Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust
CMI ^ | Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.

Posted on 05/27/2009 8:24:54 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust

by Jerry Bergman

Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: abortion; catholic; christian; corruption; creation; eugenics; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; prolife; science; socialism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 05/27/2009 8:24:55 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; GourmetDan; MrB; valkyry1; DaveLoneRanger; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 05/27/2009 8:25:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory

This term was coined by British Sociologist Herbert Spencer and referred to Economics.
3 posted on 05/27/2009 8:30:51 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

One day people will come to understand the need for nature to take its course. Darwin’s theories should give pause to the fact that “nature will always find a way”. For thousands of years it did not need scientific intervention for things to have come about the way they did.

This article shows such backward, twisted, extremism that is of the lowest sort. To try to exterminate other humans to bring about what nature would bring about naturally is just sick!


4 posted on 05/27/2009 8:31:16 PM PDT by Atom Smasher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Good article and dead accurate. The world has suffered enough from evoloserism; it’s clearly time to get rid of it.


5 posted on 05/27/2009 8:31:17 PM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
And Creationism played a big role in the extermination of the native peoples by the Spanish. Well, one could argue that point with just as much (il)logic.

If you argue against Darwinism/evolution, you're arguing against fact. I'm a Christian, and I see clearly that Darwin was exactly right. His theories have been confirmed a thousand ways to Sunday, and it's just sad to see that we are still denying them. Do we want to deny the existence of atoms, too?

Hitler misused everything. Just because survival of the fittest is an undeniable fact doesn't mean that it's a normative statement (that we should practice it).

6 posted on 05/27/2009 8:34:55 PM PDT by ElectronVolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges

The only thing Darwin knew about economics was that he was living off of his parents wealth.


7 posted on 05/27/2009 8:35:17 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Debate all you like, but Hitler’s motivations have absolutely no bearing on the Theory of Evolution’s adherence to evidence.


8 posted on 05/27/2009 8:36:39 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

My point was the author incorrectly attributed this phrase to Darwin.


9 posted on 05/27/2009 8:36:41 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ElectronVolt

You may think that you are a Christian, but your post is that of a true dreamer.

Gould admitted hundreds of times that the evidence was in opposition to the premises of evolution; do you think that you know more about it than he did?


10 posted on 05/27/2009 8:38:05 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Boxen

Adgerence to evidence? What a laugh!


11 posted on 05/27/2009 8:42:08 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ElectronVolt
> And Creationism played a big role in the extermination of the native peoples by the Spanish. Well, one could argue that point with just as much (il)logic.

> If you argue against Darwinism/evolution, you're arguing against fact. I'm a Christian, and I see clearly that Darwin was exactly right. His theories have been confirmed a thousand ways to Sunday, and it's just sad to see that we are still denying them. Do we want to deny the existence of atoms, too?

> Hitler misused everything. Just because survival of the fittest is an undeniable fact doesn't mean that it's a normative statement (that we should practice it).

Sorry for the plagiarism: I couldn't resist. Couldn't have said it better myself, so I chose instead to say what you said again: it bears repeating and putting in bold. Well said!

12 posted on 05/27/2009 8:43:56 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

In some of undergraduate college history classes a number of years back, the question of ‘survival of the fittest’ Darwinism was frequently discussed in relations to Nazism and the Holocaust.

Kind of ironic, almost deja vu’ like, to see an article on this. That being said, Darwinism, as a philosophy and ‘science’, was still 1) a major influence mechanism and 2) dominated thinking during that time.

Interesting.


13 posted on 05/27/2009 8:44:00 PM PDT by cranked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

You obviously missed my point. Adherence or nonadherence, Hitler’s motivations have no effect on the evidence.


14 posted on 05/27/2009 8:45:33 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; ElectronVolt

> You may think that you are a Christian, but your post is that of a true dreamer.

He says he’s a Christian, who are you to say otherwise?

I’m a Christian, and I happen to agree with what “electron volt” wrote.


15 posted on 05/27/2009 8:45:38 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“Gould admitted hundreds of times that the evidence was in opposition to the premises of evolution;”

I’d love to hear a source for this claim.


16 posted on 05/27/2009 8:48:52 PM PDT by Boxen (There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

Careful, next thing you know that small facist group will start calling you a liberal,


17 posted on 05/27/2009 8:49:39 PM PDT by Pistolshot (The Soap-box, The Ballot-box, The Jury-box, And The Cartridge-Box ...we are past 2 of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

> Careful, next thing you know that small facist group will start calling you a liberal,

LOL! Being called a “liberal” is the grown-up FRee Republic equivalent of being called a “poo-face” or a “meany” when you’re a kid. It smarts a little the first time but loses its sting when the adults are around.


