Is The Theory of Evolution A Source of Racism and Evil? A Very Brief Look at Some of The Impact The Theory Has Had

The Darwin sycophants who frequent talk.origins generally insist quite vehemently that Darwin's theory of evolution had nothing whatsoever to do with the first or second world wars, nor the Nazis and the Holocaust, nor the mass and institutionalised murder of disabled Germans, nor even the post-war sterilization projects carried out in many countries, including even perceived 'liberal,' countries such as Sweden. The general argument appears to be that people have always been bad, racist, nasty to Jews, and have always had it in for the disabled, and that consequently the theory of evolution has had nothing whatsoever to do with a long list of 20th century horrors.

Well, that's rubbish. If any of these Darwin sycophants took the time to read some history books about turn of the century Europe, and Germany in the first half of the 20th century in particular, they would discover that it is the orthodox historical position, that the theory of evolution played a part in inspiring people to racism, murder, and war.

We tend to forget this, because our elites do not think this way any more, but there was a time when people applied Darwin's theory of evolution to people, dubbed Social Darwinism. It was in ' the 1870s and 1880s that Social Darwinism spread throughout the western industrialised world, where it exerted a considerable influence, before reaching it apogee in the radical racialist theories of National Socialism ( the Nazis).' (1) An example of the voluminous literature devoted to popularizng Social Darwinism from the turn of the century period, is the great literary success of 1913 written by Geberal Bernhardi called Vom Heutigen Kriege, which ' expounded the thesis that war was a biological necessity and a convenient means of ridding the world of the unfit. These views were not confined to a lunatic fringe, but won wide acceptance especially among journalists, academics and politicians.'(2)These views went right to the top, and the German Chancellor at the outbreak of WW1 Bethmann-Hollweg, ' shared the wide spread belief in middle class circles that a conflict between Slav and Teuton was inevitable.'(3) The Kaiser ( German monarch at outbreak of WW1) is also reported to have had a conversation with the Swiss ambassador in 1912, and to have excitedly talked of the coming 'racial war,' for survival with the Slavs. The Kaiser is reported to have made other similar comments in other discussions in different times and places. This widespread and complacent attitude that war was inevitable, natural, and beneficial in weeding out the inferior races, is generally cited as one of the many causes of the first world war by careful authors. An American Colonel House was appalled by the attitude of resigned complacency and bellicosity he saw when he visited Europe in 1913, and which was to a very large extent the fault of Darwin's writings. Further evidence of how seriously Social Darwinism was taken at the turn of the century, is provided by the propaganda issued by the Pan-German league and other groups within Germany.

The distinguished German historian Wehler has also written (4) that Social Darwinism 'banished hopes for a more open society and put the fixed laws of an anti-egalitarian system of social aristocracy in its place. Its functional significance lay in the fact that it enabled ruling elites to appear compatible with progress, while providing a justification for the immutability of the status quo. At the same time it, it allowed the emancipatory aspirations of the workers or colonial peoples to be dismissed as the futile protestations of inferior subjects in the struggle for existence. Vested with an aura of 'irrefutable' scientific knowledge, it was this versatility of application that gave Social Darwinism its power in its very real connection with the ruling interests. As an ideology it proved virtually ideal for justifying imperialism, it was kept alive by a host of popularizers in the industrialised nations.'

Similar sentiments have been expressed by Hobsbawn in one of the most famous books ever written on the 19th century. (5) ' As the type of Negro ( wrote the Anthropological review ) is foetal, so that of the Mongol is infantile. And in strict accordance with this, we find that their government, literature and art are infantile also. They are beardless children whose life is a task and whose chief virtue consists in unquestioning obedience ( in other words they are only good for slavery.)

Or, as a Captain Osborn put it in a bluff navel way in 1860: ' Treat them as children. Make them do what we know is for their benefit as well as our own, and all difficulties in China are at an end.'

Other races were therefore ' inferior,' either because they represented an earlier stage of biological evolution or of socio-cultural evolution, or both. And their inferiority was proved because in fact the ' superior race,' was superior by the criteria of its own society: technologically more advanced, militarily more powerful, richer and more 'successful.' The argument was both flattering and convenient - so convenient that the middle classes were inclined to take it over from the aristocrats ( who had long fancied themselves as a superior race ) for internal as well as international purposes: the poor were only poor because they were biologically inferior and conversely, if citizens belonged to ' lower races,' it was no wonder they stayed poor and backward.... Racism pervades the thought of our period to an extent hard to appreciate today, and not always easy to understand. ( Why, for instance, the widespread horror of miscegenation and the almost universal belief among whites that ' half-breeds,' inherited precisely the worst features of their parent's races?) Apart from its convenience as a legitimation of the rule of white over colored, rich over poor, it is perhaps best explained as a mechanism by means of which a fundamentally iegalitarian ideology ( Liberalism) rationalised its inequalities.......' Social Darwinism,' and racist anthropology or biology belong not to the science of the 19th centruy but to its politics.'

