digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Darwin and Hitler: In Their Own Words

humanevents.com — 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, es

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • drachemorder, on 05/17/2008, -12/+17"“National Socialism is nothing but applied biology,” said the deputy Party leader of the Nazis, Rudolf Hess."

    In their own words indeed.
  • rightwingattila, on 05/17/2008, -11/+14The moral implications of this godless religion, Darwinism, are so clear you’d have to be blind not to see them. Oh wait, godless = spiritually blindness. Never mind...
    • ncurses, on 05/17/2008, -9/+7you're gonna die one day and that's all that's gonna happen
      • KJeffV, on 05/17/2008, -8/+11Just keep telling yourself that little lie....
      • osko2052, on 05/17/2008, -8/+9That truly is a sad way of thinking.
      • Phyraxus, on 05/17/2008, -8/+2NO HE ISN'T. HE IS GONNA LIVE THROUGHOUT ETERNITY AS A NOODLE OR, IF HE WERE REALLY GOOD, A MEATBALL AND BECOME ONE WITH THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
        I HATE YOU AND YOUR ILK, WITH YOUR REASONS AND YOUR EVIDENCE. THEY ARE THE WORK OF THE ANTI-FSM!!!
      • flip2trip, on 05/18/2008, -2/+4Putting your post in all caps really doesn't help make your point, if there was one.
    • Dimensio, on 05/17/2008, -9/+14The term "Darwinism" is outdated. Additionally, the theory of evolution is not a religion. It would appear as though you have no understanding of the sbuject that you are attempting to address.
      • KJeffV, on 05/17/2008, -10/+8It would appear that I've read that statement four or five HUNDRED times. It would also appear that you are the Master of Overstatement.
        • Dimensio, on 05/17/2008, -2/+8I would have no need to repeat my statement if other individuals would refrain from making the same false claim in subsequent postings.
        • Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -5/+3It's not what it's called that matters ... it's what it IS. Call it whatever you like. We all know what it is.
        • Dimensio, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4"It's not what it's called that matters ... it's what it IS. Call it whatever you like. We all know what it is."

          Please explain, then, exactly what you believe that it "is".
        • Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3I was referring to the fact that regardless of what you call something, its basic nature remains the same. The various nuances of evolutionary theory are what they are regardless of whether we call it Darwinism or Stupidity or whatever. The fact that someone calls it Darwinism is not an indication in itself that the person knows nothing about it, as is frequently charged.
        • Dimensio, on 05/19/2008, -1/+6"The fact that someone calls it Darwinism is not an indication in itself that the person knows nothing about it, as is frequently charged."

          While it is true that referring to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" itself does not inherently demonstrate a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, I have observed a high correlation between individuals using the term to reference the theory and a lack of understanding of the theory demonstrated by such individuals.
      • rightwingattila, on 05/17/2008, -8/+5What world do you live in? Google "Darwinism" and see how outdated the term is. It's obvious to most that evolution is nothing more then a "belief system." It is only those who worship at it’s alter who are blinded to this fact.
        • Phyraxus, on 05/17/2008, -4/+7People say "Darwinism" as either an epithet, by those who don't understand it, or as concerning the original works of Darwin. Now, the proper term should be "Neo-Darwinism" as we have come a long way since Darwin.
          The people that use it as an epithet are basically trying to say what your saying, "SEE it is an -ism, SO it MUST BE a belief system." Which, regardless if you believe it or not, occurs and can be seen throughout nature, so calling it a "belief system" is misinformed at best. There is no form of "worship" (where would this "alter" be anyways?) that you speak of, and no one is "blinded" either.
        • Dimensio, on 05/17/2008, -3/+8"What world do you live in?"

          I inhabit a planet called "Earth".


          " Google "Darwinism" and see how outdated the term is."

          I am familiar with the common usage of the word "Darwinism". It is typically utilized by creationists who have never actually studied the theory of evolution, and thus they are unaware that the theory of evolution has been refined and advanced significantly since the time of Charles Darwin. Frequently, they are unaware that the writings of Charles Darwin are not the "final word" on the theory of evolution, and they will often appeal to his writings as though biological research has not advanced significantly since that time, nor do they seem aware that referring to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" is as inappropriate as referring to the study of physics as "Newtonism".


          " It's obvious to most that evolution is nothing more then a "belief system." It is only those who worship at it’s alter who are blinded to this fact."

