The Instigator
iamnotwhoiam
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
medic0506
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Hitler was influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
iamnotwhoiam
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,616 times Debate No: 27973
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

iamnotwhoiam

Con

Thank you to medic0506 for taking up this debate.

BOP is shared.

Darwin's theory of evolution - as detailed in The Origin of Species.

Round 1 is for acceptance.

Round 4 is for rebuttals only.
medic0506

Pro

Thanks to Con for the challenge. I accept and look forward to an interesting discussion.
Debate Round No. 1
iamnotwhoiam

Con

In this debate I intend to show Hitler's views using only Mein Kampf and, if applicable, Hitler's speeches. This is because there are authenticity issues with Tischgespräche, the Table Talks. The French translator, which the English translation is based on, inserted text that is not in the German, and also made omissions.[1] Since it is impractical to refer to the German text, I will leave out the Table Talks unless my opponent refers to them, even though several sections (in both English and the original German) support my side.


1. Hitler was a creationist

Hitler believed that kinds were fixed:

"The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens."

He saw nature as upholding his view of non-mixing between kinds (and races):

"Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc."[1]

He believed that man was created by a Creator:

"On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the earth.
To undermine the existence of human culture by exterminating its founders and custodians would be an execrable crime in the eyes of those who believe that the folk-idea lies at the basis of human existence. Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise."[2]

"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will."[3]

These views of Hitler's are incompatible with Darwin's theory.


2. Other views of Hitler are incompatible with Darwin's theory.

Hitler had a negative view of variety in a species:

"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following:

Lowering of the level of the higher race;
Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.

To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."[1]

Darwin's theory of evolution requires variety in a breeding population so that

"natural selection will then accumulate all profitable variations, however slight, until they become plainly developed and appreciable by us."[4]

Variety within species becomes variety of species:

"As each species tends by its geometrical ratio of reproduction to increase inordinately in number; and as the modified descendants of each species will be enabled to increase by so much the more as they become more diversified in habits and structure, so as to be enabled to seize on many and widely different places in the economy of nature, there will be a constant tendency in natural selection to preserve the most divergent offspring of any one species. Hence during a long-continued course of modification, the slight differences, characteristic of varieties of the same species, tend to be augmented into the greater differences characteristic of species of the same genus."[5]

Hitler wanted the opposite of variety:

"In principle, the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind."[6]

Hitler believed that humanity progressed, "like climbing an endless ladder"[1]

The theory of evolution holds that species only adapt relative to those around them.

"As natural selection acts by competition, it adapts the inhabitants of each country only in relation to the degree of perfection of their associates;"

Nature cares nothing for human standards:

"Nor ought we to marvel if all the contrivances in nature be not, as far as we can judge, absolutely perfect; and if some of them be abhorrent to our ideas of fitness."[7]


3. Hitler never refers to Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf.

Darwin's name is absent from Mein Kampf. Nowhere does Hitler even use the terms “Evolutionslehre” (Evolution), “Abstammungslehre” (Evolutionary theory), “Deszendenz-Theorie” (Theory of Descent), or any word that obviously refers to evolutionary theory.


4. Darwin's works were rejected by Nazi authorities.

In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, added to their banned list

"Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)."[8]


5. "Social Darwinism" does not reflect, nor is it a development of, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Social Darwinism is not the ideas of Charles Darwin as espoused in On the Origin of Species. Darwin's idea is that whatever is best adapted to the environment it finds itself in will survive. Social Darwinism is the idea of killing so that certain individuals do not survive. On the Origin of Species gives no mandate or encouragement to kill certain individuals. Indeed, before the killers willingly changed the environment by killing, those best adapted to the environment included those deemed unfit by Social Darwinism, because previously they had survived and reproduced. In Social Darwinism, who is "unfit" is arbitrarily decided by the killers. Social Darwinism no more reflects the theory of evolution than any other murderous practice.

