the sunday times gets an egg on its face
British pundit Dennis Sewell has drunk deep of the creationist elixir and cobbled together a terrible wreck of an article in the Sunday Times which is just one more manifestation of scientifically and historically dim and uninspired Darwin bashing we’ve all heard again and again. But that’s the thing with creationists. They have developed an immunity to facts and objective reasoning. You could prove to them a million times that Darwin had nothing to do with those who would mutilate his theory of natural selection to create the pseudoscientific Frankenstein of noxious pseudoscientific garbage in question. But after every single time, they will once again repeat the very nonsense you’ve just demolished like nothing happened. To give you an idea of how frustrating this is, allow me to present this bit by Lewis Black, who I’m pretty sure I’ll turn into over the next twenty years…
In his article, Sewell has the typical debate tactics of a creationist quote-bot down to a science, if you pardon the pun. His authoritative sources of the Darwin-is-evil tripe include Darrell Scott, who’s claims to fame are his woefully misinformed tirades about the evils of evolution which were brought to light by after his daughter was shot at Columbine and he found himself in front of a camera, and Ann Coulter who was the de facto definition of right wing insanity until we were introduced to Sarah Palin last year. What, was Ray Comfort not available to comment on this story? How about Dinesh “Couldn’t Think His Way Out of a Paper Bag” D’Souza with all his grand and inanely wordy insights? And what about Ben “Science Makes You Kill People” Stein? As long as we’re asking clueless demagogues, why not go down their celebrity roster? To make matters even worse, this insipidity was published in the science section as if it was in any way a legitimate scientific or historical piece as it casually links Darwin to every ignoramus to ever malign his theory.
On this blog, I’ve taken this issue up with Steve Newton, an expert on the subject at the NCSE and in the link included in the first paragraph, but I will mention again just how ridiculous this excuse for logic really is. If we decide that scientists and engineers are responsible for every objectionable use or misuse of their ideas, we should be blaming the Wright brothers for fighter planes and 9/11, John Dalton and all his work on the atomic theory of matter for nuclear weapons, Tim Bernes Lee and his prototype for the modern internet for spam and viruses, and Iron Age metallurgists for modern bullets. Last, and certainly not least, we should also blame the Bible writers for racism because so many of the texts it contains have been used to justify slavery, misogyny, genocide and ethnic cleansing. In fact, the Bible and Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s anti-Semitic tracts were cited by Hitler as his inspiration for the Holocaust. A horrifying mangling of natural selection was tacked on by those he employed based on loyalty and ideology rather than genuine education or scientific knowledge. So, when are the creationist hordes going to start holding Chamberlain responsible? Or just plain old bigotry?
And to think that Darwin wrote about the notion that helping each other and those less fortunate must’ve been a product of natural selection, opposed slavery, and while being raised into the standard mentality of Victorian men, his views on women were almost liberal at the time. His cousin Galton and ideologue Herbert Spencer created a pseudoscientific monster by combining the bits and pieces of Darwin’s theory that interested them in justifying their bigotry and snobbishness as noble or prescribed by nature, and we’ve been stuck with whole generations of snobs, racists and bigots who decided their skin color or the size of their bank account makes them better humans than those with darker skin or lighter wallets. For them, the issues of biology and natural selection as it applies to social animals is irrelevant. They just feel free to skip that part without realizing that a population which tries to preserve the “purity” of its genes actually becomes inbred and more prone to certain propagating genetic defects. Why do you think populations of Orthodox Jews who insist that only pure-blooded Jews should marry in their communities have a disproportionate rate of Tay-Sachs? They’re ignoring a basic principle of evolution which works best when genes are spread around.
If anything, evolution is like the hippie of scientific theories. The more genetic variety you have, the more genes you try to mix, the more likely you are to develop resistance to more diseases and avoid carrier genes for any specific genetic condition, so this condition will be less likely to fully activate and more likely to go extinct. This is what those focused on “purity” refuse to understand. Pure humans don’t exist. They never have. They’re just a fanciful concept with no place in reality. Instead, we all have our flaws and defects, and with a larger pool of genetic material available to a population, we’re more likely to overcome them, incorporate each other’s good genes and either mute or minimize the troublesome ones. The aforementioned bigots will resist it because it makes them feel less special as humans. The creationists will ignore that this is what evolution tells us when we actually focus on the science because accepting this fact doesn’t give them the opportunity to drag Darwin through their verbal manure yet again. So much so, that at this point, the Discovery Institute, AiG, Ray Comfort and now Sewell, aren’t just beating a dead horse but violating its bleached, skeletal remains with a disturbing and terribly misplaced zeal.
[ story idea via Jerry Coyne. can't see the video? here's an alternate format ]
It’d be real good to have some quick references for that, if you have them handy.
RBH beat me to the question.