          Declaring that your position is "obvious to most" is not a rational justification of your position. In fact, it is an appeal to the question-begging fallacy, as you are merely reasserting the truth of your claim without demonstrating it. Additionally, your suggestion that "only those who worship at it's alter" do not accept your claim is a form of poisoning the well, as you are pre-emptively issuing an ad-hominem against anyone who does not share your position, a second appeal to question begging -- as the accusation inherently relies upon the assumed truth of your claim -- an incorrect usage of an apostrophe -- as the appropriate word to use in that sentence is "its" -- and an incorrect spelling of 'altar'.
    • DaveKnowsTalent, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Exactly!
  • flogistan, on 05/17/2008, -11/+17Get out of here with this ben stein neocon crap. Darwin was a scientist. Social "darwinism" has nothing to do with him and the name wasn't even used until years after he was dead, and the ideas it was applied to had nothing to do with science, but were philosophical perversions of ideas they "thought" natural selection suggested.. Israel, backed by neoconservative, chosen race, zionists (the most racist, "social darwinist" people on earth who actually understand the philosophy behind it) resemble the Nazis more than anything they're putting out here to confuse you idiots. Read strauss if you want to understand them. The jokes on you.
    • rjwusa, on 05/17/2008, -14/+6dugg down. Your rant bored me.
      • flogistan, on 05/17/2008, -5/+8It only bored you because I thought it out in a ben stein monotone.
    • these3remain, on 05/18/2008, -5/+2@flogistan - Actually, the jokes on you. The big joke played upon you is your programming through the secular humanist public indoctrination system - as is evident in your post. Making sweeping generalizations about those who are in agreement with the article, is the epitome of ignorance, intolerance and bigotry. Do you even understand what a neo-con is, because it doesn't sound like it from your comment. Not everyone who supports Israel's right to existence are "zionists" - if you even understand the correct definition of this term. The only accurate statement you made was that Darwin was a scientist. Nevertheless, his findings are still questionable and have led people to justify unconcionable acts such as eugenics and ethnic cleansing. It seems that you assume that because a person is a scientist, that they are capable of total objectivity which somehow also equals the philosophical high road. Scientists are just like any other member of the human race - complete with human frailties, fallibilities and bias. Which is why their findings, not in all cases, but in some, can and do lead to perverse thinking, particularly in the absence of moral absolutes.
      • alkajazz, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4"Nevertheless, his findings are still questionable and have led people to justify unconcionable acts such as eugenics and ethnic cleansing" Weird, religion has always been really good for doing this. I dare you to point out one case of genocide that was justified by Darwinian natural selection. Please don't mention Stalin or Hitler because the rational thinking world knows that its not true.
        • these3remain, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1"Please don't mention Stalin or Hitler because the rational thinking world knows that its not true." If the rational thinking world is only composed of yourself - which it isn't. Genocide has been rationalized by many atheists and atheistic governments; Hitler and Margaret Sanger were both proponents of eugenics - which Darwin ascribed to also.
        • Dimensio, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4"Hitler and Margaret Sanger were both proponents of eugenics - which Darwin ascribed to also."

          Please demonstrate that Charles Darwin "ascribed" to eugenics.
        • alkajazz, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5"Other ancient civilizations, such as Rome, Athens[11] and Sparta, practiced infanticide through exposure as a form of phenotypic selection. In Sparta, newborns were inspected by the city's elders, who decided the fate of the infant. If the child was deemed incapable of living, it was usually exposed[12] in the Apothetae near the Taygetus mountain. It was more common for girls than boys to be killed this way.[13] Trials for babies which included bathing them in wine and exposing them to the elements. To Sparta, this would ensure only the strongest survived and procreated.[14] Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State," and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta due to its primitive form of eugenics practice of selective infanticide policy which was applied on deformed children though the Nazi's believed the children were killed outright and not exposed"
        • eir574, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4@alkajazz,