Darwinism is purely descriptive. It cannot provide a clue as to who, if anyone, should be killed by other men. It is unfortunate that the name Social Darwinism was adopted, it should have been named after its true founder Herbert Spencer. Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level and indeed it is inappropriate to do so. Social Drwinism is neither a reflection nor a development of evolutionary theory. It is its own justification for murder that co-opted Darwin's name.




[1] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Chap XI
http://www.hitler.org...
[2] Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Chap II
http://www.hitler.org...
[3] Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Chap X
http://www.hitler.org...
[4] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (Variorum text, ebook). pp 279
http://tinyurl.com...
[5] On the Origin of Species. pp734
http://books.google.co.uk...
[6] Mein Kampf, Vol 2, Chap I
http://www.hitler.org...
[7] On the Origin of Species. pp737
http://books.google.co.uk...
[8] http://speccoll.library.arizona.edu...



medic0506

Pro

Thanks to Con for his opening.

1. Hitler was a creationist

It's important that we keep in mind what this debate is ultimately about. Whether Hitler was a creationist or not is irrelevant to the debate, for even a creationist can be influenced by other worldviews. This debate is simply to decide whether, or not, Hitler was influenced by Darwin's claims, thus employing these principles in Nazi policies. I think the evidence will show that this is indeed the case.

In Hitler's words, "There have been human beings, in the baboon category, for at least three hundred thousand years. There is less distance between the man-ape and the ordinary modern man than there is between the ordinary modern man and a man like Schopenhauer." [1]

How many creationists do you know who would put man and baboons in the same category, or say that life has been around for at least 300,000 years?? Those who do are called theistic evolutionists, and their existence proves that one can be a creationist, while still being influenced by Darwinism.

2. Other views of Hitler are incompatible with Darwin's theory.

No one claims that the entirety of Darwin's beliefs were used by Hitler, thus pointing to differences does not show that no link exists. Many of the quotes provided in my opening will show this link.

3. Hitler never refers to Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf.

Perhaps he doesn't call it that anywhere in the text, but to say that it isn't referred to or implied in any part of Mein Kampf is wishful thinking, and clearly fallacious. I haven't even read the entire work, but have already seen it referred to as Nature's will.

4. Darwin's works were rejected by Nazi authorities.

It's obvious that they adapted the principle of natural selection, into their policy of artificial selection. As such, it was necessary to remove literature that would tell the populace that their policies were artificial rather than natural. Depriving the public of that knowledge doesn't mean that the leaders rejected it.

5. "Social Darwinism" does not reflect, nor is it a development of, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

If there was no link between the two then it wouldn't be called Social "Darwinism". Granted, it may very well be a bastardization of the real theory by a megalomaniac, but to say that means there is no link is fallacious thinking.

If this logic were true then no Christian could be accused of being prejudiced or bigoted because the Bible tells us not to judge, and to love one another. Anyone buy that??

*****************************************************

Sterilization and Eugenics

Few would question the fact that Hitler sought a master Aryan race, who's gene pool would be free from the weaker elements that he viewed as less than human, "life unworthy of life" (Lebensunwertes Leben). In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

"He who is bodily and mentally not sound and deserving may not perpetuate this misfortune in the bodies of his children. The völkische [people's] state has to perform the most gigantic rearing-task here. One day, however, it will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era."

An estimated 360,000 people were sterilized by Hitler and his party, to keep the undesirables from infecting the gene pool. Hereditary Health Courts were established to decide the reproductive fate of people with hereditary illnesses. [2]

"We all feel that in the distant future many may be faced with problems which can be solved only by a superior race of human beings, a race destined to become master of all the other peoples and which will have at its disposal the means and resources of the whole world." [3]

Between 1939-1945, at least 200,000 people were killed under Hitler's "Action T4", as it would later be called.

Racial Views

Again, Hitler from Mein Kampf:

"Therefore on the völkisch principle we cannot admit that one race is equal to another. By recognizing that they are different, the völkisch concept separates mankind into races of superior and inferior quality."

