On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 20:58:55 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
NM>PS - Does anyone know if Hitler ever wrote or said, for example,
>the words "Darwin" or "evolution" (refering to the science and not
>just meaning "change"). Did he even read about it? The closest
>thing I've seen is that Hitler read (misread) Nietzsche, and
>Nietzsche refers to Darwin and evolution in some of his writings.
I don't know that Hitler ever referred to "Darwin", but he did refer
to "evolution":
"Hitler in Mein Kampf said that `permanent struggle is the law of
life,' and struggle between `a superior race' and `an inferior one'
brings `an evolutionary higher stage.' (Hitler A., "Mein Kampf",
1939, pp239-240, 242, in Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species
Revisited", Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. II, p227).
Clark says:
"Adolf Hitler's mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching-probably
since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas-quite
undisguised-lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf and
in his public speeches. A few quotations, taken at random, will show
how Hitler reasoned. In a speech at Nuremberg, in I933, he argued
that a higher race would always conquer a lower."Thus there results
the subjection of a number of people under the will, often of only a
few persons, a subjection based simply upon the right of the
stronger, a right which, as we see it in Nature, can be regarded as
the sole conceivable right, because it is founded on reason." He
went on to explain that it was for this reason that he hated
communism. "For communism is not a higher stage of development;
rather it is the most primitive form of life-the starting-point."
Hitler's hatred of the Jews was rationalized in the same way. The
Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary
future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be
segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to
happen, all nature's efforts "to establish an evolutionary higher
stage of being may thus be rendered futile" (Mein Kampf).
Hitler's attitude to the League of Nations and to peace and war were
based upon the same principles. "A world-court without a world
police would be a joke...the whole world of Nature is a mighty
struggle between strength and weakness-an eternal victory of the
strong over the weak. There would be nothing but decay in the whole
of nature if this were not so. States which should offend against
this elementary law would fall into decay." In those early days
Hitler himself was alarmed to see signs of such decay in the German
nation and was confident that God had raised him up to save his
country. (Speech at Munich, 1923.) "He who would live must fight.
He who does not wish to fight in this world where permanent struggle
is the law of life, has not the right to exist." To think otherwise
is to " insult" nature. "Distress, misery and disease are her
rejoinders" (Mein Kampf )."
(Clark R.E.D., "Darwin: Before & After", 1966, Paternoster, London,
pp115-116)
His "master race" was also based on Darwinist theories of the
survival of the fittest:
"No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger
individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with
a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding,
over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one
blow. Historical evidence 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.
North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part
of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored
peoples, shows a different humanity and culture...All great
cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative
race died out from blood poisoning...This preservation is bound up
with the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory of the best
and stronger in this world. Those who want to live, let them fight,
and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle
do not deserve to live. The man who misjudges and disregards the
racial laws actually forfeits the happiness that seems destined to be
his. He thwarts the triumphal march of the best race..." (Hitler
A., "Mein Kampf", 1939, pp239-240, 242, in Bird, 1991, Vol. II,
p227)
Leading Darwinist Sir Keith, acknowledged that "[t]he leader of
Germany is an evolutionist," and "has consciously sought to make the
practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." (Keith A.,
"Evolution and Ethics", 10, 1947, p230, in Bird, 1991, Vol. II,
p227)
BH>Sorry, I can't answer this question, but your mention of Nietzsche
>reminded me of something Ravi Zacharias said when he spoke here a
>few years ago [BTW, if you ever get a chance to see Ravi then do so,
>drop everything else. He's the greatest and most inspirational
>evangelist I've ever had the pleasure of seeing].
Thanks to Brian for this. I have heard several of RZ's tapes and own
two of his books. I have been told he is coming to Australia next
year, so I hope to see him if he visits Western Australia.
BH>Anyway, what he said was "Do not judge a philosophy by its abuse"
>and his primary example was Nietzsche and Hitler, i.e. do not
>blame Nietzsche on account of Hitler. Quite amazing actually
>given the extent to which Hitler was apparently influenced by
>Nietzsche.
It is true that we should "not judge a philosophy by its abuse" (eg. not
judge Christianity by the Spanish Inquisition), but Zacharias states that
there was a causal link between Nietzsche and Hitler:
"In his book, Modern Times, the historian Paul Johnson referred to
Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini as the three devils of the twentieth
century. Interestingly, Nietzschean dogma influenced each of them.
