PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
options
 
Monday, October 24, 2011

When I spoke with historian Richard Weikart last week in reporting today’s column, the Discovery Institute fellow said something that I thought captured the aversion many creationist feel toward evolution. Here’s his full quote, which I condensed in the column :

“ If everything is a product of chance – purposeless – which is widespread in biology textbooks – it’s a random – purposeless process - if you have a non- teleological random process then I don’t think you have any ground to criticize Hitler. “

I asked Swarthmore College biologist Scott Gilbert to address this, since he holds degrees in both science and religion. He came up with a very insightful reply that also helps debunk the idea that Hitler’s genocide was based on Darwin's evolution:

"Saying that Hitler succeeded because either he was a Darwinian or that Darwinism had no answer for Hitler is blaming science for the failure of twentieth century Christianity. Science can, at its best, tell one what "is." It cannot tell one what "should be." Science cannot determine right or wrong. That's one of religion's roles. Evolutionary biology can tell you that global warming will lead certain species to extinction, will probably bring tropical diseases into temperate areas, and cause the polar ice caps to melt. It cannot say that this is "bad" or "good." That is something religion can do. World War II was not brought on by science. Indeed, the main cause of World War II was World War I and the peace treaty signed after it that caused Germany's economy to crumble. And the fighting of these two world wars was not considered "bad" by the state religions of their times. Quite the opposite. The motto of both the British and Russian armies was "God is on our side." The Germans said (in both wars), "Got Mit Uns." Indeed, "Got Mit Uns" was the motto emblazoned on the belt buckles of the Wehrmacht soldiers.  Religion fostered the fighting, not science. When Hitler was rising to power, biology and Darwinism were not major players. The German Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Roman Catholic Church were enormously powerful forces. They did what they needed to do to keep their power during the Third Reich, and they did not block Hitler. To say that Darwinism fostered Hitler is to take the blame off of economic politics and religion, which is where it belongs.

Moreover, each country interpreted Darwin differently. When one actually reads Charles Darwin, Alfred Wallace, and Herbert Spenser, one sees that they envisioned a mixture of competition and cooperation. Often, animals competed such that those that cooperated best survived. And what was competition? It wasn't economic or political warfare, it was competition for mates. Those who had the most offspring were the most fit. In this sense, the poor countries do better than the wealthy so long as they can feed the population. Evolution describes nature and the natural part of humans. According to the agnostic Thomas Huxley, humans evolved as the animal who would fight against natural selection. Indeed, for Darwin's greatest proponent, the goal of "purpose" was to transcend natural selection and to make a just society.

But to do this, does one need an old man giving laws from his celestial throne (or as Haeckel called Him, "the heavenly gaseous vertebrate"?) Huxley and the secularists after him claimed that humans must take on the adult task of forming laws and purposes. Nature has no purpose, but humans can make purposes. We have grown up and no longer need a father-figure to reward us when we're good and threaten us with Hell if we're bad. Humans have to make a just society ourselves, thought Huxley and others, and we've evolved wonderful capacities for so doing.

Evolutionary biology did not play any major role in the world wars. (One has to remember that biologically, the British and the Germans were not exactly racial camps. The House of Windsor is a German-derived family.) So please don't blame science for the the dereliction of religion. If secularism thrives, it is in large part because of the monumental failure of twentieth-century Christianity to prevent the horrors of that century." 

Posted by Faye Flam @ 6:54 PM  Permalink | 5 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:42 AM, 10/26/2011
    Which is more disturbing: evolution has determined the life forms that we have, including a Hitler, or some god created it all and decided there should be a Hitler?
    berniemcc
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 6:35 PM, 10/28/2011
    I'm curious to hear why Christianity alone gets called out for the horrors of the 20th C. and what "it" (because apparently it is one big group moving in lockstep) should've done. If the answer involves fighting political states and making them behave, that seems (to me) to require theocratic solutions, which I can't see being popular with the crowd here.

    I don't blame Hitler and Stalin and such on Darwinism, or on any single cause. They were crackpot opportunists who used whatever explanation (science, religion, etc.) they could stretch to justify their own warped beliefs and make them into reality. If anything, perhaps the most important factor behind their "success" was the improved technology of propaganda.
    nerdyseahorse
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:22 AM, 10/29/2011
    As far as one can find historical connections of ideas, the Nazi Holocaust has its origins with Christianity. The Nazi Office of Racial Policy held thousands of public meetings a month promoting anti-Semitism and attacking “muddle-headed humanitarianism” (Humanitätsduselei) or, what we call “liberalism” today. In 1938 the Nazi "Office of Racial Policy" publication, "Inromationsdienst," Martin Luther’s advice on the proper treatment of Jews was given prominent display:

    " ... to put their synagogues and schools to fire, and what will not burn, to cover with earth and rubble so that no-one will ever again see anything there but cinders ... Second, one should tear down and destroy their houses, for they do also in there what they do in their schools and synagogues ... And third, one should confiscate their prayer books and Talmud, in which idolatry and lies, slander and blasphemy is taught” From Proctor 1988: 88."

    The founder of Protestant Christianity was a greater inspiration to the Nazis than any scientist.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:04 AM, 10/30/2011
    Thanks for the historical note, which is perhaps one tiny piece of the puzzle of Scott Gilbert's assertion. It strikes me more as opportunistic propaganda rather than true belief in Lutheranism. If the Nazis took no other ideas from Luther, then I would definitely lean towards the propaganda interpretation.
    nerdyseahorse
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:04 PM, 12/31/2011
    John Maynard Keynes claimed that Germany would be unable to repay reparations for WWI, but the weight of scholarship since then contradicts that. All Keynes forecasts of economic hardship were disproved, and the consensus is that Germany was UNWILLING to pay. They agreed to pay slightly MORE than asked and only stopped paying when the French army left. Of course, Darwinism didn't cause the war; Hitler's appetite for power and misanthropy did.
    jxxphilly


5 comments
About Planet of the Apes
Faye Flam - writer
In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs here and in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at fflam@phillynews.com.

Tony Auth, illustrator
Tony Auth graduated from UCLA with a degree in biological illustration. He was chief medical illustrator at a large teaching hospital in southern California before joining the Inquirer as staff editorial cartoonist in 1971. Like all practicing political cartoonists, he’s gotten more than his share of both awards and hate mail. Over the years Tony has written and/or illustrated eleven children’s books.