18 posted on 05/27/2009 8:53:27 PM PDT by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Google ‘nazi anthropologist’ as a lead in to get more information on this topic.

Oc course by the standards of the evolutionists, these guys were highly credentialed and degreed scientists, so we should take every word they made as gospel.


19 posted on 05/27/2009 8:58:28 PM PDT by valkyry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

There are some good links under that search string! I will be sure to post some of them in the future :o)


20 posted on 05/27/2009 9:00:41 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

related:
The Godfather of American Liberalism [HG Wells]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2258827/posts


21 posted on 05/27/2009 9:05:40 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Thanks for the heads up...I’ll give it a read!


22 posted on 05/27/2009 9:17:46 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Thanks for the ping!


23 posted on 05/27/2009 9:19:10 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

John Locke is the Father of Liberalism. Would you want to do without his work?


24 posted on 05/27/2009 9:31:14 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Not sure what you mean. Can you explain?


25 posted on 05/27/2009 9:38:06 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that the BS that you post here suggesting that Hitler’s atrocities might not have happened had it not been for Darwin’s ideas is true.

The fact remains that it has no bearing on the scientific validity of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.

It is merely an exercise in guilt by association...one of the most common logical fallacies.


26 posted on 05/27/2009 9:44:01 PM PDT by freespirited (Is this a nation of laws or a nation of Democrats? -- Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne; Borges
John Locke is the Father of Liberalism. Would you want to do without his work?

To: Borges Not sure what you mean.

That's just......sad.
27 posted on 05/27/2009 9:51:36 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (a competent small government conservative is good enough for government work)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Locke's materialist philosophy can be traced to Marx and forward to convicts being ‘products of their society’. That doesn't diminish his work as hugely important. My point is that the idea of taking down people like Darwin and Wells because of the off handed influence they had on others is silly.
28 posted on 05/27/2009 10:05:34 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

The “extermination” of the native peoples can be seen as an example of the survival of the fittest, since disease carried away most of the Indians who died. But disease is also responsible for the failure of Europeans to colonize most of Africa, Certain places, such as West Africa, were known as the white man’s graveyard.


29 posted on 05/27/2009 10:06:13 PM PDT by RobbyS (ECCE homo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Borges

I agree in part, people are also products of their time period and shouldn’t be judged by our own time period.

But with regard validating the theory of eugenics, the influence was catastophic for millions of people, so not inconsequential or “off-handed” in the least.

I don’t think we can let some people totally off the hook for their ‘influences’, even if they did not know where their influence would lead.

History is a harsh judge.


30 posted on 05/27/2009 10:15:53 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

What is sad?


31 posted on 05/27/2009 10:16:57 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
"Adherence or nonadherence, Hitler’s motivations have no effect on the evidence."

I think the point is that the evidence had a great deal of effect on Hitler's motivations.

Creationists may be using Hitler to discredit Darwin, that is true. But the evidence suggests that Darwin's ideas DID influence Hitler and a lot of other eugenicists ... even to this day.

This is not an attack on the validity of Darwin's ideas. But it is one of MANY disturging outcomes from them. Biological determinism has proven to be a dangerous concept in practice.

Stating so isn't all that controversial.

32 posted on 05/27/2009 10:33:47 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Eugenics was in the air with or without Darwin. The 19th century saw everything in terms of industrial progress. This zeitgeist would naturally find its’ way to ideas of breeding.
33 posted on 05/27/2009 10:49:05 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Rule #1......in the end, always try to pin your opponent to the Nazis.

Hillary is Hitler
Bush is Hitler
Those that believe in Evolution are Hitler

Let’s see....the “logic” here is that the Theory is “bad” because Nazis used notions of it to make policy and killed millions of people....right?

So....GUNS are “bad” because people use them and kill millions of people......right?


34 posted on 05/28/2009 7:15:13 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter

No no no....you’re not a REAL Christian....not the right KIND of Christian.

Lemme guess.....you don’t believe the Earth is only 6000 years old? You don’t believe that Man survived in a time of a hundred species of man-eating dinosaurs?

YOU’RE NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN....OFF WITH YER HEAD!!!

It’s exactly this “you’re not the right brand of ‘religion X’” mentality that is and always has been the ruination of a civil society that has the belief in god(s).....this mentality is one machete away from cutting off heads in front of a camera....one law away from forced conversion....one lunatic away from religious-based genocide.


35 posted on 05/28/2009 7:29:41 AM PDT by ElectricStrawberry (27th Infantry Regiment....cut in half during the Clinton years...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Borges

Perhaps so.


36 posted on 05/28/2009 8:26:53 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ElectricStrawberry

Right.
Hitler was a vegetarian ... ergo, vegetarians are Nazis.


