April 16, 2014

More Missing Links — of Darwin, Eugenics and Hitler

evolution news 300x128 More Missing Links    of Darwin, Eugenics and Hitler

by Bruce Chapman
Evolution News and Views

Yale Alumni Magazine has done the world a favor by exposing one of the skeletons in the closet of that and other universities: the eugenics movement.

The author, Richard Conniff, though himself a Darwinist, doesn’t pull punches. A century ago, he explains, well-meaning professors who contributed in positive ways to economics and conservation nonetheless also provided an intellectual weapon for evil that rocked the 20th century. A young activist in Germany was impressed. The movement started by Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, was carried to an extreme by this man and his friends in the decades to follow.

In Germany, an imprisoned political extremist viewed these developments with satisfaction. Writing Mein Kampfin his cell, Adolf Hitler complained that naturalization in Germany was not all that different from “being admitted to membership of an automobile club,” and that “the child of any Jew, Pole, African, or Asian may automatically become a German citizen.” Now, though, “by excluding certain races” from the right to become American citizens, the United States had held up a shining example to the world. It was the sort of reform, Hitler wrote, “on which we wish to ground the People’s State.”

Nazi Germany would soon become the dark apotheosis of eugenics. When compulsory sterilization began there in 1933, the Nazi physician in charge of training declared he was following “the American pathfinders Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard” (author of The Rising Tide of Color against White World-Supremacy). Eugen Fischer, the leading Nazi eugenicist, would thank Grant and his racial theories for inspiring Germans to work toward “a better future for our Volk.”

Mind you, these were the progressive minds of their day, leaders in many fields. They advocated their benighted policies before the full development of Nazi atrocities, so they have some excuse. Today, however, the Ivy League still hosts eugenicists, and once again they are toasted and lionized. They are very progressive, the fare of glowing New York Times articles and their apologists are legion.

Even Mr. Conniff cannot bring himself to explain how deeply implicated Darwinism is in eugenics. This is not to blame the dear old man, any more than American eugenicists are responsible for Hitler’s crimes. It is to say that the intellectual lineage is obvious and irrefutable. No Darwin, no eugenics.

Read the Full Article here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/more_missing_li060091.html

umcbookcover More Missing Links    of Darwin, Eugenics and Hitler

Free Shipping Available!

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

Arguments Evolutionists Should Not Use

We have a popular article titled, Arguments we think creationists should not use. Indeed, even many misotheistic evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, have commended the existence of such a page. Well, as the saying goes, ‘What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.’

Here are 21 bad arguments that evolutionists should not use to help further their stance on evolution. Clearly, evolution is about keeping out God, not an open approach to the actual evidence.

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

The Myth of Science’s Neutrality

There is no pursuit of knowledge that does not seek to affect the world. Science is made by people with interests, intentions and ambitions; and it’s funded by governments and companies with agendas. Scientific development is subject to funding rules, to expectations about outcomes, and to social forces and institutions that shape our research.

Mathematical Proof vs. Scientific Proof: Are They the Same?

Mathematical Proof vs. Scientific Proof: Are They the Same?

Absolute proof is strictly the domain of logicians. In mathematics, for example, once a theorem is proven it is proven for all time and all circumstances. Mathematical proof is absolute. Mathematics, however, is not science. This is a point about which many are confused. Mathematics is a language used by science, but is not itself a science. Mathematical proof and scientific proof are not the same thing at all.

Scientific proof is not really proof at all, in the mathematical sense, but is either verification or disproof. Since scientists deal with a universe that is not of their own creation, they cannot prove their laws absolutely as can mathematicians. Although scientists use the term “scientific proof,” what they really mean is that a particular hypothesis has been verified or disproved. They don’t mean “proof” in the mathematical sense.

I Can Do All Things Through Christ: Natural vs. Supernatural

I Can Do All Things Through Christ: Natural vs. Supernatural

What is better: natural or supernatural? Is the supernatural available to us today? How can one experience the supernatural life?

More Evidence of Scientism as Religion

More Evidence of Scientism as Religion

As shown in our recent documentary C.S. Lewis and the Case Against Scientism, C.S. Lewis compared science to magic in three ways: (1) Science as Religion, (2) Science as Credulity, and (3) Science as Power. In the film, Discovery Institute’s Dr. John West explains that for many people, science (or better, scientism) serves as a quasi-religion. It gives their lives meaning. Evolution in particular provides an overarching, cosmic vision that many find satisfying: a view of something larger than their experience: the birth and ultimate fate of the universe, with mankind struggling against natural odds in its rise to dominance.

To further illustrate, here are a few recent cases from science news of evolutionary thinking serving in the role of religious faith.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!