, noting it was devoid of racial intent and robustly consistent with Buck v. Bell. But it greatly oversimplifies matters to say that the American example pointed Nazi Germany down the road to the Holocaust. Many American eugenicists opposed the Nazis outright, and even the most avid enthusiasts of sterilization turned against them after the proclamation of the Nuremberg Laws. Black basically argues that because the mad beast had some American markings, its chief features must have all been bred in the United States. But as he himself acknowledges, the nations of Europe had their own, indigenous eugenics movements. Notions of Nordic superiority had strong, independent roots abroad, and so did ideas of racial improvement through measures like sterilization. The Nazis did draw on American precedents, but Black neglects to weigh the impact of the imports against the force of native impulses.

The website of "War Against the Weak" has a list of excerpts of reviews of the book in prominent publications, along with links to some of these reviews. I discovered that the website of "IBM and the Holocaust" also lists excerpts of reviews and links to some of the reviews -- not all the reviews were completely complimentary, but I found, not surprisingly, that two very critical reviews in the New York Times were not listed.

One can only wonder how or where Black gets the thousands of secret and confidential documents and the dozens of hardworking "volunteer" assistants that he needs to write these books. He even advertises for volunteer assistants. The reward for volunteering is mention in the acknowledgments.

In condemning a TV show that linked Darwin to Hitler, the Anti-Defamation League's national director Abraham Foxman said,

This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.

So why didn't the ADL also condemn Black's books? After all, didn't Black "trivialize" the holocaust for the purpose of selling his sensationalistic books? Did Hitler really "need" IBM and the American eugenics movement to help him dream up, plan, and carry out the holocaust? And doesn't the book "War Against the Weak" arguably link Darwin to Hitler because of Darwin's link to the eugenics movement, even though the book might not specifically mention the latter link? IMO, the reason why the ADL attacked the TV show but not Black's books is that the ADL is a strong, vocal supporter of Darwinism. And IMO the reason why the ADL is a strong, vocal supporter of Darwinism is that the ADL sees the teaching or even the mention of Darwinism in the public schools as a violation or threat against the separation of church and state. The ADL applauded the Darwinist Kitzmiller v. Dover decision -- in fact, the judge, Judge John E. Jones, III, was a guest speaker at the annual meeting of the ADL national executive committee -- and Jewish groups have in several court cases filed amicus briefs opposing the teaching or mention of criticisms of Darwinism in the public schools. It's all politics.

READ MORE

FDR, IBM, Darwin, and the Holocaust

The blog Darwinian Fundamentalism reported a recent Washington Post article that discusses the negative reaction to a new book titled, "Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust." The article said,

Fifty-five historians have signed a letter protesting the new book about Roosevelt because, they say, it impugns the patriotism of scholars who think the United States should have bombed Auschwitz, admitted more refugees and taken other steps to lessen the Nazi genocide.

In "Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust," author Robert N. Rosen contends that "from Roosevelt's perspective, everything was done that could reasonably be done for European Jewry." FDR's critics, he writes, are indulging in "America-bashing" and promoting an "anti-American" version of history.

Below is the text of the letter that the 55 holocaust historians sent to the publisher in protest of the book:

Gentlemen:

In Robert N. Rosen's new book "Saving the Jews: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust, " he impugns the patriotism of scholars, including Prof. David S. Wyman, who have taken issue with the Roosevelt administration's response to the Holocaust. Mr. Rosen accuses these scholars of promoting "an anti-American version of history" (pp. 332) and engaging in "America bashing." (p. 324)

As scholars who have written about the Holocaust, we protest Mr. Rosen's attempt to demean the motives of reputable historians who have documented important facts about how America responded to the Nazi genocide.

Does your publishing house really mean to suggest that questioning the policies of a particular administration is grounds for branding a scholar "anti-American"? Such name-calling and invective are deplorable, false, and have no place in serious discussion of the Roosevelt administration's response to one of the greatest moral crises of the Twentieth Century.

