Thought Experiment

I dont deny that positive Christianity was influenced by Christianity. Just as Social Darwinism was plainly influenced by Darwinism.
And I suppose you would agree that "positive Christianity" was a mere caricature of Christianity, a travesty of Christianity. Names prove nothing.
It is a caricature but it does incorporate some Christian ideas and so it is with Social Darwinism.
The strong eliminates the weak.
That is not what Darwin said in Origin of Species. He did not claim that the story of life is the story of one population exterminating another by having sharper claws; he said -- and this is still a crude simplification -- that the story of life is the story of one population outliving another by having more efficient tools to survive and reproduce. This could be sharper claws, or it could be more nimble fingers, or better night vision, or a longer tongue to get to a flower's nectar, or better camouflage with which to hide from predators, or... or... or.... Nobody who reads the Origin with even minimal understanding could possibly see it as some sort of scientific proof that we need to murder to survive.
You might need to if someone is attacking you. Hitler felt that the jews were trying to destroy Germany from within.
It should also be noted that this aspect of "Darwinism" -- the claim that you have a better chance of surviving and reproducing if you have nimbler fingers, better night vision, etc. -- is the aspect that essentially nobody denies, not even the most doctrinaire young-earth creationist!. So if this is the aspect of Darwinism that is a deadly threat to the very existence of morality, then obviously we're all doomed to lose our moral senses, the Christian as well as the pagan.
Yes, but one of Hitler's criticisms of Christianity was that we keep people who were mentally and physically disabled alive and even let them reproduce. Hitler started exterminating the disabled long before he started eliminating the jews. He felt that they were an economic drag on society and if allowed to reproduce would bring in defective genes into the Aryan populatlon.
See above. Hitler considered the Aryans the strong and jews the weak.
No he did not. He did not describe the Jews as "weak," he described them as a deadly threat to the Aryans. In the passage you quoted yourself, he didn't say the Jews were "weak," he said they were "weakENING Germany."

And even if Hitler had described the Jews as "weak," the point you never seem to acknowledge is that they could not possibly be called "weak" or "unfit" according to Darwinian criteria. They were not at all falling behind in the "struggle for survival" when compared with other European sub-populations.

And even if the European Jews were unfit, the conclusion a "Darwinian" would come to would be "they will ultimately go extinct, with no 'help' from anybody else," not be "we need to kill them all, now!"

That's four strikes against your argument. Maybe you should change your batting stance?
Fraid so, in Mein Kampf he said, "this preservation of culture and culture producing races is tied to the iron law of necessity and of the right of victory of the best and the strongest. Whoever wants to live must struggle and whoever will not fight in this world of eternal struggle does not deserve to live. Even if this is harsh, it is simply the way it is!" Notice he said best in addition to strongest. Besides being weak physically he considered the jews morally weak. He thought they were the most immoral people on the planet. According to Social Darwinism even morality comes from evolution so he thought they needed to be eliminated because their morality would weaken Germany's morality. In some ways the thought the Nazis were the arm of god to speed up the evolutionary process. Though he was a pantheist not a theist.
 
It is a caricature but it does incorporate some Christian ideas and so it is with Social Darwinism.

The malignant influence of Social Darwinism is evidence of the perniciousness of Darwinism. (Your claim.)

Positive Christianity:Christianity :: Darwinism:Social Darwinism. (What you said just now.)

Therefore the malignant influence of Positive Christianity is evidence of the perniciousness of Christianity. (Logically follows from the above.)

You might need to [murder to survive] if someone is attacking you. Hitler felt that the jews were trying to destroy Germany from within.

"Darwin said that survival was important; sometimes survival requires killing; therefore anybody who kills in order to survive in a kill-or-be-killed situation is relying on the wisdom of Charles Darwin"???

You're implicitly claiming that Hitler would not have tried to kill his enemies in a "kill or be killed" situation (as he saw it) if Darwin had not told him that he should. You realize that this is utterly preposterous, don't you? But unless you are in fact claiming this, you have made zero case for saying that Hitler's readiness to kill Jews was due to the influence of Darwin.

Yes, but one of Hitler's criticisms of Christianity was that we keep people who were mentally and physically disabled alive and even let them reproduce. Hitler started exterminating the disabled long before he started eliminating the jews. He felt that they were an economic drag on society and if allowed to reproduce would bring in defective genes into the Aryan populatlon.