Of course, modern day evolutionists rightly say Social Darwinism is unreasonable ( they have to because of the hideous consequences and suffering inflicted by its application ), and not a proper interpretation of the theory. However, evolutionists are always saying two things.

1) That evolution using the mechanism of natural selection is a fact and not a theory

2) Human beings are animals the product of evolution via natural selection and nothing else ( i.e. no divine hand )

So...how can the evolutionists express surprise, and claim it is wrong to apply Darwin's theory of evolution to humans? If assumptions 1 and 2 are correct, it must be valid to apply it to humans. Morally we are repulsed by the consequences of applying Social Darwinism, but scientifically given 1 and 2, it is sound. Furthermore, Darwin himself became ' the first Social Darwinist when he advanced the rise of the so called 'Aryan,' race in Europe, and particularly the United States, as proof of the validity of his theories as applied to human society. It could even be said he opened the way for the racialist interpretation of Social Darwinism.' (8) This strikes me as an understatement, Charles Darwin seemed quite upbeat and positive about the elimination of inferior races in mass acts of genocide and the beneficial effects this could have on the human race, 'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla. (9) So Darwin clearly knew full well the use to which his theory would be put, and he himself laid the ground for later generations of racists and murderers. If nothing else, the use to which Malthus's observation on population growth had been put, made clear the dangerous implications of unleashing pseudo-scientific theories upon the public, that sought to explain human society in ' rational,' and ' scientific,' terms. (10)

Of course as a thinking man Gould has correctly noted Social Darwinism led to an increase in racism and racist attacks, on Blacks, Slavs, Jews and others, 'Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory." (11) But of course, under the Nazis the evil effects of Social Darwinism rose to new institutionalised heights. Hitler was obsessed by race and the cultural superiority of Germans. He greatly feared the superior German gene stock being watered down by inferior ( as he saw it ) Jewish blood. Hence the Holocaust. He also had tens of thousands of disabled or mixed race Germans murdered and / or sterilised. The invasion of Russia which led to literally millions of deaths and untold suffering, was launched for similar reasons. Hitler saw the Russians ( Slavs ) as a competing and inferior race, that the superior Germans should eliminate and replace, using the captured territory as Lebensraum ( living space). Once can hardly express in words the barbarity and evil of these deeds, indeed it is pointless to try, but it is undeniable that the theory of evolution played a very significant part in them. Many people forget / are in a state of denial about, just how much the theory of evolution coloured Hitler's entire world view. Ian Kershaw puts it eloquently, 'the Social Darwinist view of history as a struggle between individual races with victory going to the strongest, fittest and most ruthless, seems to have occupied its place at the center of Hitler's world view by 1914-18 at the latest.' (12)A pretty damming indictment of the effect the theory of evolution has had upon human history if ever there was one, and if you click reference 12 you will find equally damning direct quotations from Hitler.

Darwin's work has always been an important part of Marxist / Communism ideology as well. Now don't misunderstand me, I socialism has certainly not been all bad, a movement that has done much to improve the working conditions of millions. But Marxism / Communism has brought massive suffering to millions, something I am sure no reference is needed to prove, and the theory of evolution with its God-less focus on survival has played its part in intellectually justifying Communisum. Again spoiled for quotes, I chose ' Marx immediately hailed Origin as ' the basis in natural science for our views.' (13)

Evolutionists often talk about the beauty and elegance of their theory, sure, I'd like to see them explain that to some of the millions of victims of Social Darwinism. One thing I know for sure, the theory of evolution is not at all nice or pleasant. It may be easy for white Anglo-Saxon professors to say so, but the victims of Social Darwinism be it through racism or otherwise, would, and this is an understatement, no doubt find it hard to agree. That's assuming they are still alive of course.

The basic problem with Social Darwinism is that it can be, and has been used to provide intellectual support to a multitude of cruel and vicious policies. Causes which have been justified by Social Darwinism include, slavery, imperialism, racism, genocide, the Holocaust, Fascism, Communism , war, and not helping the poor, to name but a few. Where previously there was no clear intellectual justification for most of these causes, Darwin provided one, and not only that, his justification had the backing of many reputable scientists of his day. Which is the crucial point.

I would like to leave you with this thought. I have demonstrated to you that evolutionists can not be trusted on questions concerning the historical influence of the theory of evolution. If evolutionists lie on this point, how on earth do you imagine we can trust them on more technical and abstract matters associated with their precious theory, such as Haldane's dilemma etc?(14)

Could it be that not only has Darwin inflicted terrible suffering upon millions, but even worse, he was wrong as well. A truly chilling thought.

This site hosted by Get your own Free Home Page