"For in a world which would be composed of mongrels and negroids all ideals of human beauty and nobility and all hopes of an idealized future for our humanity would be lost forever. On this planet of ours human culture and civilization are indissolubly bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he should be exterminated or subjugated, then the dark shroud of a new barbarian era would enfold the earth."

"Hence the folk concept of the world is in profound accord with Nature's will; because it restores the free play of the forces which will lead the race through stages of sustained reciprocal education towards a higher type, until finally the best portion of mankind will possess the earth and will be free to work in every domain all over the world and even reach spheres that lie outside the earth."

Clearly Hitler believed that it was Nature's will that the Aryan race be protected, and allowed to come to power over all others. Ultimately, the only way to accomplish that would be to assure that inferior genetics were eliminated from the Aryan gene pool.

Hitler and Science

"Whatever survives these hardships of existence has been tested and tried a thousandfold, hardened and renders fit to continue the process of procreation; so that the same thorough selection will begin all over again. By thus dealing brutally with the individual and recalling him the very moment he shows that he is not fitted for the trials of life, Nature preserves the strength of the race and the species and raises it to the highest degree of efficiency."

"By leaving the process of procreation unchecked and by submitting the individual to the hardest preparatory tests in life, Nature selects the best from an abundance of single elements and stamps them as fit to live and carry on the conservation of the species." [4]

There is no doubt that Hitler was referring to "natural selection" in these quotes. This was the basis for his combined policies of sterilization, eugenics, and racial purity. It was his goal to help Darwin's theory of "survival of the fit" along by using "artificial selection", a policy by which the master race will be favored by eliminating inferior races and genetically unpure individuals from the gene pool.

I don't claim that Darwinism must lead to these extreme policies, or that all evolutionists agree with them, but in Hitler's case that link exists. How one can know what we know about him and yet deny a link to Darwinian thinking is beyond me. Hitler was not a geneticist, biologist, or paleantologist. Where else would his knowledge of natural selection, genetics, evolution from lower forms, the effects of inferior specimens on the gene pool, etc. have come from, if not Darwin??

I look forward to the next round, back to Con.

1. http://books.google.com...

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;

3. http://www.hitler.org...;

4. http://rationalwiki.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
iamnotwhoiam

Con

Pro's case

Hitler's racial views

My opponent has not given any reason why Hitler needed Darwin's theory in order to achieve his goals. Breeding predates Darwin's theory by thousands of years.

Hitler's scientific knowledge

My opponent keeps mentioning genes, but we don't know Hitler knew anything about genes. Anyway, Darwin certainly knew nothing of genes, so the association my opponent is trying to make is invalid.

Hitler's knowledge of inferior specimens in breeding would have come from common knowledge of animal breeding. Something humans had been doing long before Darwin's theory. Hitler may have had an awareness of natural selection, but my opponent has not given any evidence that his actions were influenced by it. A creationist often has an awareness of natural selection but we cannot say his actions are influenced by that knowledge
.
Con's case


1. Hitler was a creationist

My opponent's baboon quote is from the Table Talks. I mentioned right at the beginning of my previous round that the Table Talks are unreliable. The French translation, on which the English is based, omits some things from the German and adds new things.[1][2]


We have an inconsistency here anyway. For, from my opponent's own source, in the Table Talks Hitler is also quoted as saying,

"Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place."[3]


This is why I suggested we leave the Table Talks aside.

My point in showing Hitler was a creationist was to show that his views are incompatible with the theory of evolution. My opponent brings up theistic evolution, but someone who believes in theistic evolution is not a creationist. The reliable source, Mein Kampf, shows that Hitler was a creationist.


2. Other views of Hitler are incompatible with Darwin's theory

The resolution is that the theory of evolution influenced Hitler. What I showed in round 2 was that Hitler's views of racial breeding were contrary to the central tenets of Darwinism. Variety is crucial to the process of evolution, so how can Hitler have been influenced by the theory of evolution if his ideas were opposed to variety in the human species?

