Darwin and Hitler: In Their Own Words
Human Events | Benjamin Wiker | May. 5, 2008
As David Berlinski recently noted, “the thesis that there is a connection between Darwin and Hitler is widely considered a profanation.” But striking an indignant pose — feathers in full ruffle — is not an answer to such a serious charge, especially when the words of both Darwin and Hitler speak otherwise.
Those defending Darwin cannot have read his Descent of Man, wherein he applies the principles of natural selection to human beings — a thing he prudently avoided in his earlier Origin of Species. In the Descent, the eugenic and racial inferences are clearly and startlingly drawn by Darwin himself.
Darwin understood the eugenic implications of his own theory, and warned his readers against imminent evolutionary backsliding. “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” Insert a few terms like “Aryan” or “Jew” and that could be in any Nazi screed.
“If … various checks … do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule.”
While Darwin tried to soften the hard implications (by suggesting that we not kill the rogues; rather, we should just keep them from breeding), the eugenic edifice was his.
And the racial thing? Evolution is driven by competition, and competition brings extinction. Darwin notes, matter-of-factly in the Descent, that one tribe extinguishing another is the very engine of human evolution. In his words, “extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race,” allowing the victorious tribe or race to pass on their superior endowments.
That is not a moral complaint; it is a detached scientific description uttered by Darwin entirely without angst. As the engine of evolution is never idle, it is also a prophecy.
[…]
Now for Adolf. I suspect that, just as a lot of folks haven’t read Darwin’s execrable Descent of Man, so also they feel free to enter the debate without having read Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
It is inaccurate to blame the entire of Hitler’s evil on anti-Semitism precisely because his anti-Semitism was part of a larger biological vision. “National Socialism is nothing but applied biology,” said the deputy Party leader of the Nazis, Rudolf Hess.
As Hitler made clear in Mein Kampf, the fundamental political category is biological. Consequently, “the highest aim of human existence is not the maintenance of a State or Government but rather the conservation of the race.” This aim accords with Hitler’s larger Darwinian view of the cosmos, wherein the “fundamental law of necessity” reigning “throughout the realm of Nature” is that “existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife….where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.” Survival of the fittest.
Hence Hitler’s creation of a kind of “folk” religion, that is, a religion of the racially defined Volk. Worship was directed to the Germanic race as the only one capable of eliminating the weak and bringing the übermensch – “superman”– into existence in accordance with the cruelties of Nature.
. . . more
Monday 05 May 2008 | Banescu | Leftism, Junk science, Eugenics |













I never knew this. It looks like Darwin saw the cultural implications of his theory early on — and wholly embraced them. It reads like a Margaret Sanger* tract.
*Founder of Planned Parenthood.
It’s true that Darwin the historical figure said some pretty ugly things. Thank goodness one need not defend Darwin the person in order to find the theory of evolution plausible.
How many self-identified “Darwinists” does the world actually have?
Phil #2:
“How many self-identified “Darwinists” does the world actually have?”
According to several comments regarding Darwinism lately, supposedly at least 99.9% of the scientific community would identify itself as Darwinist.
These comments by Darwin caught my eye because I had a geology professor who said much the same thing. He taught that religious belief and other “irrational” thought interferes with the natural course of human evolution, and gave the example of aid programs to people who are starving. He mentioned Africa in particular. He taught that it is best to let them starve, because pandemic starvation is a sign of their inferiority and that they would degrade the gene pool if assisted. This was taught at a public college.
I saw few professors actually espouse this line of reasoning (it was widely taught prior to WWII), but if the philosophy of Darwinism as taught in our schools is correct, it is difficult to avoid this conclusion.
Phil writes: “Thank goodness one need not defend Darwin the person in order to find the theory of evolution plausible.”
Ideology or theology aside, there is a very practical aspect to the concept of evolution. It is the concept that ties everything else together — paleontology, biology, molecular biology, genetics, geology, geography, anatomy, morphology, and so on.
That doesn’t mean that everything is explained, nor does it mean that we understand in every case how evolution functioned. But without evolution, we are left with a kind of interesting collection of disconnected and independent facts. For example, without the concept of evolution there is no way to explain why different species of fruit flies ended up on different islands. There’s no way to explain why we have various species of fossil equuids or sharks or anything else. All we can do is shrug our shoulders and say “I guess some designer wanted it that way.” Why is human and chimpanzee DNA so similar? The designer wanted it to be similar. Why are there so many species of beetles? Who knows? What is the connection between all the ancient horses in the fossil record? Nothing apparently, except that they all kind of look like each other in some ways but not in other ways. Without evolution there’s no reason to believe that any of the creatures in the fossil record even were ever “alive” — perhaps the designer just felt like designing fossils in order to entertain and baffle the late-coming homo sapiens. The answer to everything becomes “who knows?” I guess the designer knows, but he’s not talking about it.
Once you get rid of evolution all you have left is a set of disconnected sciences that may or may not have something to do with each other.
Scientific theories are not rejected because someone just says “sorry, I think this is all wrong because of these unexplained facts.” They are not “rejected” at all, but rather replaced by better and stronger theories. The guy who discovered the role of bacteria in ulcers didn’t just “reject” the concept of ulcers as caused by stress. He came up with a better theory, one that had more explanatory power, one that led to a better therapy.
This is why evolution will never just “go away.” The only way that it could “go away” would be if someone could advance a theory that had more explanatory power than evolution, a theory that tied disparate sciences even more closely together, that provided even better predictions. I would ask: in what way does intelligent design do all of that?
Having failed to impress us with his calls to amorphous “scientific concesus” appeals, being unable to provide one conclusive scientific experiment showing how random actions cause order or how a mindless Nature stumbled on super-sophisticated design, having failed to point to a single fossil from the millions available across hundreds of millions of years of life on Earth that shows signs of “evolving” across species, and being unable to back up the Darwinist fiction with any current examples in Nature that show this process at work, Jim is left with subjective emotional appeals for his beloved myth. Gripping his atheistic-Darwinistic security blanket ever so closely, he cries out to the supposedly mindless Universe and blames an allegedly non-existant God and Creator for not making sense of it all. How ironic!
Note to Jim: We’re looking for real experiments and hard scientific data that prove Darwinism. You and the other Secularist Fanatics have yet to come up with any. I will not approve subjective opinion pieces and propaganda materials that do not prove anything and simply attack ID proponents for asking for proof. The video you attempted to post was just more emotional appeals for blind belief and a wholesale insult on the ID scientists who are bringing up very important issues and are asking for evidence to back up the Darwinistic macro-evolutionary theories. The BURDEN of PROOF by the evolutionists has NOT been met. I’ve reminded you multiple times about this, yet you keep ignoring it.