This does not address my point, which was that everybody, even the most dogmatic young-earth creationist, agrees that the aspect of "Darwinism" which you are saying inspired genocide -- namely, the observation that those who were better adapted to their environment had a better chance of survival -- was and is correct. If some took this true statement and used it to justify eugenics, that's on them, not on Darwin. Again, Darwin himself did not believe that preventing the disable from reproducing was a logical implication of his theory. And Hitler didn't reference Darwin, he referenced ancient Sparta.

To put it simply: are you or are you not saying it was wrong of Darwin to make the correct observation that those who were better adapted to their environment have a better chance of survival?

Fraid so, in Mein Kampf he said, "this preservation of culture and culture producing races is tied to the iron law of necessity and of the right of victory of the best and the strongest.

Essentially you are saying "Hitler believed his race, as the best and strongest, had the right of victory over its enemies; Hitler believed that the Jews were his race's enemies; therefore, Hitler believed the Jews were inferior and weak."

First, this is not a valid argument; the valid conclusion would be "Hitler believed his race, as the best and strongest, had the right of victory over the Jews." Notice that if the "aryans" were the "best and strongest" race, then all other races were relatively inferior and weak. Hitler here is not even implicitly declaring any special inferiority or weakness of Jews.

And again, he never, ever speaks of the Jews as "inferior" in a way which is even minimally consistent with what Darwin talked about as "fitness" or the lack thereof. This is at least the fifth time I've made this point, and you've never disputed it. If you want to do so now, you should be able complete the following sentence: "Hitler said the Jews were [X]; to be [X] is to be unfit, as Darwinian terms." I don't believe you can do this. So:

Hitler never claims, even implicitly, that the Jews are "inferior" in a way which is even minimally consistent with the Darwinian outlook.

If Hitler never claims, even implicitly, that the Jews were inferior according to the Darwinian outlook, then the Darwinian outlook is not complicit in Nazi crimes against the Jews as "inferior" beings.

Do you dispute the latter claim?

[continuing the Hitler quote:] "Whoever wants to live must struggle and whoever will not fight in this world of eternal struggle does not deserve to live. Even if this is harsh, it is simply the way it is!" Notice he said best in addition to strongest. Besides being weak physically he considered the jews morally weak.

So: evil is a form of weakness; weakness is a Bad Thing, according to Darwin; therefore, anybody who calls anybody evil is indebted to Darwinian reasoning? Again, you must see how entirely absurd this is. People were saying "we must destroy the enemy, for he is evil" for literally thousands of years before there was even a family named "Darwin," let alone a book by Charles Darwin.

And, again, there is nothing in The Origin of Species which says that only morally upright organisms survive, let alone that only morally upright organisms deserve to survive, let double alone that morally "inferior" organisms should be exterminated.

Also, could you please remember to capitalize the J in "Jews"?
 
What does that mean? I can think of instances when He wasn't good.

So tell us of an instance when you believe that the God you don't believe exists wasn't good. And be sure that in whatever instance you mention you use your omniscient powers to ascertain that no greater good ever ultimately ensued.
 
What precisely is the “it” here?
The concept survival of the fittest.
The view that “kill or be killed” is the basic law of existence? Because A) that is not what Darwin said or implied, B) dictators and war criminals were acting on this “principle” for thousands of years before Darwin was born, and C) Hitler never once used Darwin’s name or his work to give “scientific credibility” to his racism.
No, the principle of survival of the fittest. I didnt say he used Darwins name but he read books by other Darwinists so obviously knew about him.
I don’t imagine you’re going to dispute point B. If you want to dispute A or C, you should be able to provide a quote from Darwin which either states or strongly suggests that he held to this idea, and a quote from Hitler which clearly, even if only implicitly, points back to Darwin as the scientist who demonstrated that We need to kill Them before they kill us.
He did hold to the idea of survival of the fittest. Actually at first Hitler just wanted to deport the Jews so that his Aryans could have access to the land and all the resources of Germany and not have to compete with them (Darwin's theory dealt with this as well when it talks about species occupying specific ecological niches and competing for resources. But then later when other nations would not accept them being relocated he decided to exterminate them. He may have heard about certain species of ants that exterminate other ant colonies when they come in direct competition.
 
I seem to be unable to reply in the normal way here. Let's see if this goes through.