I showed that Darwin said evolution does not consider human standards of perfection. So how can Hitler have been influenced by the theory of evolution if what he was trying to do was to achieve some kind of human perfection?


3. Hitler never refers to Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf.

"I haven't even read the entire work, but have already seen it referred to as Nature's will."

What does "Nature's will" have to do with the theory of evolution? The phrase doesn't appear in On the Origin of Species. Nature's will is a concept that predates Darwin by thousands of years. It is the very conception of religion.


4. Darwin's works were rejected by Nazi authorities.

"It's obvious that they adapted the principle of natural selection, into their policy of artificial selection. As such, it was necessary to remove literature that would tell the populace that their policies were artificial rather than natural."

You do not need the principle of natural selection to remove groups of people from the population.

Ethnic cleansing was not invented after Darwin's time. For example, The Book of Jin records that General Ran Min ordered the extermination of the Wu Hu during the Wei–Jie war in the fourth century AD. People with the racial characteristics of a high-bridged nose and bushy beard were killed. 200,000 were massacred in all.[4][5]

My opponent's hypothesis about the banning of Darwin's book is that the leaders did not want the people to read it because they would see the killings of Jews and others in a negative light. Here he defeats his own case. If reading Darwin's book would lead people to conclude that the Holocaust was wrong, then obviously the book is not an influence on Nazi policies, but the opposite.


5. "Social Darwinism" does not reflect, nor is it a development of, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

"If there was no link between the two then it wouldn't be called Social "Darwinism""

Many of you live in the United States of Columbus, geographically known as North Columbus, part of the continent The Columbuses. The USC is named after Christopher Columbus who was the first to discover it in 1492, as you are taught in school. The President of Columbus is Barack Obama. Except, of course, for some reason the country was named after Amerigo Vespucci, who came after Columbus and only went to South America.[6]

The Matthew effect was named after the writer of the Gospel of Matthew. It describes the phenomenon where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.[7][8] No-one thinks the line

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken even that which he hath.[9]

actually has anything to do with sociology or economics.

These two pages, http://en.wikipedia.org... and http://en.wikipedia.org... are long lists of theorems and laws named after the wrong person. I'll pick out three.

Euler's number,e, is the base of the natural logarithm. It was discovered by Jacob Bernoulli.

Heine–Borel theorem was proved in 1872 by Émile Borel, and not by Eduard Heine at all.

Vigenère cipher was originally described by Giovan Battista Bellaso but misattributed to Blaise de Vigenère.

Some more examples of misattribution:

Haemophilus influenzae, a bacterium, was named because it was thought to be the cause of influenza, until the virus was discovered in the 1930s.[10]

Acanthophis antarcticus (the death adder) is not from Antarctica, but Australia.[11]

There are a whole load of misnamed animals here: http://www.curioustaxonomy.net...

French fries probably originated in Belgium.[12][13][14]

The people of Bologna do not eat spaghetti Bolognese.[15][16]

Pompey's Pillar, a 27m tall column in Alexandria, was neither erected by or dedicated to Pompey.[17]

The resolution is not "Hitler was influenced by Social Darwinism", that theory which inappropriately bears Darwin's name, but "Hitler was influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution". Do not mistake the two because of the name. That would simply be an error.

Social Darwinism is contrary to Darwin's idea of the "struggle for existence", which included co-operation. Darwin said that he meant the term in a

"large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another"[18]

On my opponent's Christian analogy, no-one disputes that texts can fail to influence their readers. The correct analogy between the Bible and Social Darwinism would be this:

A man who is influenced by the Satanic Bible[19] is not a Christian.

Just as Hitler, influenced by Social Darwinism, was not influenced by Darwin's theory of evolution, so a man influenced by the Satanic Bible is not influenced by the Bible.