So profound and operative was Nietzsche's philosophy upon Hitler,
that it provided the conceptual framework for his demogogical
onslaught to obliterate the weak and inferior of this world. That
being done, he would establish the supremacy of the "superman" in an
unobstructed and dominant role. Hitler also personally presented a
copy of Nietzsche's works to Benito Mussolini." (Zacharias R.K., "A
Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism", Baker: Grand Rapids
MI, 1990, pp17-18)
"Possibly no philosopher articulated a more forceful refutation of
the theistic world-view than Frederick Nietzsche. He posited in its
place a bold espousal of the antitheistic mind-set, keenly aware of
the revolutionary, world-altering ramifications of that paradigm
shift. Few philosophers have had such a radical impact as Nietzsche
upon the history-makers of this twentieth century. His powerful
influence upon Hitler-and through Hitler, Mussolini is now well
documented." (Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God", Word
Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, p18)
BH>In the same spirit we also should not blame evolution
>for Hitler. Even if Hitler did use evolution as a justification for
>what he did (which hasn't yet been documented) so what? He's
>a madman.
It may be popular to call Hitler a "madman", but is there any evidence
that he was "mad" in any clinical sense? My understanding of Hitler
is that though he had psychological problems, he was extraordinarily
shrewd and knew exactly what he was doing:
"Although conditions were thus favourable to the growth of the
party, only Hitler was sufficiently astute to take full advantage of
them...Throughout, he showed a unique ability to exploit conditions
favourable to success. He created the Hitler myth; he propagated it by
every device of mass agitation and with an actor's ability to be
absorbed in the role that he created for himself. Yet all the time he
remained a shrewd and calculating politician, aware of the
weaknesses of his own position, perceiving more quickly than anyone
else how a situation could best be turned to his own advantage...In
his foreign policy Hitler combined complete opportunism in means
and timing with unwavering pursuit of the objectives laid down in
Mein Kampf. He showed astonishing skill in judging the mood of the
democracies and exploiting their weaknesses..Hitler's success must be
attributed to the susceptibility of postwar Germany to his own unique
talents as a political leader...there was no one who equalled his ability
to exploit and shape events to his own ends." (Bullock A. & Knapp
W.F., "Hitler, Adolf", Encyclopaedia Britannica", Benton, Chicago,
15th edition, 1984, 8:966-968, 970).
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 14:11:15 -0800 (PST), Randy Landrum wrote:
[...]
RL>"Even if all the evidence ended up supporting whichever
>scientific theories best fitted Genesis, this would only show how
>clever the old Hebrews were in their use of common sense, or how
>lucky. It does not need to be explained by an unobservable God."
>
>-The Southern Skeptic, Vol 2 No. 5 Autumn 1985 (this organization
>has similar aims to American humanist groups)
This is par for the course. I have been told personally by email by
an atheist on this Reflector, that the only evidence for God that
they would accept is if God personally appeared to them and told him
that He exists!
The bad news is that one day He will do just that!
RL>These people who vehemently attack the creation ministry in
>saying we are a religious group are themselves a religious group.
>They have really said that even if all the evidence supported the
>book of Genesis they still would not believe it was an
>authoritative document. They are worlking from the premise that
>the Bible is not the Word of God, nor can it ever be. They
>believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These
>same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.
Indeed. While maybe 5% of Christians are evolutionists, 100% of
atheists are evolutionists. As Wilcox observes:
"One can be a theistic `Darwinian,' but no one can be an atheistic
`Creationist.'" (Wilcox D.L., in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds.,
"Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?", Foundation for Thought and
Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, p215).
Evolution is virtually essential to an intellectually held atheism,
as Dawkins forthrightly states from personal conviction:
"...although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin,
Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", Penguin: London, 1991, p6)
It is my long-held deeply-felt position that Christians should not
use the term "evolution" (eg. Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary
Creation), to describe their position because of its close
association with atheism. Maybe it was OK once, but not today. The
NT is very strong on this principle (eg. 2Cor 6:14-15 "Do not be
yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and
wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with
darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What
does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? ", etc, etc). I
suggest that TEs call themseves something containing a Biblical word like
"creation" in it (eg. BC = "broad creationist; MC = "mediate creationist;
or PC = "progressive creationists", etc.
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:41:49 -0500, Bill Hamilton wrote:
BH>It wouldn't be a bad idea to add one more question:
>
>0) How do you define the scientific theory of evolution?
Bill, how would *you* to define it? :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------