SFAIK, historians haven’t even found one reliable document showing Hitler personally ordered the Holocaust, never mind one describing his “inspiration” for same (unless you count his general anti-semitism, the roots of which he apparently lied about).
One slight problem with your story here: I just read the article in question and what the Times guy Sewell actually says is that Darwin would have been “horrified” by Klebold & Harris using his name to justify their murders at Columbine. So that’s a long way from holding Darwin responsible. Nor is there any mention of creationism or denial of the truth of evolution. There isn’t even a mention of a deity, a spaghetti monster or anything. In fact, all the article seems to be saying is that various crazy killers have from time to time used Darwin to justify their killing. It also says other crazy killers have cited Nietzsche, Camus and Genet as their inspirations to murder. Seems like you are imagining creationist conspiracies where none exist. And… from the Pierce R Butler coment above – giving house room to holocaust deniers. So who’s the real whacko then? You or the London Times?
“It’d be real good to have some quick references for that, if you have them handy.”
My main reference for this on the blog is the mentioned interview with Steve Newton who is an expert on the history of German pseudosciences, especially among the Nazis. As for the historical documents on the subject, he points to Mein Kampf which is about as close to Hitler’s thinking on the subject as we can get. There he refers to Chamberlain’s Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts and his general anti-Semitic attitudes.
Numerous historians say that part of Hitler’s distaste for the Jews was based on the Jewish Deicide Doctrine which held the Jewish people responsible for the execution of Christ and guilty of deicide as a religion and as an ethnicity. Although over the 20th century the Vatican made numerous attempts to disassociate itself from it, it was still very rampant among many Europeans and very popular in Germany. The proof cited by the proponents of the Jewish Deicide charge were the Gospels.
Now, I do have to admit to a slight bit of oversimplification in this post which I should explain. By the Holocaust, I was referring to the notions and speeches which ended up as the Final Solution, so to be perfectly clear on the subject, I should say that he cited Chamberlain and the “divine nature of his mission” as the inspiration for what would spiral into what we know today as the Holocaust.
“historians haven’t even found one reliable document showing Hitler personally ordered the Holocaust…”
And that’s technically true because whether it was mass killings or the Final Solution, the link to Hitler is muddled by the fact that he made the big speeches but left others to carry out his ideas. For example, in a 1939 speech to the Reichstag, he called for the “disposal of the Jewish question” and that word choice does leave quite a bit of ambiguity. Further complicating the matter is the issue of Himmler being in charge of the actual concentration, detention, labor and death camps for all POWs and for the victims of what would be the Final Solution.
Then, in December 1941 notes from Goebbels and Himmler from their individual meetings with Hitler say that the dictator decided the “Jewish question” was to be “exterminated” and that he wanted to “make a clean sweep” in this regard. It’s highly unlikely that millions of people would be killed without Hitler’s personal and explicit approval since the next three years required a substantial amount of resources and money to keep the camps going.
And now, on to Cato’s rather odd complaints…
“what Sewell actually says is that Darwin would have been ‘horrified’ by Klebold & Harris using his name to justify their murders at Columbine”
Yes, he devotes an entire two paragraphs to saying that it’s not uncommon for all sorts of sociopaths to cite famous and important works as the motivation for their murders in the middle of his article and then goes right back to bashing Darwin through sourceless quote mining and using the ridiculous creationist canards about how “Darwinism is an excuse to disregard all morals.”
A few sober sentences in an otherwise inane screed that goes right back to linking him to racists, eugenicists and bigots does not atone for the other 90% of the article. Did you read the second page as well or did you just get to the bottom of the first half and left it at that?
“Seems like you are imagining creationist conspiracies where none exist.”
What conspiracies? Sewell wrote a stupid article trying to make Darwin out to be an inspiration to bigots and sociopaths everywhere with a quick, haphazard disclaimer in the middle of his tripe and quoted ardent and outspoken creationists (Scott and Coulter) as his expert sources. Where was the conspiracy?
“So who’s the real whacko then? You or the London Times?”
I would save the name calling until you’ve made a legitimate point.
The Newton interview says nothing about Hitler being influenced by the Bible or other aspects of Christianism. (Which is not to say such evidence doesn’t exist: I recommend Michael Phayer’s The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965 and, for the Protestant side, Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 for well-written overviews.)
… Mein Kampf which is about as close to Hitler’s thinking on the subject as we can get.
Which is where some of those autobiographical lies I mentioned can be found. Hitler claimed his anti-semitism began with a visceral reaction against Jews met in Vienna, but many historians think his postwar mentor Dietrich Eckart was the crucial influence. (Of course, the “Jews killed Jesus!!1!” attitudes promoted by Christian churches probably affected both of them.)
“The Newton interview says nothing about Hitler being influenced by the Bible…”
I see that now. We talked at length about the history of German pseudosciences and Hitler’s appeal to the supposed divinity of his mission in “dealing with the Jewish question,” but it looks like in the interest of post length, I didn’t transcribe that part of the recording. My mistake.