[Still can't give a substantive reply, no idea why. Just keep getting the "OOPS" message.]
 
Last edited:
You are not alone in OOPS land, I get it all the time. That said, I have no idea what is wrong. clear the oops and hit reply again and eventually it usually does work. :)
 
You are not alone in OOPS land, I get it all the time. That said, I have no idea what is wrong. clear the oops and hit reply again and eventually it usually does work. :)
Yeah, usually that's what happens, but I've literally tried a dozen times here without success, and I'm not having any problems replying on other threads, just this one. And apparently I can reply to you on this thread, just not to @El Cid! I've tried shorter, I've tried without using the quotes. Can't account for it.

Let's see if I can reply to you, while making the points I made in the failed reply to @El Cid, which he should see from the mention:

[Later] Nope, still stuck in OOPS land. Must be something about my content that triggers something in the system. Is the system maybe detecting a swear word that I didn't intend?
 
Last edited:
Darwin is the person that popularized "survival of the fittest". And Hitler as a non-scientist used that concept to spread his racism [. . .]

You reduce Darwin's work to a phrase ("survival of the fittest") or even a word ("competition"), and invite us to suppose that those phrases in themselves bore the seed of a campaign to exterminate one's enemies. This is not anything resembling fair-minded intellectual history. To put it very mildly.
It is more than just the phrases themselves, it is also all the apparent scientific evidence backing them. Germany was the most educated nation on earth at the time, so they including Hitler was very enamored with science.
Your claim about Darwin being an accessory to the Final Solution takes the form "Darwin said X; and Hitler took that to mean Y" or "and Hitler used that concept to defend Y" You could "convict" anybody of being a criminal accessory to anything using that kind of reasoning. For example, "Paul popularized the idea that the greatest virtue of all is love." It is very easy to see how this concept could be "used" or "taken" in ways that Paul very obviously never intended they be used or taken.
No, see above about science. It was mostly the science that impressed Hitler. He considered himself very rational and a great respecter of science. And if his hatred of Jews could be backed up by science he was going to latch on to it.
The only way you could rationally place any blame at all on Darwin here (or on Paul, for that matter) would be to show that it was not obviously wrong for Hitler (or NAMBLA) to "interpret" or "use" Darwin's ideas (or Paul's) in support of genocide (or pedophilia). This is something you haven't even tried to do. I invited you to provide an actual argument, which started "Darwin said that the fittest survive" and concluded "therefore, it makes sense for the Germans to exterminate the Jews." You didn't try to do so, and I think you know it can't be done.
Hitler believed that the Aryans were the fittest humans and their domination of the planet had to be accomplished in any way possible including taking evolution into their own hands and eliminating their competition.
And it's fortunate that it can't be done, because essentially everybody -- even devout, Creationist Christians -- agrees that Darwin was correct in saying that the fittest survive, that animals with (e.g.) better camouflage have a better chance of escaping predation. If acknowledging this fact inevitably led to condoning genocide, we would be in pretty desperate shape, because we would have no choice but to accept the morality of genocide. Luckily, it does not at all lead to any such conclusion.
See above.
Competition is exactly what Hitler endorsed.
"Darwin talked of competition [among organisms over which ones could make best use of their environment, by finding food sources which other organisms could not utilize, or by being fast enough or hiding well enough to avoid predation], and Hitler endorsed competition [between Us and Them to kill or be killed!]; therefore Hitler was acting under Darwin's influence."

Do I really need to point out why this is absurd? Why you can't chart intellectual influence on the basis of single words?
See above about taking their evolution into their own hands. This was also his purpose for eliminating the mentally and physically disabled.
Why do you think the first people he exterminated were the mentally and physically disabled? He felt they were the genetically inferior and weak and did not want them to "infect" Aryans with their inferior genes.
If this was something that followed from "Darwinian" thinking, one might expect that a Darwinian thinker like Charles Darwin would endorse it. He did not. He very explicitly rejected it.
Darwin's morality was still strongly influenced by his Christian past. This can be seen also in his rejection of slavery. But his cousin and many other Darwinians strongly endorsed it.
And once again you refuse to see the obvious fact that this "logic" of exterminating the mentally ill very plainly does not apply to a decision to exterminate the Jews, because even if one thought of the disabled as "genetically inferior," Jews and their genes were not "inferior" in any sense that any honest reader of Darwin would recognize.
See above about the Jews being their competition.
According to Mein Kampf Hitler also believed that Aryans were morally superior to all other races especially the Jews.