Sincerely,

In contrast to the big protest over the book "Saving the Jews," there did not appear to be any significant objection to the book "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black, which appeared to libel a great American company. The introduction to "IBM and the Holocaust" said, "IBM, primarily through its German subsidiary, made Hitler's program of Jewish destruction a technologic mission the company pursued with chilling success." A New York Times book reviewer said of that statement, "Black never even attempts to substantiate his accusation -- a scandalous omission considering the gravity of the charge." The book's main theme is completely contradicted by the following statement from Sybil Milton, a former senior historian of the research institute of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: "We have no proof that the [IBM] Hollerith was ever used to target individuals for deportation lists." By odd coincidence, a lawsuit by holocaust survivors was filed against IBM at the same time that the book was published. Also, the book later became the basis for a lawsuit by Gypsy organizations against IBM.

The end of the Washington Post article also has several paragraphs about the TV special on Darwin and Hitler, but I have no comments to make about that part of the article.

History has been accurately described as "lies mutually agreed upon."

My thanks to Lawrence Selden, the blogger at Darwinian Fundamentalism, for bringing this Washington Post article to my attention.

Related articles on this blog:

The absurd book "IBM and the Holocaust"

Holocaust mythologies

READ MORE

Brayton admits Darwin-Hitler link

While condemning a TV program that links Darwin to Hitler, Ed "It's My Way or the Highway" Brayton himself admitted that there is such a link! Ed admits on his blog that Hitler used "scientific language" to support Nazi policies:

Even if one does not take the position that Christianity is to blame for Hitler (and that is my position), the fact that Hitler repeatedly and explicitly justified his plans by reference to Christian history and theology proves, at the very least, that Hitler used whatever ideological means he had at his disposal to defend and justify his actions. And that clearly undermines the argument that Darwinism led to Hitler and supports instead the idea that Hitler simply used scientific language when speaking to one audience and religious language when speaking to another.(emphasis added)

In another post, Brayton argues that Hitler was really a creationist. But even assuming that Hitler was a creationist, that does not mean that Darwinism or Social Darwinism did not influence the social policies of the Nazis. And if Hitler publicly used Darwinism or Social Darwinism to help gain support for his social policies, does it really matter whether or not he personally believed in Darwinism?

Abraham Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, argued that linking Darwin to Hitler "trivializes" the holocaust because "Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people." Whether or not Hitler "needed" Darwin has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether Hitler used Darwin. Perhaps if Hitler had been told that he didn't really "need" Darwin in order to plan the holocaust, Hitler might have impatiently answered like an exasperated King Lear, "O', reason not the need!"

I think that the reason for strong kneejerk Jewish support of Darwinism is that many Jews think that teaching or even mentioning criticism of Darwinism in public schools violates or threatens the separation of church and state. For example, the ADL applauded the Darwinist Kitzmiller v. Dover decision, and Judge John E. Jones III, the judge who decided the case, gave a speech to the ADL. In the Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguillard(1987), the ADL and the American Jewish Congress et al. filed separate amicus briefs opposing equal time for creation science and evolution in the public schools. In another equal-time case, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education(1982), a district-court case which was not appealed, three Jewish organizations were listed among the organizational plaintiffs (Christian denominations were also represented but only by individual plaintiffs, including local bishops of some denominations). The ADL and the American Jewish Congress filed separate amicus briefs in the appeal of the Selman v. Cobb County (2005) evolution-disclaimer textbook sticker case. I think that the Darwinists are afraid that exposing the Darwinism-Nazism link would erode Jewish opposition to the teaching or mention of criticisms of Darwinism in the public schools.

In a bizarre twist, Jeffrey Selman, the lead plaintiff in the Selman v Cobb County textbook sticker case, associated criticism and skepticism of Darwinism -- as opposed to Darwinism itself -- with the holocaust. An article in the Cleveland Jewish News said,

When a federal judge in Georgia ruled last week that a local school board's decision to put a small sticker on its science textbooks labeling evolution "a theory, not a fact" was unconstitutional, Jeffrey Selman said it was primarily an American issue.

Still, he said, he could not help but view it through the lens of his Jewishness.

"Look what happened in Germany," said Selman, one of a group of parents that sued the Cobb County school board to have the stickers removed.