37 posted on 05/28/2009 8:28:00 AM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Locke's materialist philosophy can be traced to Marx

Marx was born in 1818, over a century after Locke's death. If Locke was a materialist, it had nothing to do with Marx's influences, or those of those who immediately influcencd Marx, notably Feuerbach and Hegel.

38 posted on 05/28/2009 8:39:10 AM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ElectronVolt
And Creationism played a big role in the extermination of the native peoples by the Spanish.

Where do you get that????

The conquistadors were basically in it for the money and the only protection the Indians ever had was the church people who came along with. Prior to the white man landing in the Americas of course, the biggest problem most central and south Americans had in life was getting cooked and eaten by Aztecs and Mayas. Christians put a stop to that sort of crap in the bargain.

39 posted on 05/28/2009 8:40:51 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.

I phrased my statement badly. I meant you could trace Marx’s thought partially to Locke.


40 posted on 05/28/2009 8:40:57 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
“Careful, next thing you know that small facist group will start calling you a liberal,”
Which group would that be?
41 posted on 05/28/2009 12:54:00 PM PDT by Fichori (Patriot's wanted: https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Boxen
"I’d love to hear a source for this claim."

Read his books!

42 posted on 05/28/2009 1:05:49 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains.”

—Yes, Hitler believed that through selective breeding that change can be produced within a ‘kind’, but he didn’t believe that speciation could occur. So his beliefs are identical to that of modern Creationists.

“Although it is no easy task to assess the conflicting motives of Hitler and his supporters, Darwinism-inspired eugenics clearly played a critical role.”

—Strange, if Darwinism played such a critical role, one would expect that maybe Hitler would have, you know, mentioned Darwin - at least ONCE - in his book, or one of his MANY speeches, or at one of his MANY meetings - or maybe just in passing (there were so many people recording his words, whether at meetings or just in casual conversations, that several books have been published using the notes, such at “Table Talk”). And yet, no evidence (AFAIK - someone correct me if I’m wrong), that he ever once in his life uttered “Darwin”. And this is from someone who borrowed from everything in culture to try to justify his ideology (even opera - Richard Wagner).

What were Hitler’s beliefs regarding nature and evolution?
First, he believed that we were created - as is:
“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God’s Creation and God’s Will.” – Mein Kampf

As with Creationists, Hitler argued that the boundaries between species were definite, as opposed to evolutionists who argued that such boundaries were more or less arbitrary and created out of convenience:
“Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature’s rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.
Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature’s restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc.”
-Contrast this with Darwin who said: “It is really laughable to see what different ideas are prominent in various naturalists’ minds, when they speak of ‘species’– It all comes, I believe, from trying to define the indefinable.” and “I look at the term ‘species’ as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other.”

And not only are their clear lines of demarcation - but those lines cannot be crossed, creatures can only “multiply their kind”:
‘Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law—one may call it an iron law of Nature—which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.’...
“The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc.”

A quote I see quite often, and used again in this article is this:
“Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if
such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.”
Read in context the “principle” he’s talking about there isn’t natural selection, but a principle against “race” or “species” mixing, he’s making an argument against miscegenation. Hitler calls miscegenation a “sin against the will of the eternal creator.”

You won’t find Darwin arguing against miscegenation or talking about “racial purity”. And the idea of “higher” and “lower” species in Darwininism is silly - all extant species are equally “evolved” and all are branches that reach the top of the evolutionary tree. No species holds a special place.
An idea that DID rank species is the old Creationist idea of “The Great Chain of Being”, which Hitler expresses here:
“This is only too natural. Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one.” You won’t find anything like this in “Origin”. This is Creationist “Chain of Being” talk.

So where did Hitler get his cruel ideas about “higher” and “lower” species and “racial purity” and rules against “miscegnation”, etc if not from Darwinism?

Actually, from pre-Darwinism Creationists such as Gobineau.

Gobineau isn’t well known today, but he was once quite popular. Chamberlain, for instance, was a loyal Gobineau follower.
Gobineau believed that there were various human races which could be ranked, and that they must remain separate, or in whatever nation they are mixing the nation and culture would deteriorate and fall. It was he who began calling the white, northern europeans “Aryans” (sound familiar?), and claimed that the Aryans were the greatest race and had the highest culture. His most famous book is “Essay on the Inequality of Human Races”, from 1855. In it he wrote that the Aryans must actively wipe out, or at least separate, from the “inferior” races before civilization falls.

Here’s Hitler giving Gobinism in a nutshell:
“Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”
Can anyone imagine Darwin saying anything like that?

Here’s more Gobineau, this will all sound familiar to anyone that’s read Hitler:
“A nation does not derive value from its position; it never has and never will. On the contrary it is the race which has always given - and always will give - to the land its moral, economic and political value... The purer a race keeps its blood, the less will its social foundations be liable to attack; for the general way of thought will remain the same.”