You claim, basically, "Darwin said the superior survive; Hitler accepted Darwin; Hitler therefore concluded that the Aryans must destroy the Jews, who were inferior: morally inferior." But even if it were true that Jews were (for example) more devious than Aryans, Darwin explicitly noted that the ability to deceive is a very often-observed and often-successful survival strategy among animals. For example there are countless animals which try to pass themselves off as venomous when they are actually harmless. Thus, the devious organism very well may be "superior," in the sense of more fit, better able to survive.

So, if the good, moral Aryans will not cheat on their taxes but the wicked, devious Jews will, does that makes Jews "inferior" in Darwinian terms? Obviously not. So it makes no sense at all to say that Hitler's desire to destroy the Jews for their "moral inferiority" was in any sense "Darwinian" logic.
No, but it does make them their evil competition which must be destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Larry Arnhart, a professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University wrote "Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism."

In 2006, Robert J. Richards, historian of Darwin and eugenics at University of Chicago, wrote "It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis."[24] Richards more pointedly concluded "Hitler was not a Darwinian" and "calls this all a desperate tactic to undermine evolution."[25] Richards explained, "There's not the slightest shred of evidence that Hitler read Darwin," and "Some of the biggest influences on Hitler's anti-Semitism were opposed to evolution, such as British writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose racial theory became incorporated into Nazi doctrine."
I have read the book and nowhere does he condemn Darwin himself for the crimes of the Nazis. His point is that Hitler used some aspects of Darwinism to justify scientifically his ideas of eugenics and the extermination of the Jews. And your own article states that Chamberlain DID believe in scientific racism which was based on some of Darwins ideas.
Similarly, historian Marius Turda's review asks why Weikart's book did not focus on "some authors who actually are credited with influencing Hitler, such as Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels, the Viennese Aryan racist who formulated the doctrine of Ariosophy, or Guido von List, another Viennese occult racist, or Josef Reimer, author of A Pan-German Germany (1905) (whom Weikart discusses cursorily).
Yes but he also probably knew well Max Von Gruber an evolutionary eugenicist. Many of his ideas appear to have come from Von Grubers research and ideas. And I could name many more.
In 2006, Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of German history at the University of Louisville, reviewed Weikart's book for The Journal of Modern History.[28] She explained that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian."[28] Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since they predate evolutionary theory. Allen concluded:

Found here.
I dont remember Weikert claiming that Hitlers anti-semitism originated from Darwin, it was just justified by some of his ideas, such as competition between organisms.
 
I have read the book and nowhere does he condemn Darwin himself for the crimes of the Nazis. His point is that Hitler used some aspects of Darwinism to justify scientifically his ideas of eugenics and the extermination of the Jews. And your own article states that Chamberlain DID believe in scientific racism which was based on some of Darwins ideas.
I repeat, "Weikart doesn't actually show any direct connection between Darwin and Hitler. In fact, Weikart has responded to my criticisms by admitting that the title of his book is misleading, since he cannot show any direct link between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's Nazism."

Chamberlain did not believe Darwinism was true.
Yes but he also probably knew well Max Von Gruber an evolutionary eugenicist. Many of his ideas appear to have come from Von Grubers research and ideas. And I could name many more.
What you need to do to make your case is to establish a direct connection between Hitler's Nazism and Darwinism which you haven't done, and in the face of many other factors which bring about prejudice. As I've said before, Hitler wasn't an otherwise good man driven to do the things he did because he might have read Darwin, which he didn't do anyway.
I dont remember Weikert claiming that Hitlers anti-semitism originated from Darwin, it was just justified by some of his ideas, such as competition between organisms.
It's you that's drawing this connection, not Hitler.
 