[1] http://moourl.com...
[2] http://moourl.com...
[3] http://rationalwiki.org...
[4] Li, Bo; Zheng Yin (Chinese) (2001) 5000 years of Chinese history, Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp
[5] http://moourl.com...
[6] Amerigo Vespucci by Frederick A. Ober
http://moourl.com...
[7] http://moourl.com...
[8] Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers, Penguin Books. pp30
[9] Matthew 25:29, King James Version.
[10] http://moourl.com...
[11] http://moourl.com...
[12] http://moourl.com...
[13] http://moourl.com... [14] http://moourl.com...
[15] http://moourl.com...
[16] http://moourl.com...
[17] http://moourl.com...
[18] http://moourl.com...
[19] http://moourl.com...


































medic0506

Pro

Further writing from Hitler in Mein Kampf...

"In order to elucidate this point of view it may be worth while to glance once
again at the real origins and causes of the cultural evolution of mankind. The first step which visibly brought mankind away from the animal world was that which led to the first invention. The invention itself owes its origin to the ruses and stratagems which man employed to assist him in the struggle with other creatures for his existence and often to provide him with the only means he could adopt to achieve success in the struggle..."

"...Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must
admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have
had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested
it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again; and the practice of
it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscience
of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as 'instinct...'

"...His first skilled tactics in the struggle with the rest of the animals undoubtedly originated in his management of creatures which possessed special capabilities..."

"...Originally they sprang from the brain of a single individual and in the
course of many years, maybe even thousands of years, they were accepted all
round as a matter of course and this gained universal validity..."

"...Such men of brains are selected mainly, as I have already said, through the hard struggle for existence itself. In this struggle there are many who break down
and collapse and thereby show that they are not called by Destiny to fill the
highest positions; and only very few are left who can be classed among the
elect. In the realm of thought and of artistic creation, and even in the
economic field, this same process of selection takes place, although –
especially in the economic field – its operation is heavily handicapped. This
same principle of selection rules in the administration of the State and in that
department of power which personifies the organized military defence of the
nation. The idea of personality rules everywhere, the authority of the
individual over his subordinates and the responsibility of the individual
towards the persons who are placed over him. It is only in political life that
this very natural principle has been completely excluded. Though all human
civilization has resulted exclusively from the creative activity of the
individual, the principle that it is the mass which counts – through the decision of the majority – makes its appearance only in the administration of the national community especially in the higher grades; and from there downwards the poison gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a veritable decomposition. The destructive workings of Judaism in different parts of the national body can be ascribed fundamentally to the persistent Jewish efforts at undermining the importance of personality among the nations that are their hosts and, in place of personality, substituting the domination of the masses. The constructive principle of Aryan humanity is thus displaced by the destructive principle of the Jews, They become the 'ferment of decomposition' among nations and races and, in a broad sense, the wreckers of human civilization."

Though edited, these comments from Vol. 2, Chap. 4 [1], clearly show Hitler showing "cultural evolution" of man, through the use of Darwin's theory. He talks about how we started equal to animals, then separated ourselves through struggle, and ultimately the stronger taking hold and rising above the weaker. He even refers to the process as "selection". Then he talks about how the Jews are the destructive principle in the national body, and the Aryans the constructive.

Con's Rebuttal

Racial Views...Perhaps looking at the entire title of Darwin's book will help drive the point home..."The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."

What Hitler knew about genes is unclear, but it's clear that he saw the Aryans as that favored race that Darwin referred to, and was intent on aiding natural selection by eliminating undesireables from the gene pool.

Scientific Knowledge...Yes, they did know about breeding, and it's no coincidence that Darwin's first chapter was titled, "Variation Under Domestication", where he talks about what he knew about plants and animals under domestication.

Obviously, breeding had happened long before Darwin, but just because it was used prior, does not exclude it from being part of the Darwinian theory that Hitler was trying to aid along. Breeding is a vital part of evolution, and to try and remove it just because it pre-existed Darwin is unreasonable.

Darwin also titled chapter 7, "Instinct", and Hitler referred to this in an earlier passage that I posted, in fact there are several paragraphs about instinct in that chapter...

"Because everyone who believes in the higher evolution of living organisms must
admit that every manifestation of the vital urge and struggle to live must have
had a definite beginning in time and that one subject alone must have manifested
it for the first time. It was then repeated again and again; and the practice of
it spread over a widening area, until finally it passed into the subconscience
of every member of the species, where it manifested itself as 'instinct.'" [1]

Con's Case

1. Rather than argue over Table Talks, I'll withdraw the quote, but not the point. Many people believe that God created the universe and used evolution to get us to where we are now. It's obvious that he hated Christianity, but even if I concede that he was a creationist, it still doesn't mean that he wasn't influenced by Darwin's theory. Hitler's own words and actions bear that fact.

2. Hitler believed that he was helping natural selection by making it artificial, and removing the undesirables from the gene pool. Yes this eliminates the variety, but he believed that the end would be the same, that the Aryan race was strongest and was destined to win out.

3. As I showed in the opening of this round, he does indeed mention evolution as well as natural selection. He even says that at one point we were equal to animals. Nature's will was in Mein Kampf.

4. The Nazi regime was full of evolutionists. There is no doubt that they adapted natural selection into artificial selection, and this manifested in the sterilization and eugenics programs.

5. Just because some things were mis-named does not mean that Social Darwinism is an invalid term. I could point to a number of things that were named correctly, and this is one of them. Darwinism opens itself to being used in that manner, which is why the name caught on. Survival of the strong, eugenics, etc., can all be defended in light of Darwinism.

"Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution." [2]

1. http://www.hitler.org...;

2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
iamnotwhoiam

Con

Pro's case

My opponent brings up two uses of the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf.

The word evolution first appeared in English in the 17th century, referring to an orderly sequence of events.[1]

The concept of evolution in the mere sense of development predates Darwinian theory by over 200 years. What distinguishes Darwin's theory is not use of the word evolution. Although we call it Darwin's theory of evolution, Darwin only used the word once in On the Origin of Species, prefering "descent with modification." We may talk of the evolution of the solar system and this, despite creationist confusion, has nothing to do with Darwinism.

This difference in evolution as development and evolution as in Darwin's theory is made clearer in German by the fact that they use completely different words to refer to the two different concepts.

In the examples my opponent posts, the German word translated as evolution is "entwicklung."[2] This can perhaps better be translated simply as development.[3]


Words for evolution in the context of evolutionary theory[4]:


theory of evolution
Abstammungslehre {f}
Evolutionstheorie {f}
Deszendenztheorie {f}
Abstammungstheorie {f}

Darwin's theory of evolution
Darwin'sche Evolutionstheorie {f}
die darwinsche Evolutionstheorie {f}



Evolutionsforscher {m}
evolution scientist


Genomevolution {f}
genome evolution


Pflanzenevolution {f}
plant evolution



None of these words, "Evolution", "Abstammungslehre", "Evolutionstheorie", "Deszendenztheorie", "Abstammungstheorie" appear in Mein Kampf.


Another quote my opponent presents is

"The first step which visibly brought mankind away from the animal world was that which led to the first invention"

This idea is not in Darwin's book. It would not be the view of evolutionary theory that inventions separate man from other animals. Darwin's theory is a biological theory. Hitler is plainly talking about cultural "evolution" (development) not biological evolution by natural selection.

Another quote from Mein Kampf my opponent thinks is Darwinian is

"Originally they sprung from the brain of an individual"

What is it that sprung from the brain?

"fundamental military principles which have now become the basis of all strategy in war"

Clearly, Hitler is not talking about biological evolution.

Hitler is talking in cultural and militaristic terms, in terms of a battle(Kampf) for life.

Hitler takes the opposite view to Darwin. Darwin's theory requires that all plants and animals struggle for existence. Hitler thinks that an impulse for struggle arose at one time, that it spread amongst the higher organisms who have a subconscience, and that it spread via practice not reproduction. This has nothing to do with Darwinian principles. Hitler is not talking about sexual reproduction and the gaining of biological traits at all.He is referring to a cultural transmission of "the vital urge". Someone doing something until everybody picks it up. Hitler seems to have some conception of a vitality or will that inspires people. This is adapted from the ideas of the German philosopher Schopenhauer.[5]

With his longest quote, my opponent is clutching at straws. The idea that certain men are best suited to some means of employment did not originate with Darwin, is not spoken of by Darwin, and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. My opponent would have it that Darwin invented the concept of selection. This is patent nonsense.

What my opponent has failed to do is show where in On the Origin of Species these ideas he attributes to Darwin occur. He has not done so, because he cannot do so. His linking of them with Darwin is a misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is, and what was original about it.


"Obviously, breeding had happened long before Darwin, but just because it was used prior, does not exclude it from being part of the Darwinian theory"

Breeding is not part of the theory of evolution. Darwin uses domestic breeding to show that traits can be selected for, before explaining his theory, where nature selects traits.


Racial views

Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It is a Victorian difference in language. Darwin simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all. Examples of "race" in On the Origin of Species include,


"if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock."[6]


"Several most experienced ornithologists consider our British red grouse as only a strongly-marked race of a Norwegian species"[7]



and,

"it is quite incredible that a fantail, identical with the existing breed, could be raised from any other species of pigeon, or even from the other well-established races of the domestic pigeon"[8]



Con's case

1. Hitler was a creationist

My opponent claims it is obvious that Hitler hated Christianity. This is unevidenced assertion, belied by the following quotes

“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”


"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter"

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"

"Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country]… I pledge
that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy
Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian
spirit"[9]


2. Other views of Hitler are incompatible with Darwin's theory.

"Hitler believed that he was helping natural selection by making it artificial, and removing the undesirables from the gene pool."

Assertion not backed by any evidence.


"Yes this eliminates the variety, but he believed that the end would be the same, that the Aryan race was strongest and was destined to win out."

The end would be the same as what? Darwin says nothing about the Aryan race.


3. Hitler never refers to Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf.

"As I showed in the opening of this round, he does indeed mention evolution as well as natural selection."

He mentions development, and not evolution in the Darwinian sense, as I explained. He does not mention natural selection.

"Nature's will was in Mein Kampf."

But not in On the Origin of Species at all.


4. Darwin's works were rejected by Nazi authorities.

"The Nazi regime was full of evolutionists."

My opponent has resorted to blatant assertion with no evidence to back it up at all. He forgets that Darwin's books were banned.



5. "Social Darwinism" does not reflect, nor is it a development of, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

"eugenics, etc., can all be defended in light of Darwinism."

My opponent asserts this, yet he has failed to show where in On the Origin of Species Darwin defends eugenics, or lends it any support at all.

"Early proponents of eugenics believed that, through selective breeding, the human species should direct its own evolution."

The Satanic Bible mentions sin. However, a man influenced by the Satanic Bible is not influenced by the Bible.

My opponent's case rests on superficial similarities, misunderstandings, and insinuation. He makes a largely negative case: X is not explicitly excluded from being about the theory of evolution, therefore it might be.

I thank my opponent for the debate, and trust you will vote Con.



[1] http://moourl.com...
[2] Mein Kampf pp494
http://moourl.com...
[3] http://en.dicios.com...
[4] http://moourl.com...
[5] http://moourl.com...
[6] http://moourl.com...
[7] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[8] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[9] http://moourl.com...



medic0506

Pro

Pro's Case

Con apparently is arguing that Hitler should have clearly spelled out that he was referring to Darwin's theory, by saying it in some exact terms that Con prefers. This doesn't need to be the case, so Con's arguments on this issue are not persuasive. The analogy is clearly using the principles of Darwinian evolution to describe the cultural evolution of man. Con argues that details of the analogy are wrong by Darwin standards, but that's irrelevant, such as his argument about inventions. It's the analogy that is important, whether Darwin talked about inventions, or not, is irrelevant.