"The German Jews said, 'We're Germans. We'll be fine.' The next thing you know, they were opening the oven doors for us."

In response to Jeffrey Selman's preceding remarks, John West of the Discovery Institute said,

. . . .it is simply Orwellian for defenders of Darwin to try to suggest that criticism of Darwin's theory can in any way be tied to the Holocaust -- especially when critics of Darwin were some of the most vocal opponents of the sort of eugenics policies championed by the Nazis and leading American defenders of Darwin's theory!

Among the "most vocal opponents" of Social Darwinism was William Jennings Bryan, the famous prosecutor in the Scopes monkey trial of 1925.

A comment on Uncommon Descent quoted the following astute observation:

"Some assert that Hitler got his antisemitism from the church -- as if the church ever taught that the blond-haired blue-eyed Aryans were the master race and needed to get rid of the Jews to preserve their racial purity."

I am not arguing that Darwinism should be scrapped just because of its influence on Nazism. I am just arguing that history should be studied objectively, letting the chips fall where they may.

READ MORE

Culture war over "Darwin and Hitler" is in full swing

This is a follow-up to my post, "First Darwin and Lincoln, and now Darwin and Hitler".

A news article in the website of the Anti-Defamation League reported,

ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin For Hitler

New York, NY, August 22, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin's theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, "Darwin's Deadly Legacy."

Here is a hodge-podge of my own thoughts:

Why is the ADL concerned only about Collins? There are probably other people appearing in the show who do not want to be in it, either.

A BIG question -- what could Collins have possibly said that could be interpreted as supporting the theme of this TV program? I am really curious. Honest.

I think that under the "fair use" doctrine, Collins and others might not have any legal recourse if Coral Ridge Ministries insists on including them in the program against their will. According to Wikipedia, one of the questions for determining whether quoted material is covered by fair use laws is: "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." For example, I don't think that a quotation of Collins could legally be used to endorse a product without his permission.

Are the TV show's interpretations of history wrong just because they happen to support the agenda of those who produced the show?

To me, the most important question is whether the historical facts presented in the show are accurate. Which historical facts are selected and how they are interpreted are different matters.

Even if Darwinism is true, that is no reason to avoid examining Darwinism's social consequences. We know that there has been something called "Social Darwinism," and it is fair to examine the influence it might have had on Nazism, letting the chips fall where they may. The study of history benefits from the presentation of different viewpoints, even if some of those viewpoints are biased.

While condemning linkage of Social Darwinism to the holocaust, the hypocritical ADL has no qualms about linking Christianity to the holocaust. A speech published on the ADL website says of the holocaust, "The motivation was ideological. The racist-antisemitic ideology was the rational outcome of an irrational approach, an approach that was a cancer-like mutation of the Christian antisemitic ideology that had sullied Christian-Jewish relations all through their two millennia of coexistence." (from a speech that Yehuda Bauer gave to the German House of Representatives in 1998).

There is no question in my mind that Social Darwinism or something similar influenced the Nazis, but I feel that this TV show exaggerates that influence. And I don't feel that this influence counts against Darwinism -- Darwinism should be evaluated just on its own scientific merits.

ADL's Foxman does not explain how the show insults the Nazis' victims. All he said was, "Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people." But the ADL was silent when a book titled "IBM and the Holocaust" claimed that Hitler needed IBM's help to carry out this plan.

The ADL's Foxman has apparently not even seen the TV program but has already passed judgment on it. His opposition to the program is just "political correctness."

To the ADL, anything that in its opinion "trivializes" the holocaust is verboten. The ADL does not own a copyright on historical interpretation of the holocaust. The ADL has its own ax to grind and should not be taken seriously.

Would the ADL have objected to this TV program if the ADL did not support Darwinism? The ADL supports Darwinism mainly because the ADL views teaching or even mention of criticisms of Darwinism in public schools as a violation of the separation of church and state. The ADL strongly supports the Darwinist Kitzmiller v. Dover decision and Jewish groups have in various court cases filed amicus briefs opposing the teaching or even mention of criticism of Darwinism in the public schools.

