Hmm Hitler was a catholic turned protestant so I'm guessing no on that one. Can't speak to Stalin or his pot

Its 2012. I can't believe we're still debating evolution.

Blaming Darwin for Social Darwinism is like blaming Pasteur for Jenny McCarthy.

Arkanaut: Antimatter: Nope. Racial purity and such goes back far longer then evolution. To blame those atrocities on that is to have no idea what evolution does, and to ignore thousands of years of the same activities.

Yeah, IIRC Herbert Spencer was the one who came up with the phrase "survival of the fittest", not Darwin.

Not only that, but Darwin was on record as hating that phrase. He preferred natural selection, which is a lot more accurate.

Kome: Download an English-translated copy of Mein Kampf

Translated by liberal commie atheist academics, I'll bet.

Majick Thise: Hmm Hitler was a catholic turned protestant so I'm guessing no on that one. Can't speak to Stalin or his pot

Hitler's religion is kind of beside the point, to be honest. Catholics and Protestants have been very influential in developing evolutionary theory, and the notion that there is a necessary conflict between religion and science is a false dichotomy. But Hitler's attempt at genocide certainly has no support from natural selection, which is a theory about differential reproduction. If Hitler had actually read and understood Darwin, he would not have bothered trying to exterminate his "enemies," he would simply have encouraged the supposed "Aryans" to have more kids.

Stalin supported Lysenko, whose theories were fundamentally anti-Darwinian and had far more in common with Lamarck's notions. In fact, because of Lysenkoism, the field of genetics in Russia was held back for more than a generation.

I am not aware of Pol Pot ever even discussing the subject.

In any case, the notion that "the strong should kill the weak" or "violence is the supreme law of nature" is in direct conflict with Darwin's ideas, and derives much more coherently from Herbert Spencer's social theories than from anything in biology. Natural selection is all about who gets laid, not about who gets killed.

/$0.02

Hitler DID base a fair amount of his thoughts on the models and ideas brought forward by the American Eugenics Society. JP Morgan, Jr., William Kellogg, several founders of Planned Parenthood, were all members. Darwin's own son, Leonard wrote extensively and worked within the American Eugenics Society.

That being said, Darwin's observations about adaptation over time leading to divergent speciation were taken by many to mean a lot of different things. Man coming from monkeys being a popular trope, that has about as much basis in fact as my banging Felicia Day and Natalie Portman in a three way last night.

Marx would have been horrified at what was done with his work by Stalinists. What folks do with ideas is often far and away from the original work. Turning treatise on the origin of species into a raison d'être for the extermination of one's neighbors is not the fault of the author, but rather those who are looking for an excuse, and would like to have someone to back up their reasoning, to appear to be erudite and well considered. Sort of like looking to the Bible to excuse oneself for acting to deny folks rights and even their lives. Should we blame Catholicism for Hitler's rise as well? What about Stalin's own religious views? Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist, and thus we should attribute Teravada Buddhism for his crimes?

Darwin and his On the Origin of Species is often willfully misunderstood. About as often as Karl Marx's work, and Gods help me, even Ayn Rand's own work. Ayn still remains a vile example of a human, which she proved fairly often in her writing and her correspondence, but the foundations of Objectivism differ with Marxism and what has been dubbed Darwinism, in that they were based on published papers, and then those ideas were taken up by others, interpreted and used as inspiration for more work, while Rand was very much focused on making a living off the rubes that she convinced to make her their pet. Darwin and Marx were both scholars first, and their work was a foundation upon which others continued upon.

Like Darwin and Marx though, Rand has been taken as a symbol, and often scrubbed by those who would like to use her work to justify their own ends. Oddly enough, by Conservatives who routinely strip away her rejection of faith and religion of any sort, and ignoring what that rejection wrought within her own philosophy. Darwin and Marx, published scholarly work, that was interpreted and used and then taken up, and often willfully misquoted and skewed to meet their own agenda, in blatant disregard from the original work.


This isn't exactly a groundbreaking revelation, but it's important to put things in perspective, which Paul Johnson is trying to skew. His conclusions are very much based in a political agenda, as opposed to the role of biographer. He has an axe to grind, and is essentially looking to be a quote mill for others to use to back up their own agendas, while ignoring the real work, or the real man that he chose to focus upon.

Darwin's work wasn't an effort to secularize the world, nor was it an open affront to all that is Godly on this Earth, but a collection of observations that divorced themselves mysticism, and instead focused on what was readily apparent to those who would look at the world in an objective fashion. The ire, the vitriol, all that is focused on someone whose main "crime" was to look at things without imposition of preconception.

Pol Pot, as a Theravada Buddhist, one might at least point to that early education in looking to direct experience and a lack of blind faith, and at least argue that training led him down the road that he took. Likewise, one might also blame his rise to power on Napoleon II or the Jesuits. Looking to Darwin as a scapegoat is about as useful. Folks are looking for excuses, and they are looking for someone to blame, while ignoring the glaring inconsistencies in any sort of self examination.

Summer Glau's Love Slave: [galton.org image 600x367]
Sir Francis Galton - Charles Darwin's cousin.

Just goes to show you, "being correct" doesn't run in families.

Spanky_McFarksalot: human beings will find any excuse they can to be dicks. some will use religion, some will use science some will use fark.

People will make up shiat on the fly to make themselves superior to other groups. Maybe we should ban imagination. Hilter probably imagined how to gas millions of people efficiently.

/sarc

rwfan: FTFA: Paul Johnson, the conservative, family-values-promoting British intellectual.

WTF! When did the British start exporting their religious zealots to the U.S.?

... oh right.

I LOL'd

FloydA: Stalin supported Lysenko, whose theories were fundamentally anti-Darwinian and had far more in common with Lamarck's notions. In fact, because of Lysenkoism, the field of genetics in Russia was held back for more than a generation.

And let us not forget that a great many people starved to death due to Lysenko being a complete idiot who didn't know a damned thing about plants.

AliceBToklasLives: FTA: " Many nonreligious people recognize the truth of natural selection without collapsing into nihilistic despair; one need not reject the reality of evolution in order to live a meaningful, moral life"

Evolution, the vastness of the universe, etc. in no way lead to the loss of human dignity. This is a (faulty) moral, not a scientific conclusion.

No, this is a failure of personal worth. These poor bastards have been convinced that they are born wicked, sinful, and condemned to Hell without the love and forgiveness of Jesus. Anything that threatens the existence of their God, as evolution does in its logical conclusion that Genesis is not historically true, is a threat to their entire sense of self-worth.