Of course not! That goes against all Christian morality. All humans are created in the image of God and therefore are of infinite value.
Right, so you can't blame evolution for what Hitler did, because as you admit here, he was wrong to do it.
I am not blaming evolution directly for what Hitler did. He hated Christians as well and Christian morality such as the infinite value of all humans of all ages and races. But he DID USE evolution to JUSTIFY what he did. You seem not be able to understand some of my posts.
Totally unlike what atheistic evolution tells us,
Evolution is also believed true by Christians and other theists.
I am referring to ATHEISTIC evolution, which is what Darwin taught.
that we are just animals in a meaningless and uncaring universe,
Evolution doesn't tell us this, evolution only informs us about the diversity of life. What tells us that we are "just animals" is only something only Christians say evolution tells us. Hitler probably read what some Christians were saying about "What evolution tells us", which is why he did the things he did. Right?
So you believe that when we evolved from apes something changed us into something else besides animals? If we are not animals then what are we?
Atheists think we are more than just animals, atheists think we are the most amazing thing in the universe, we are the universe made aware of itself. We can write novels, discover the secrets of the universe, we can write symphonies, produce great works of art, etc etc, so no, atheists don't think we are just animals.

Atheists also think that because we are capable of reflecting on our actions, we are moral agents.
The universe is not aware of anything, it is an inanimate object. And again if we are not animals then what are we?
which is why Hitler saw nothing wrong with what he did. There is no objective morality and therefore no such thing as right and wrong.
How do you know Hitler saw nothing wrong with what he did? He could very well have seen something wrong with his actions but didn't care and carried them out anyway.
Possibly, but we do know that he did not publically believe in an objective morality from what he says in Mein Kampf.
That there is no objective morality without God therefore no real morality is more a Christian idea than anything else, so Hitler could well have gotten his ideas from Christians.
No, it can be demonstrated logically that if there is no God then all morality is subjective.
Btw, there are three ways of looking at morality. Objective, subjective and arbitrary. You are talking as if no objective morality means arbitrary morality, but it doesn't. Subjective morality is not no morality, nor is it arbitrary.
Subjective morality does mean no morality because that means it just exists in human minds like unicorns.
 
I am not blaming evolution directly for what Hitler did. He hated Christians as well and Christian morality such as the infinite value of all humans of all ages and races. But he DID USE evolution to JUSTIFY what he did. You seem not be able to understand some of my posts.
Your posts aren't always clear. For example, do you mean Hitler literally hated Christian morality because he had read all about it and decided he hated it, or do you mean, he must have hated Christian morality because his actions correlated with hating Christian morality?
I am referring to ATHEISTIC evolution, which is what Darwin taught.
Evolution is evolution. Darwin could only write about the facts he discovered and he didn't find God in anything he studied. By all means show where God is found in any study of evolution.
So you believe that when we evolved from apes something changed us into something else besides animals? If we are not animals then what are we?
We are animals.
The universe is not aware of anything, it is an inanimate object. And again if we are not animals then what are we?
But bits of it are aware of itself. The universe is made of atoms, we are made of atoms, we are are aware of the universe and atoms.
Possibly, but we do know that he did not publically believe in an objective morality from what he says in Mein Kampf.
Again, did he directly believe in subjective morality, or are you drawing that conclusion from a correlation that you see?
No, it can be demonstrated logically that if there is no God then all morality is subjective.
Really? Philosophers of morality and ethics are still arguing this one.
Subjective morality does mean no morality because that means it just exists in human minds like unicorns.
The idea of objective morality exists in your head.
 
Most likely believes it.
Is this a guess? "Most likely" sounds like you don't know the answer to my question.
Yes it is a guess. When you read a biography you dont usually know all the beliefs of an author on a totally different subject. How would I know whether a biographer of Hitler believes in creation or evolution? Given that he is British most Brits believe in evolution.
Yes, but others might especially when evolution is applied to morality which is what Hitler did.
Evidence that he knowingly did this please.
In Mein Kampf he said "A stronger race will supplant the weaker since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the humaneness of individuals, in order to make place for the humaneness of nature, which destroys the weak to make place for the strong."
He believed that morality was subjective and relative since there is no moral creator.
Is this a guess/interpretation on your part that he actually thought this? If not, evidence please.
See above.
Good is just what advances the most superior beings, which is what Hitler believed about Aryans. Anything that advanced the genes of the Aryans is good. This justified his extermination of the morally weak jews.
Is this coming from Hitler, or is it a guess/interpretation on your part? If it's what Hitler actually thought, evidence please.
See above.
No, according to his childhood friend he was already on the path to evil from a young age
So he would have done the things he did regardless of evolution.
Probably but it certainly endorsed his understanding of it as shown above.
But he thought his racist beliefs were confirmed by the theory and also he could use it as propaganda to justify his policies to the educated.
Is this a guess/interpretation on your part? If not, evidence please.
Read Mein Kampf.
I never claimed that.
So you think evolution real? If so then what is the point of you trying to discredit Darwin and evolution?
Microevolution is real, most of the evidence points towards macroevolution as being unlikely. I am just showing how ideas have consequences irrespective if the ideas are correct or not.
 