“The lost purity of the blood alone destroys inner happiness forever, plunges man into the abyss for all time, and the consequences can never more be eliminated from body and spirit.”

“Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people.”

And here’s Hitler again:
“A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood, thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its manifestations”.

The Nazis believed that misceganation would combine what God had created separate (the same reason Bob Jones U gave for not allowing interracial dating).

Hitler follows Gobineau to a T. What the Nazis were practicing was not Darwinism - but Gobinism.

Hitler got ideas from other influential Creationists as well - a race must rule or be ruled:
“Nations and races, like individuals have each an especial destiny: some are born to rule, and others to be ruled. And such has ever been the history of mankind. No two distinctly marked races can dwell together on equal terms.”- Josiah Nott “Types of Mankind” 1854

So Hitler was a Creationist who got his ideas primarily from other Creationists.

The above quotes were all Mein Kampf. Let’s try a source that gives more private thoughts, like Table Talk.

“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.” - Table Talk. (Self explanatory I think)

“A skull is dug up by chance, and everybody exclaims ‘That’s what our ancestors were like.’ Who knows if the so-called Neanderthal man wasn’t really an ape? What I can say, in any case, is that it wasn’t our ancestors who lived there in prehistoric times.”

“Who’s that little Bolshevik professor who claims to triumph over creation? People like that, we’ll break them. Whether we rely on the catechism or on philosophy, we have possibilities in reserve, whilst they, with their purely materialistic conceptions, can only devour one another.”

The name Hitler was looking for there is “Oparin”. He came up with a hypothesis for abiogenesis very similar to what Urey and Miller came up with. The idea of a materialistic beginning of life outraged Hitler. This perhaps gives us an idea of what he may have thought of Darwin (that is, if he ever DID think of Darwin, who, for all we know, Hitler never did think of).

I could bring up many other Creationist sources for Hitler’s ideology (Martin Luther’s “The Jews and their Lies”), but I think this is enough for one post.

I’ll end this with some thoughts that actually ARE from Darwin:
“As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.” - Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man


43 posted on 05/28/2009 1:34:31 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Boxen

“Read his books!”

As someone who’s read all his books (and articles, and many of his published articles in journals), I’d like a source as well. :-)


44 posted on 05/28/2009 1:36:42 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

The clearest “source” is his book “Wonderful Life”


45 posted on 05/28/2009 1:40:19 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

Hitler was a full-on evolutionist, and he had a seething hatred for Christianity. Indeed, he planned on destroying Christianity at the first opportunity. Surely you know all this?


46 posted on 05/28/2009 2:21:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

What I know from Hitler are from his book, his many speeches, and the many notes taken from his personal chats.
All of it has him repeatedly arguing for the “iron law of Nature” that places “definite limits” on how much a species can change and only allows species to “multiply after their kind”. Of people who believes in materialistic origins of life he says “we’ll break them”.
Every bit of Hitler’s ideology on the subject sounds loud and clear like those of many pre-Darwinian Creationists, especially Gobineau. And most of it would still fit right in place in any modern Creationist article.
Many of Hitler quotes I used (and I could dig up more) if quoted here with no citation would have received a round of “amen”s from the Creationists.

If you have sources on his thoughts that I missed, I’d love to see them.


47 posted on 05/28/2009 3:00:45 PM PDT by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Warning!
This is a opinion-article that contains
no site-specific scientific data or research whatsoever and is
produced by a member of an obscure, unrecognized, non-scientific internet
group that regularly lies in attempting to pass off their agenda as scholarly.
They are not constituted to provide proof of Creationism but instead
merely to snipe snidely and spam the internet with their Trollisms.
Buyer Beware!

48 posted on 05/28/2009 4:06:28 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (Creationists on the internet: The Ignorant, amplifying the Stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Pinged from Terri Dailies


49 posted on 05/28/2009 4:23:58 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodusername; metmom; GodGunsGuts; MrB; CottShop; valkyry1; Alamo-Girl; Fichori; betty boop; ...
Many of Hitler quotes I used (and I could dig up more) if quoted here with no citation would have received a round of “amen”s from the Creationists.

If you have sources on his thoughts that I missed, I’d love to see them.

That's somewhat surreal.

I realize Hitler quoted scripture to the masses in Nuremberg, but even the most braindead, misled, misguided person alive today would get that he wasn't by any stretch of the imagination a Christian.

But then again I see people driving cars around here with Obama stickers on one side of their bumpers with pro-life stickers on the other side.

More proof that in the liberal world, up is down, down is up.

50 posted on 05/28/2009 5:10:38 PM PDT by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for g!ood men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson