I think it is more accurately described as the misuse of Darwinian language, especially when your audience is already primed to find reasons to demonize evolution.
7 Likes
Could you please provide an example of use (or misuse) of Darwinian language in Nazi racial theory?
1 Like
I donât think it is necessary to pass judgement on Weikertâs research to reject the Discovery Institue propaganda like the vile Hitler Vindicated advert on the Babylon Bee
1 Like
Given that we are talking about Nazi theorists and other racialist theorists, it would not be at all surprising if much of what they wrote was a âmisuseâ of Darwinian language (just as such people misuse Biblical and Christian language to serve their ends), so I donât disagree. My point was that evolutionary-sounding themes (e.g., âsurvival of the fittestâ) do find their way into racialist and other kinds of discourse, and that connection needs to be explored. If after the exploration is done, it is determined that what we have is misuse rather than legitimate use of Darwinian ideas and language, that is fine with me. But the exploration should be done.
What I find lamentable is that so many people on this site are willing to declare, without even reading the text-based research, that there was no connection whatsoever between the way Nazis and other racists thought about race, inequality, etc., and their reading of works about evolution. Iâd be the first person here to say that the main cause of the Holocaust was pre-existent hatred of Jews in Europe in general and in Germany in particular, but I donât automatically rule out some causal effect from the reading of evolutionary works by Nazi intellectuals and political leaders. And if someone tells me that a trained and published scholar of European history has spent ten years or more studying primary German documents from the relevant periods, and has written several books and several articles presenting evidence for a causal connection in the realm of ideas, my first instinct is not to dismiss that research without reading it (based wholly on negative book reviews, out-of-context short excerpts, and a general dislike of some of the associates of the author), but to read it and see if there is any good evidence of a connection. So I would suspend judgment on whether the authorâs thesis was plausible until I had read (not skimmed) a few hundred pages of his text-based analysis, from one or more of his books. And if I did not have the time or inclination to read his books, I would not offer any decisive judgment on the value of his work at all, but would just say that I didnât know enough about his argument to render an informed opinion.
And when an organization like the Discovery Institute actively promotes the idea that âDarwinismâ supports Nazism, they are perpetuating and, in fact, exhibiting the same âthought-connectionâ.
7 Likes
âSurvival of the fittestâ is descriptive, not prescriptive. Thatâs about as far as anyone needs to explore.
If I read a book describing how guns kill people would I be justified in shooting people because of what I read in the book?
If I read a bunch of books on infectious diseases and Germ Theory, would I be justified in purposefully infecting people because those books clearly stated that germs cause disease?
If someone reads in a book that the fittest tend to survive at a higher rate are they justified in concluding that they should start killing people they see as less fit?
3 Likes
The term âsurvival of the fittestâ did not originate with Darwin, but Darwin approved of it as accurately capturing his idea of natural selection. And âsurvival of the fittestâ (phrased in various ways) was a frequent theme in Nazi writings. See the article on the Holocaust at Victims of the Nazi Era: Nazi Racial Ideology | Holocaust Encyclopedia, and see also the last paragraph of the article at Survival of the Fittest | Definition & Examples | Britannica.
If you want more examples, I would suggest you read one or more of the books of Weikart, who has made a special study of Nazi writings and their connection with evolutionary ideas. Weikart can make the case far better than I can.
Perhaps not (I havenât read the article you reference), but several people here, in past discussions of Weikartâs books, have passed judgment on his research â without reading it.
Itâs a question of evidence. Discovery points you to the book(s) where the purported evidence is found. If you have an open mind on the question, and want to know whether there is any historical connection, you are free to read the book(s) by Weikart named in that Discovery article. If your mind is closed on the subject, and you have no intention of reading Weikartâs research, no one is twisting your arm to do so. But the one thing you shouldnât do is claim to know that Weikart is wrong when you havenât read the extended argument, based on actual historical sources, that he presents.
There is a word in English for making a judgment before one has listened to the relevant evidence. Itâs called âprejudice.â
I would add the works of David Hume where he discusses the Is/Ought problem, and various books on ethics and morality that discuss the naturalistic fallacy.
2 Likes
You misunderstand. I am not denying the existence of such an historical connection.
Rather, I am pointing out that the role of the DI is not merely one of documenting the existence of this connection, but rather that it actively perpetuates and encourages the acceptance of this connection.
That is to say, if you look thru the articles at the link I provided, the DI explicitly endorses or strongly implies agreement with the sentiment they attribute to the Nazis and which can be expressed as:
P1: If Darwinism (sic) is true, then Nazism is true.
The DI then counts on their devoted readers to fill in:
P2: Nazism is not true.
and let modus tollens do the rest.
But thereâs nothing to say that none of their readers are bigger fans of modus ponens , and will therefore fill in:
P2: Darwinism is true.
and take it from there.
And if that happens, well, what can you do? Surely not argue that it is a misconception that Darwinism implies or entails Nazism. Exactly who would that help?
3 Likes
The link to the advert is right there and itâs very short. If you choose not to read it, then thatâs your decision.