I don't think that Social Darwinism directly caused the holocaust, but I do think that Social Darwinism helped inspire the Nazi programs for eliminating mentally and physically impaired people, homosexuals, etc.. So I think it can be argued that social Darwinism helped create a "slippery slope" of believing that it was morally OK to exterminate undesirables and that this slippery slope was a contributing cause of the holocaust.

This attempt to link Darwin and Hitler is not new. Wikipedia says,

. . . . .some pre-twentieth century doctrines subsequently described as Social Darwinism appear to anticipate eugenics and the race doctrines of Nazism. Critics, particularly proponents of creationism, have frequently tried to link evolution, Charles Darwin and Social Darwinism in the public mind with racialism, imperialism and eugenics, making the accusation that Social Darwinism became one of the pillars of Fascism and Nazi ideology . . . .

What about the Darwin Day Celebration's efforts to link Darwin and Lincoln? Isn't that propaganda too? There is infinitely less connection between Darwin and Lincoln than there is between Darwin and Hitler -- the only thing that Darwin and Lincoln really share in common is the same official birthdate. I'll bet that Darwinists are thanking their lucky stars that Darwin and Hitler do not have the same birthday.

For more information and thoughts, I recommend that readers see Panda's Thumb, Uncommon Descent, and Dispatches from the Culture Wars, which are listed in the URL link list in the left sidebar of the home (main) and archive pages (but not the individual-post pages). An Uncommon Descent article on the subject is here.

READ MORE

First Darwin and Lincoln, and now Darwin and Hitler

In a previous post, I pointed out that the Darwin Day Celebration website identifies Darwin with Lincoln. Now there is a TV program that identifies Darwin with Hitler (it is a good thing that Darwin and Hitler do not have the same birthday).

I think that it is certainly OK to discuss the political, social, and philosophical implications and consequences of Darwinism and scientific criticisms of Darwinism. However, Darwinism and scientific criticisms of Darwinism should be judged on the basis of their scientific merits alone. A lot of people just can't keep issues separate when it is appropriate to do so. For example, for a long time I have wanted to post my doubts about official Holocaust history but I have refrained from doing so because of fear of hurting my case against Darwinism. There are trolls on this blog who have tried to discredit my arguments against Darwinism by pointing out my opposition to California's grossly unconstitutional "smog impact fee," which was declared to be unconstitutional by the courts.

READ MORE

Linking Lincoln myth to Darwin myth

The organizers of the Darwin Day Celebration have really been making a big deal about the coincidence that Lincoln and Darwin have the same birthdate (actually, the exact birthdate of Lincoln might be uncertain because he was born on the frontier, where they might have lost track of the date). The website for the Darwin Day Celebration gushes,

Lincoln and Darwin -- The Emancipators' Legacies

These two great men were born on the same day, in the same year: Sunday, February 12, 1809. . . . . . Lincoln freed American slaves from physical servitude while Darwin freed the human mind from the bonds of supernatural dogma.

IMO, linking Lincoln to Darwin is a bad idea. For one thing, they really had nothing in common other than their official birthdates. Also, Lincoln is not universally admired. He is often blamed for widespread flagrant violations of civil liberties and for the Civil War. Lincoln hardly deserves credit for emancipating the slaves -- the Emancipation Proclamation was mainly just a war measure that was issued for the purpose of helping to save the Union. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln said that he had no objection to a proposed irreversible constitutional amendment -- which had already passed Congress and been submitted to the states for ratification -- that would have permanently barred the federal government from interfering with slavery in the states. And Lincoln -- like many other prominent politicians of his day -- publicly espoused racist views. In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln said,

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

As for the statement, "Darwin freed the human mind from the bonds of supernatural dogma," Darwin does not deserve any credit for that. Scientists that preceded him -- notably Copernicus and Galileo -- did that, at great personal sacrifice in the case of Galileo, who was persecuted by the Catholic church.

If Darwin and Lincoln did not fortuitously have the same birthdates, probably no one would have ever thought of connecting the two men. And IMO, associating Lincoln with Darwin does nothing to enhance the image of Darwin or Darwinism.

Anyway, this Darwin Day Celebration website makes it clear that Darwinism is acquiring all of the trappings of a religion or cult.

READ MORE