          I will now shun all things Greek.
        • alkajazz, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Now we sit back and wait for these3remain to put his bible blinders on.
  • TYRONEBR549, on 05/17/2008, -9/+8The only thing worse than kooks like Darwin and Hitler is this, that with all of the examples of history that not only is this gabbage taught to our kids in school, but that people still defend it.
    • Phyraxus, on 05/17/2008, -4/+7You should thank those who defended science. It is because of those people, who toil in anonymity, you can live the way that you do and have the comforts that you have.
      If science wasn't allowed to prosper, we would still be in the dark ages.
      • these3remain, on 05/18/2008, -6/+5He wasn't being NOT thankful for science; if you read his comment; neither are any other posters not thankful for SCIENCE. There are and were many scientists who have contributed to "quality of life" - many of whom are and were men and women of faith. The only criticism that was made was regarding a particular scientist whose findings are still questionable but have led some people to unconscionably justify such things as eugenics and ethnic cleansings.
        • flogistan, on 05/18/2008, -3/+6Are you really so confused that you think darwin created the concept of conflict between race? You can't be that insane. Do you know nothing about history? Not one single thing? The history of war is the history of racial divides. The only thing that has caused more war and murder through the ages you nimrod, is RELIGION!! YOUR RELIGION! and all the rest. Can you people really be this crazy?
        • Phyraxus, on 05/18/2008, -4/+3The fact of evolution is in no way "questionable."
          Show me the advancements in theology in the past 150 years and what good it has done for the world.
        • ashfish, on 05/18/2008, -3/+4If evolution is so questionable, then why do so many different scientific fields use the theory of evolution in their studies? Medicine is a big one, without the understanding evolution we would be at a HUGE loss to combat viruses and other pathogens and understand why they change and adapt so quickly to the medicines given to fight them. Eugenics was a great misuse of science, but do you see it being practiced today in mainstream government or medicine? The ideals behind eugenics were being used LONG before Darwin anyways, remember arraigned marriages? Part of the marriage was about gaining more power, the other part was about creating favorable offspring. Also, don't even pretend that Christians didn't participate in their own "cleansing," remember the crusades?
        • these3remain, on 05/20/2008, -2/+3@flogistan "The only thing that has caused more war and murder through the ages you nimrod, is RELIGION!! YOUR RELIGION! and all the rest."
          Wrong again - although it is an assertion that many misinformed atheists attempt to make. I will refrain from name calling since it does nothing to strengthen one's argument and speaks volumes about those who do. The statistics that are the results or IRRELIGIOUS genocide are mind-boggling. While I will not dismiss the # of deaths attributed to "Christians" such as those that occurred during the Crusades , the Inquisition and/or even witch burnings throughout Europe and the US, the numbers pale in comparison with the MILLIONS who have died as a direct result of those who have sought to repress and/or eliminate religion and the genocides that resulted. While the number of deaths that have occurred at the hands of misguided , religious fanatics is deplorable , it is nothing compared to the statistics of what non-religion criminals have committed- at least if one compares the deaths of 300,000+ to the multiple millions of deaths caused by the non-religious.If one were to look up in the Guinness Book of World Records under the category of "Judicial" and the heading "Crimes : Mass Killings" ,the greatest massacre ever imputed by the government of one sovereign against the government of another is 26.3 million Chinese during the regime of Mao Tse Tung between the years of 1949 and May 1965. According to the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. According to Alexander Solzhenitsyn ,the loss of life from state repression and terrorism from October 1917 to December 1959 under Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev at 66.7 million.Kampuchea (under Pol Pot,the founder of the Communist party in Cambodia) destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians. Please note that these deaths were the result of organizations or points of view/ideologies that left God out of the equation. None of these genocides involve religion. With the exception of the very last situation , all actually ASSERT atheism. In my opinion, you are the one who is seriously lacking any knowledge of history. The historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually results in killing on incredible levels. We're talking about the deaths of tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.
        • flogistan, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1You're obviously not religious at all, because the "name calling" I did was a Mesopotamian king in the bible. If you had read the bible at all, I'd think you'd have been flattered nimrod. You left out the religious wars in europe between protestents and catholics. Don't forget those. The numbers you mention are so ridiculously overblown and totally unverifiable that I'll simply say you need to read more about those subjects. Considering the nature of the regimes in those countries, how were those statistics that no legitimate historian has projected, derived? Solzhenitsyn was a writer. He pulled those stats out of his ass. To say that it happened because the state didn't sponsor religion, rather than that the state in these divergent cases was totalitarian, is a bold assertion that would require evidence of some sort.
      • flip2trip, on 05/18/2008, -4/+6@flogistan
        Where in 3's post did they say Darwin created the conflict between the races?
        And contributing violence to Christianity itself instead of the misuse of same by people shows a certain shallowness of thought.
        • eir574, on 05/18/2008, -5/+6these3remain seems to be blaming Darwin for devising a theory that some people have used to justify unconscionable things. That some people justify those things using evolutionary theory says absolutely nothing at all about the validity or usefulness of that theory.
        • flip2trip, on 05/18/2008, -3/+6@eir574
          "That some people justify those things using evolutionary theory says absolutely nothing at all about the validity or usefulness of that theory."
          The same can be said for those people who do the same thing with Christianity.
        • eir574, on 05/18/2008, -2/+7@flip,

          I agree completely. Evil people will find reasons to justify evil. Unfortunately, many people fail to recognize this and blame the things used by some to justify evil for the evil itself. Note how many people on digg think that every Muslim is a terrorist or supports terrorism just because people have used Islam as a justification for evil.
        • Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4E, how do you define evil and on what do you base the definition? Is it not just your opinion? One man's evil is another man's good, is it not? And please do not appeal to the idea that most people think for instance that murder is evil. So what? Does that prove anything? Does it prove it is evil? Consensus of opinion merely permits people to agree not to do certain things for mutual benefit. But it proves nothing about whether those things are evil.
        • eir574, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5@Nanny,

          It's based on my ability to empathize with other people and on my recognition that life in communities requires rules. But, before going any further, is there anything I could possibly say that will make you believe that it's possible to trust in a person's decency if he or she doesn't believe in a deity? You may believe that there are atheists who are decent people, but I don't think you believe that you can trust in that decency since you think we have nothing to stop us from changing our minds tomorrow. That is, in fact, what you've been arguing on the thread about child molestation. I can't really describe how extraordinarily offensive it is to keep having people tell me that people who don't share their religious and political viewpoints can't be trusted to remember that things like pedophilia are abhorrent. Do you really think that you'd be unable to recognize that in the absence of religion?
        • Nannybell, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3"...can't be trusted to remember that things like pedophilia are abhorrent..."

          E,
          Abhorrent? Is that not a value judgment? Do you really not see the total subjectivity of what you're saying? You constantly tell Christians we have no logical basis for imposing our morals on others, yet you are not applying the same rigor to your own thinking about morals. You seem to have this idea that there is some kind of commonality in everyone's thinking that we can all appeal to on the issue of right and wrong. But that is completely subjective (and a bit naive) on your part.

          "...but I don't think you believe that you can trust in that decency since you think we have nothing to stop us from changing our minds tomorrow."

          YOU may not change your mind tomorrow, but you have no logical basis for applying that reasoning to anyone other than yourself. You simply have no logical leg to stand on in this issue. If you are going to demand of Christians that we prove why something is immoral, then you have to make the same demands of yourself. Therefore, please prove to me on a secular basis why pedophilia is abhorrent. Obviously I believe it is abhorrent, but my basis for morality comes from the Bible. You have declared that an illogical basis for morality. So what exactly is your basis, other than *hoping* people will always see pedophilia as abhorrent?

          "I can't really describe how extraordinarily offensive it is to keep having people tell me that people who don't share their religious and political viewpoints can't be trusted to remember that things like pedophilia are abhorrent."

          YOU may never see pedophilia and a host of other things as morally acceptable, but please do not be so naive as to think that the rest of society will continue to feel as you do. Your fellow nonbelievers in God may not now, or always, occupy the same moral high ground as you.

          "Do you really think that you'd be unable to recognize that in the absence of religion?"

          Not just any religion, E. Not all religions are equal in their views on morality.

          I don't think you have really thought through the utter subjectivity of your own beliefs.
        • eir574, on 05/19/2008, -3/+5"Show me the logical basis for it, other than just your own faith in human nature. You constantly tell Christians we have no logical basis for imposing our morals on others"

          No. I've said that morals that are based only in religion should not be pushed on others. I did not realize until last night that you think that no moral can be derived secularly (http://digg.com/world_news/Texas_megachurch_minist ... ). I wrote that post below, so there's no need to write it again here.

          Here's one of my many problems with your argument: You see that there are some atheists who are moral (and perhaps even some liberals), but you seem to assume that it's a fleeting thing, that we've all come to that morality in an irrational manner that can't be trusted. Are we all sharing the same delusion, or is it possible that you're wrong about having absolutely no way to derive a system of morals without the help of the Christian god?

          "I don't think you have really thought through the utter subjectivity of your own beliefs."

          I've thought through my beliefs quite carefully, thanks. I think you haven't thought through the possibility that there may be more than one way to be a decent person that doesn't include conservative viewpoints and belief in the Christian god. That's not only naive, but extraordinarily arrogant. It saddens me a great deal to realize that there are people in this country who think they're the only ones who know the truth and who can be trusted to be moral, decent people both today and in the future. What hubris.
    • Dimensio, on 05/17/2008, -5/+7Please justify your assertion that Darwin was a "kook".
      • caddyshacker, on 05/18/2008, -6/+5You really are an idiot aren't you?
        • Phyraxus, on 05/18/2008, -6/+6How can asking for justification make one an idiot? Maybe if you lived your life without accepting any justification whatsoever, then perhaps you may consider him an idiot though your own misunderstanding of what it really means to be an idiot. (i.e. YOU are one dumb piece of *****, and need to think before you open your ignorant ***** piehole, you waste of human flesh and bone)
        • TYRONEBR549, on 05/18/2008, -8/+5Phyraxas: Science is a good tool when used properly. When misused it is destructive. Evolution is just a theory based on non belief in the Word of God. It is the child of atheism as is abortion.
        • Dimensio, on 05/18/2008, -4/+6Your "ad-hominem" attack does not, in any way, support any argument.
        • Dimensio, on 05/18/2008, -4/+9"Evolution is just a theory based on non belief in the Word of God."

          You are incorrect. Your statement demonstrates that you have not, in any way, studied the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain existing biodiversity in light of observations of the world. It is not, in any way, based upon any "Word of God".
        • eir574, on 05/18/2008, -3/+7@TYRONE:

          I agree that misuse of science can be a serious problem. But, how do you define misuse? It seems that some people define misuse of science as any result that seems at first glance to contradict the bible.

          Scientific fraud is a problem. Mistakes due to negligence or misapplication of the scientific method are a problem. Contradicting the bible is not itself imply a problem.
      • TYRONEBR549, on 05/18/2008, -8/+5Dimensio: Kooks like Darwin, Marx, Stalin, Hitler and the like all were unbelievers and are receiving the recompense for their actions today. These men all believed in anything but the truth of God. Kook is as good as any other word to describe them. The fact that millions upon millions have died by their teachings and actions show the fallacy of their beliefs.
        • Dimensio, on 05/18/2008, -4/+4"Dimensio: Kooks like Darwin, Marx, Stalin, Hitler and the like all were unbelievers and are receiving the recompense for their actions today. "

          Please justify your assertion. Show that Darwin was a "kook" and demonstrate that he is receiving "recompense" for his actions. Explain how this is possible given that he is dead.


          "These men all believed in anything but the truth of God."

          Please state the "truth of God" and demonstrate that it is, in fact, "truth".


          "The fact that millions upon millions have died by their teachings and actions show the fallacy of their beliefs."

          Please state the "teachings" and "actions" of Darwin that has led to the deaths of millions, and demonstrate that these deaths demonstrate that Darwin's claims were false without appealing to the fallacy of consequence.
        • TYRONEBR549, on 05/19/2008, -6/+5Darwin was a kook in that he devised this cunning fable that has given the world of evil men excuse to kill millions. Darwin himself even advanced the science of Eugenics. This lead to much more evil. As to his recompense if he didn't repent of all this before his death then he is in Hell even now. If he did then he is not. The truth of God is this "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that who so ever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him". John 3:16,17.
  • Ramble, on 05/18/2008, -2/+6So what should we do? Ignore valid scientific theory and fact because someone who's nuts might use it as an excuse to commit a crime? Why don't we ban religion too? Lots of people use that as an excuse.
    • these3remain, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2No one has suggested that VALID scientific theory or fact be ignored. That is as ignorant and invalid a conclusion to draw as your own suggestion of "Why don't we ban religion too? Lots of people use that as an excuse." People use varied reasons to rationalize wrong behavior - whether one is religious or irreligious. Scientists do not have the monopoly on immorality anymore than any other profession; as stated, they are human complete with human frailties, fallibilities and biases,too.
  • Dimensio, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5"Darwin was a kook in that he devised this cunning fable that has given the world of evil men excuse to kill millions."

    Please state the "fable" that Darwin "devised".


    " Darwin himself even advanced the science of Eugenics. '

    Darwin did not advance eugenics. Moreover, eugenics is not a science. Darwin referred to eugenics as "evil". You have demonstrably not studied the life of Charles Darwin.


    "This lead to much more evil."

    Your conclusion is based upon a false premise.


    " As to his recompense if he didn't repent of all this before his death then he is in Hell even now. If he did then he is not. The truth of God is this "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that who so ever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him". John 3:16,17.""

    Please demonstrate that your assertion is factually correct.
  • sgiffy, on 05/19/2008, -2/+0If anything eugenics had some basis in Mendelian genetics. That is that traits are inherited. A gross mis-application, but an application none the less. Darwin talked about common decent, which requires some form of inheritances, but the idea of inheritance predates Darwin. In fact even with creationists silly theories of "change within kinds" you can still have eugenics.

    So really you guys should be arguing against the whole idea of DNA and inheritances as that is the true underpinning of eugenics. I suggest you start by exposing the myth that we can breed dogs. After all its ***** like that that gave us Hitler.


  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.