1 Like
I understand this perfectly, regarding Darwinian biological theory. So does Weikart. But that way of speaking did in fact find its way into various racialist and eugenics theories. A misuse, in the sense that Darwin would not have advocated exterminating races or eugenics, but still, the connection of ideas is there. Historians of ideas trace such connections; thatâs their business. And Iâve already indicated that the odiousness of racialist and eugenics theories does not warrant the conclusion that evolution is a false biological theory.
Of course not. And West says explicitly in the article that the shooter âmisusedâ the scientific theory of evolution to justify his actions. My complaint about the West article would be in the title, which does not distinguish clearly enough between real science and misused science, and therefore could be misleading. But he does make the distinction in the article.
Until youâve actually read Weikartâs books, and not merely negative reviews of them or hearsay about them, you will not know whether he actually employs the ânaturalistic fallacy.â
I donât routinely read ENV and donât defend all that is written there; sometimes the writing is on the loose or sloppy side. They are editorial pieces, after all. I prefer to read books put out by the DI and by other publishers, where the argument is more academic and less sloppy. If any piece on ENV states or implies the proposition you have above, I would say the piece was written poorly at that point.
In the current article by West that people are discussing, he clearly indicates that believing in evolution does not mean that one will become a racist or murderer. Do I need to supply you with the exact quotation, or can you find it yourself? He also indicates clearly that the views of the shooter about the inferiority of certain races are repellent. Do I need to show you the exact words, or can you find them yourself?
You are unaware that The Babylon Bee is a satirical website? The opening of the article, âBrought to you by ⌠Discovery Instituteâ should have been a clue that the article is tongue-in-cheek. There are other clues in the article. Do you believe that any current biology professor at Harvard would have said the words attributed to âSamuel Mullerâ, unless he was being sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek?
P.S. The last time Weikart featured here, you said you hadnât read any of his books, so wouldnât pass judgment on them. But now you are recommending them.
3 Likes
So Hitler (mis)used an idea related to Darwin in Mein Kampf to support his agenda. I canât find that passage or anything like it in this translation of Mein Kampf though - no references to âfitterâ or âfittestâ at all. While this may be a different translation, Iâd have expected that if Hitler was referencing that phrase, the translator would have used it.
Iâve read enough of Weikartâs work to know that he, like you, is deliberately overstating (and sometimes inventing) any connection that exists between Naziism and Darwin/evolution, while simultaneously understating the connections to germ theory, anti-Semitism and other concepts the Nazis (mis)used, in order to tarnish Darwin and evolution. He is not a reliable source.
2 Likes
That would not be the evidence, but what Weikart says about the evidence.
1 Like
Youâve passed judgement on evolutionary biology without reading any of the primary literature, havenât you?
2 Likes
Glad to hear it. Last time we discussed Weikart, perhaps not you, but some others, seemed to be denying even the existence of the connection. They seemed to be saying that Weikart just made it all up, that there were no Nazi leaders or Nazi intellectuals at all who made any link at all between evolutionary ideas and their racial ideas, and that Weikartâs scholarship in this area was inaccurate or even downright fraudulent. Or, at best, that maybe a very small number of Nazis occasionally employed evolutionary language, but that the language had no measurable effect on their actions, so that evolutionary conceptions contributed zero (0%) to their motivation or justification for murdering millions of ânon-Aryans,â and for experimenting on thousands of ânon-Aryans.â That was what came across. So Weikartâs conclusions were completely (not just partly, or mostly, but completely) wrong and his research was completely useless. And, as always, I reacted to such a one-sided, absolutist account of things. (And am in good company, since most academic historians tend to avoid such accounts, but set forth historical causality in many shades of gray.)
Had the comments on Weikart been different, had they been, âOK, we can grant Weikart that evolutionary conceptions (albeit twisted to suit Nazi purposes) had some causal effect on what happened in Germany, but we still think that the largest causal factor was long-standing European anti-Semitism,â I would not have had a problem with that.
But of course, thatâs never the way anyone argues here. Itâs always: âX is a member of, or an ally of, or at least someone admired by, Discovery, and therefore everything X argues must be relentlessly opposed, even if I havenât read more than 3 sentences by X and donât really know precisely what he argued or what evidence he presented. So Iâll do some rush lookups on the internet, dig up some negative book reviews, find some quotations out of context and frame them in an extreme light to make X look bad (ignoring all the qualifiers and caveats which X supplied), etc. Not a single positive statement about X can be allowed to stand unopposed.â This is the way culture warriors criticize books and authors. Itâs not the way scholars criticize books and authors. And I suspect that at least some lurkers here are observant enough to notice the difference, even if only a few people such as myself speak out about it.
I am aware of that but the Discovery Institute seems an unlikely target, and I doubt that they would fake adverts. If the Babylon Bee had chosen to make such an attack I would think it would have been a fake news story.
The fact that it is labelled as âsponsored contentâ seems to indicate that that part is true. As does the link to the Discovery Institute being promoted, it seems quite clear that this is an advertisement paid for by the Discovery Institute,
Of course not. But do I believe that the Discovery Institute would like to give that impression - yes I do. Even though it is not literally true and not meant to be.
And I have to say that it seems to be lacking any humour at all.