Con is arguing points within the analogy, and ignoring that Hitler was using an analogy of the theory of evolution to describe cultural evolution. I think he's simply misinterpreting or ignoring Hitler's meaning, thus missing the whole point.

" Darwin's theory requires that all plants and animals struggle for existence."

Correct, and that is part of the analogy that Hitler is using.

Con says that breeding is not part of evolution but that's silly. How can you possibly have biological evolution without breeding and reproduction??

Racial Views

We understand what Darwin meant by races, but in the mind of a psycho like Hitler, race meant and applied to the differences within human beings. Anyone who wasn't white was deemed to be the inferior races, or varieties, that were doomed for failure, and harmed the gene pool of the superior race.

Con's Case

1. I'm not saying that Hitler never made statements about being a Christian, but he also made many statements against Christianity, and his hatred of it is evident in his Table Talks...

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light, and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

Bottom line is that he was a liar and a politician, so it's difficult to verify his real religious beliefs. If he ever had religious beliefs, they were likely abandoned in favor of what was advantageous to the National Socialist State. Regardless though, as it relates to this debate, I've already shown that one can believe in God and also believe in evolution. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

2. Is con really questioning that Hitler was trying to cleanse the gene pool of what he viewed as undesirables??

Darwin didn't need to refer to the Aryan race, and this is what I mean by con expecting things to be said in a certain way, and ignoring all implications if they aren't. Obviously Hitler saw the Aryans as the superior blood line that needed to be protected.

3. Hitler wrote out an entire analogy between cultural evolution, in the same manner that biological evolution is claimed by Darwin, to have happened.

4. Con is just simply denying any connection without good cause.

5. Darwin does not mention those things, but he doesn't need to in order for a someone else to use his ideas to support those behaviors.


In summary, I believe that I have upheld the resolution, and have shown that Darwin's evolution theory was an influence on Hitler and the Nazi regime. They drew upon evolutionary principles, and genetics, in developing their national policies.

I thank Con for the debate, and ask a vote for Pro.











Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by morgan2252 1 year ago
morgan2252
iamnotwhoiammedic0506Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had good conduct and spelling and grammar. Con uses morre reliable sources, and has more convincing arguments because they are valid. Pro uses unreliable sources like wikipedia to suppot his claim.
Vote Placed by Firewolfman 1 year ago
Firewolfman
iamnotwhoiammedic0506Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was tied-as neither opponent stepped out of line, therefore both of them were equally fair in terms of conduct. Spelling and grammar was determined by copying and pasting the arguments into Word, as more mistakes appeared from medics arguments, then from iamnotwhoiam, therefore the point goes to con. Reliable sources to con, as I tended to see about twice as many sources from con then pro, and con provided many examples to back up his arguments with multiple sources, so the point goes to con. Convincing arguments to pro, as I never had shared his view before but after reading this, I share some of the views and understand the arguments of medic, therefore medic most of provided more 'convincing' arguments as I seem to be more convinced by medic then iamnotwhoiam, so the point goes to medic.
Vote Placed by DeFool 1 year ago
DeFool
iamnotwhoiammedic0506Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: A masterful performance by Con. Brilliantly researched, I found myself surprised by the solid, well-sourced trivia presented in his arguments. Sharp and concise, Con's case was written in clear, easy to follow language that integrated quotes, explained turns, and presented rebuttals with the precision of a rapier. I saw no scoring potentials for conduct or S&G. Sourcing was the subject of some contention in this debate - with "Table Talks" being used in the face of early suggestions of it's authenticity. Despite this, I could not see a clear winner for this point. Since the sources were largely set up and agreed to in R1, I was forced to honor this understanding - I could not award sourcing.