Yes it is a guess. When you read a biography you dont usually know all the beliefs of an author on a totally different subject. How would I know whether a biographer of Hitler believes in creation or evolution? Given that he is British most Brits believe in evolution.
If you want to get at the truth of things, you can't make assumptions like this.
In Mein Kampf he said "A stronger race will supplant the weaker since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the humaneness of individuals, in order to make place for the humaneness of nature, which destroys the weak to make place for the strong."
Sounds very much like ideas about racial superiority rather than an understanding of evolution.
See above.

See above.
I think you're reading far too much into all this in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Probably but it certainly endorsed his understanding of it as shown above.
I have yet to see any evidence that Hitler had any understanding of evolution. You draw definite conclusions from very loose correlations.
Read Mein Kampf.
Why? It won't tell me that Hitler had actually read anything on evolution.
Microevolution is real, most of the evidence points towards macroevolution as being unlikely. I am just showing how ideas have consequences irrespective if the ideas are correct or not.
All of the evidence point to macro evolution being correct. What is your understanding of macro evolution?
 
Morality is to do with fairness, right and wrong as well as empathy. The ideas of fairness, right and wrong, and what actions are fair, right or wrong are abstract concepts that can occur to minds capable of abstract thought no matter their origin. Whether our minds come from an intelligent design or from evolution has no bearing on their ability to consider fairness, right and wrong. What makes us moral agents is the ability to reflect on the consequences of our actions. Our origins have no bearing on this.
Our thoughts are our thoughts, nothing tells us whether we ought to have certain thoughts or certain actions. Hitler's thoughts came from evolutionary processes and so did yours. Why are your thoughts superior to Hitlers regarding Jews? Hitler's actions made his nation one of the most powerful in the world. That was the consequences of his actions. Why is that bad?
I rather think that Hitler did not believe these things about evolution, if he thought about them at all. Seems to me you're trying to fit the world to your view of it rather than letting the world inform your view of it.
Fraid so. I can quote a speech he made in 1923 if you want me to. He basically believed might makes right. Which is a possible conclusion if evolution is true.
 
Our thoughts are our thoughts, nothing tells us whether we ought to have certain thoughts or certain actions. Hitler's thoughts came from evolutionary processes and so did yours. Why are your thoughts superior to Hitlers regarding Jews?
This doesn't really address the points they reply to, and is somewhat simplistic in leaving the matter at our thoughts coming from evolutionary processes. What you leave out is that having the ability of abstract thought allows us to reflect on the consequences of our actions which is what makes us moral agents.

I am morally better than Hitler because I wouldn't harm people in the way Hitler did. It's as simple as that. To head you off at the pass, I wouldn't harm people because having the ability of abstract thought, I can appreciate what harm is and can see it's wrong to inflict it on others.
Hitler's actions made his nation one of the most powerful in the world. That was the consequences of his actions. Why is that bad?
That was the consequence of his building up his armed forces. In itself that isn't bad, it's what he did with them that was bad because he caused immense harm and suffering.
Fraid so. I can quote a speech he made in 1923 if you want me to. He basically believed might makes right. Which is a possible conclusion if evolution is true.
Even accepting he made such a speech doesn't mean he read about evolution. So far all I see is you drawing a loose correlation based on a misunderstanding of evolution and concluding that Hitler read Darwin.

What we see in nature is a struggle for survival, nature red in tooth and claw. From your point of view that is how God has set things up. It's just as easy to say Hitler looked at nature and decided God was telling him that might makes right, because that was what he saw in God's creation.
 
Last edited:
I can quote a speech he made in 1923 if you want me to. He basically believed might makes right. Which is a possible conclusion if evolution is true.
P1 If evolution is true, it is possible that might makes right.
P2 Hitler believed that might makes right.
C Hitler obtained this belief through the influence of the theory of evolution.

This of course is not a valid argument. And the conclusion is particularly dubious, given that people were arguing that might makes right more than two thousand years before Darwin was born. (You can Google "Thrasymachus," for example.)
 
Back
Top