Monday's column exploring whether Darwin's theory motivated Hitler got a huge response from readers with strong opinions on the matter. I'll post some of their letters soon.
In the meantime, one of the experts I wanted to interview for that column was Keith Thomson, who is a senior research fellow of the American Philosophical Society and a preofessor emeritus at Oxford. I’d reached out to him earlier when writing on questions regarding racism and Darwinism.
We were planning to talk Friday, but he had a computer meltdown and so didn’t reply until the weekend, when the column was already finished. Still, his view is interesting in that he sees both sides as too simplistic. Darwin’s theory, after all, had a reverberating influence on human thought and history throughout the early 20th century. Various people picked up his idea and ran with it, sometimes in nefarious ways:
Ask half the country and they will tell you that Tennyson's "Nature red in tooth and claw" was inspired by Darwin, when it was actually written a decade before (1844).
Intense competition between races and individuals was popularized by the botanist de Candolle from 1820 on. Nietsche, Haeckel, Galton, Charles Davenport at Cold Spring Harbor labs NY were the kinds of people who took Darwin's ideas and transformed them for the twentieth century.
Darwin's Origin was concerned with races of animals and plants. In Descent of Man he carefully did not assume the superiority of any human race over another and went out of his way to say that, for instance, the Fuegians were inferior only because of cultural experiences.
He stated that some human races would lose out, but not because they were inherently inferior, just that civilization would leave them behind.
At no point did he suggest that evolution should be given an assist through eugenics.
I actually don't know what he thought about Galton's work, but Galton's main book came out in 1883, only five years before CD's death.
Having said all this, the fact remains that Darwin, along with his grandfather, and Lamarck, and Chambers, and even Tennyson, and many many others in progressive, competitive Victorian Europe, set a ball rolling and that at various points others picked it up and ran with it. The German sequence goes through Haeckel and Nitsche. That is indisputable. The question then becomes: is there anything in Darwin's writings that suggest or even hint that he approved/would have approved the directions that social Darwinism and National Socialism took? I think the answer is firmly "no."
Not sure if this helps. A knee-jerk defense of Darwin is not a good tactic here but no-one seems to want to understand a complex story.
While some of Thomson's comments make sense, I would challenge his claim: "In Descent of Man he carefully did not assume the superiority of any human race over another . . ."
Many Darwin scholars recognize that Darwin was a racist (including Robert Richards). Not only did Darwin use the terms highest and lowest to refer to races, but here are some quotations from _Descent_ that clearly demonstrate that he believed in the mental and moral superiority of Europeans to other races (these are from the 1871 edition, vol. 1):
p. 35 - "Nor is the difference slight in moral disposition between a barbarian, such as the man described by the old navigator Byron, who dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a basket of sea-urchins, and a Howard or Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage who does not use any abstract terms, and a Newton or Shakspeare. Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations. Therefore it is possible that they might pass and be developed into each other."
pp. 109-110 - "The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said."
pp. 145-46 - "The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage and civilised races, of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series. Dr. J. Barnard Davis has proved by many careful measurements, that the mean internal capacity of the skull in Europeans is 92•3 cubic inches; in Americans 87•5; in Asiatics 87•1; and in Australians only 81•9 inches."
Richard Weikart
- John Hawks' weblog
- Pharyngula
- The Primate Diaries in Exile
- Evolution for Everyone David Sloan Wilson
- Why Evolution is True
- Abstract | Philly
- Not Exactly Rocket Science Discover Magazine
- Bad Astronomy Discover Magazine
- Academy of Natural Sciences
- National Center for Science Education
- Understanding Evolution University of California Berkeley
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011














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
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.

The claim advanced by the creoclowns is not that Darwin's ideas formed a part of a complex intellectual tradition of the Victorian age, a variety of threads of which contributed to Nazism in complex and convoluted ways. Not at all. Their claim is that "Darwinism," as they like to call it, led predictably, logically, and inexorably to Nazism, which is of course utter nonsense. That claim is bizarre and irrational--and to say so is not mere knee-jerking.