You’re absolutely right about the biographical lies in Mein Kampf, but it does seem that if Hitler thought it was fit to invoke religion and Chamberlain, they both mattered to his formal justification of anti-Semitism and bigotry against other European ethnic groups which also suffered greatly during the Holocaust.
In fact, the Bible and Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s anti-Semitic tracts were cited by Hitler as his inspiration for the Holocaust.
Not so. Hitler never cited anyone as his inspiration for the Holocaust as he never defended his extermination of the Jews in public, indeed he never acknowledged it. That’s why some ‘revisionists’ of the David Irving type can claim that Hitler didn’t directly order it, or even know about it. Nonsense of course.
The ‘Jewish question’ was frequently discussed in senior Nazi circles and various ‘solutions’ floated before the ‘final solution’ (extermination) was decided upon. The geneticist Eugen Fischer wa the guest of honor at the opening of the Institute for Research Into the Jewish Question. Fischer was an outspoken advocate of eliminating the Jews. Heinrich Himmler cited Fischer (along with another geneticist Fritz Lenz) as having played an important part in the original development of Nazi ideology.
Another biologist praised by the Nazis for his contributions to the development of Nazi Ideology was Alfred Ploetz. Ploetz and Ernst Ruedin were the leading figures in German eugenics during the period.
German eugenicists were notable for their very early association with the NSDAP, many joining the party long before Hitler came to power.
The mistake I see taking shape in this thread is to confuse the origins of Hitler’s antisemitism with the origins of the Holocaust. Most social elites in Europe (and to a great extent in the US too) were pretty antisemitic in this period. But it was in Germany alone that antisemitism took on an exterminatory character. This was because of the more proximate causes: including (but not limited to) the arguments of these hiighly places geneticists and eugenicists within the Nazi party. These men were much more in the Darwin-Haeckel tradition than in the Chamberlain tradition.
Chamberlain was a vague and often self-contradictory windbag. Hitler embraced his racial theory that the Teutons were the master race, but mocked some of Chamberlain’s Christian statements. As a theoretical influence, In my view, Darwin’s was no doubt stronger than Chamberlain’s at all germaine levels in bringing about the Holocaust.
“[Hitler] never defended his extermination of the Jews in public…”
Why would he need to defend his policy when he made all the rules and those who argued with him were sent to labor camps or tortured to death? Also, see links to his speech and the notes by Goebbels and Himmler. Since he was the absolute ruler of Nazi Germany, millions of people couldn’t just be killed without his knowledge and expressed consent.
As for his influences on the subject, we can cite as many people as we want and the list will be pretty large thanks to the Deicide Doctrine and the writings of anti-Semites across Europe. But since this post focused on the logic of blaming Darwin for having his theory bastardized to justify bigotry, rather than providing an authoritative history of the Nazi movement and the Holocaust, I just gave several examples.
“These men were much more in the Darwin-Haeckel tradition than in the Chamberlain tradition.”
I’m sorry but it doesn’t work that way. Haeckel threw in natural selection along with Lamarck and may have been the seed for the phylogenic recapitulation theory which was never accepted by mainstream biology and used by dishonest creationists as proof of how wrong Darwin was, even though Darwin knew little of Haeckel’s work, didn’t have a good enough command of German to read it and provided no review or validation.
So to string them together so casually ignores that while working on seemingly related topics, the two never cooperated and Haeckel’s derivatives never got an objective review from Darwin. You could make a connection between Einstein and woo-meisters who talk about “energy” following the same train of thought.
“In my view, Darwin’s was no doubt stronger than Chamberlain’s at all germaine levels in bringing about the Holocaust.”
Right, because the mostly uneducated Nazi leadership who thought that heredity was in the blood rather than the genes, long after the modern synthesis emerged from the combination of Mendel’s and Darwin’s work really had a solid comprehension of the theory after it was fed to them by eugenicists who’s official job it was to serve as full time apologists and henchmen for pseudo-intellectual bigots…
Like I said, let’s blame John Dalton for atomic theory too since that was used to make nukes. He must have inspired Oppenheimer, Teller and Ulam as well as Heisenberg, who may have been helping the Nazis in figuring out how to build a fission bomb. He had about as much connection with nuclear weapons as Darwin had to eugenics.
Sewell has not written a pro creationist or anti-Darwinist piece. He draws attention to the historical context in which Darwin’s views were set and the use to which his theories were put. He makes it clear that “The debate between Darwin’s bulldogs and religious fundamentalists over the truth of evolution and the existence of God has become a sterile one” and gives no indication that he favours either one. His message is simple. For the sake of a sane public policy stop presenting Darwin in a bowdlerised form, set it in historical context and don’t avoid the critical questions which Darwinism raises for society. Your knee-jerk misinterpretation shows just how right he is.