Jerry Bergman #fundie

Jerry Bergman #fundie answersingenesis.org

Firmly convinced that Darwinian evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern saviour of mankind. Society, he felt, would some day regard him as a great ‘scientific socialist’, the benefactor of all humankind. By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolutionary development. If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our saviour and we have crucified him. As a result, the human race will grievously suffer. If Darwinism is not true, what Hitler attempted to do must be ranked with the most heinous crimes of history and Darwin as the father of one of the most destructive philosophies of history.

90 comments

old comment by Atheissimo

'Firmly convinced that Darwinian evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern saviour of mankind'

My, he must have been mad when he found out the Nazis publicly burned 'On the origin of the species' at their rallies, huh?

'Society, he felt, would some day regard him as a great scientific socialist’

The poster-boy of fascism, the one man everyone first thinks of when you say 'far right wing tyrant', the man who rounded up and murdered hundreds of thousands of communists, was actually a socialist. Who knew?

'If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our saviour and we have crucified him'

NATURAL selection is what Darwin wrote about, NATURAL. What Hitler practised was not natural, it was ARTIFICIAL selection. If I read the Bible and decide that all Egyptians should die because of what they did to Moses, is that the Bible's fault?

'Darwin as the father of one of the most destructive philosophies of history'

Species with genes unsuited to their environment will inevitably die out vs. Everyone who believes something different to me needs to be killed so that God can torture them for eternity

Hmmm....

old comment by Mister Spak

"Firmly convinced that Darwinian evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern saviour of mankind."

evolution were on the list of books banned by Hitler.

Hitler's Table Talk, July 25, l942:

'From where do we get the right to believe, that from the
very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at
Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals
changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a
kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump,
as Man must supposedly have made, if he has
developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.'

"By breeding a superior race, the world would look upon him as the man who pulled humanity up to a higher level of evolutionary development."

By helping to lift the human being above the level of mere animal existence, Faith really contributes to consolidate and safeguard its own existence.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 2 Chapter 1

Looks like the jackboot is on the other foot, eh Jerry?

old comment by D Laurier

Except that Hitler was utterly convinced that ANY sort of evolution was IMPOSSIBLE. Hitler was an old earth creationist who ascribed to the Pangenesis model (multiple creation events in multiple regions)
Hitler's fantasys of bloodlines and racial purity were taken from the bible, not science... and were the antithesis of evolutionary biology.
Hitler saw himself as a holy warrior, defending Gott's chosen race against godless communism and slavic usurpers.

Hitler himself described Darwin as "the great race traitor who's lies will pollute our bloodlines". He had all Darwin's books BURNED.

As for darwinism... A totaly unrelated notion that a god named God had determined in advance that rich men should be rich, and poor men should shut up and obey.

old comment by Brendan Rizzo

Nope, sorry, negative. Hitler had copies of On the Origin of Species burned. Now, why would he have done that if, as you claim, Darwin was a major inspiration for him? Also, anyone who knows anything about evolutionary biology (even as it was understood, poorly, in the 1940s) knows that Hitler's genocide would not have been good from an evolutionary standpoint, had he succeeded in killing all non-Aryans. His "master race" would have had much less genetic diversity than the human race has now, and the human race is, genetically, 99.9% identical. That isn't a whole lot of genetic diversity. According to evolution, genetic diversity is a good thing because it is insurance against a single plague wiping out the entire species. Genocide, of course, has the opposite goal in mind. If Hitler had understood and accepted Darwin's theory, he would have known that, so the Holocaust had nothing to do with evolution even if Hitler had accepted the theory. He also accepted that Berlin is in Germany. Does that mean that everyone who does well in the subject of geography has the potential to be the next Hitler? Think before you spew such nonsense!

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Firmly convinced that Darwinian evolution was true, Hitler saw himself as the modern saviour of mankind."

And firmly convinced that you lot don't want to be associated with Hitler, you concocted this little urban myth about him being a 'Darwinist'. When I'm afraid the facts give the lie to this. How?

Now what was amongst the books banned, nay, burned in Hitler's Third Reich, pray tell? The title of such escapes me for the moment; let me think...

...oh yes, that's right: "On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

Now the lie has been exposed, Fact:

Hitler hated the Left-wing. You hate the Left-wing.
Hitler hated homosexuals. You hate homosexuals.
Hitler hated abortion. You hate abortion.
Hitler hated democracy. You hate democracy.
Hitler hated black people (Jesse Owens, 1936 Berlin Olympics). You hate President Obama.
Hitler hated anything 'liberal'. You hate Liberals.
Hitler hated Atheists. You hate Atheists.

Hitler was a Christian:

image

You are a Christian.

Hitler was a right-winger. [/Reverse Godwin]

I love the smell of annihilated arguments in the morning. Smells like... victory.

old comment by J. James

Yes, because targeting Jews and Jehova's Witnesses makes TOTAL sense in a genetic context and has, like, NOTHING to do with religious animosity.

Fuck you. "Betterment of the Species" was just an excuse for sectarian, racist violence. It's like how Soviet Russia claimed to be "Communist" and "Progressive" but was really the exact opposite, an authoritarian hellhole.

Eugenics in and of itself is not a bad idea, so long as it's available to everyone fairly, such as genetic therapy to eliminate the Appendix or the extension of human lifespans. It's when a group use Eugenics as an excuse to kill people they disagree with that you run into problems.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@TheJebusFire

"Hitler banned evolution."

Yet, we in the democratic UK - which has a state religion, the Church of England; the clergy of which embraced Darwin's new theories with open arms ("On the Origin of Species" even sold more than The Bible when first published!) - is buried (one of only five non-royalty people interned) & memorialised in Westminster Abbey, the central place of worship of the Church of England; the basis of modern Protestant Christianity, no less.

Hell, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II - head of the Church of England; 'Defender of the Faith', and all that jazz - even approved of Darwin's image on the back of our £10 note:

image

PROTIP: The Church of England openly admit that The Bible is mostly fable and metaphor. As in it's not literal, certainly not to be taken as such.

Your argument is now in the Fold-Drive section of the experimental spaceship 'Event Horizon'. The auto-countdown to the opening of the dimensional gateway to the 'Chaos Dimension' (where such will be hideously raped & mutilated for eternity) is nearly at zero. Liberate tutame ex inferis, Jerry-boy. >:D

old comment by tmarcl

Even if you were right, that Hitler believed in Darwinism (which he didn't), your conclusion is still invalid.

Evolution is simply a biological process, nothing more, nothing less. It "teaches" nothing in regards to morality, or oughts, or what have you. Pretending for a moment that what Hitler wanted was to engage in natural selection (and others have shown you why that is wrong), thus, creating a "better" species, it still wouldn't follow that Darwinism is false.

If a terrorist uses his knowledge of chemistry to make a bomb, does that make chemistry false? Does it mean that chemists are the fathers of "destructive philosophies"? Or does it merely mean that someone used a scientific principle to commit an immoral act?

old comment by Zagen30

If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our saviour and we have crucified him. As a result, the human race will grievously suffer.

Let's set aside that Hitler was not operating on Darwinian principles. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is amoral (not immoral, though I'm not sure how many fundies would get the difference between those two words), and does not espouse any sort of rational behavior. Even if Hitler were taking Darwinian principles to their logical extremes, that doesn't make him right, let alone our savior. Many of the more rationally-inclined people look at religion and think "even if this weren't myth, why should we be worshiping this/these deity/deities considering all the terrible things they've done?" Same deal here-even if Darwinism were the basis of Hitler's ideas, that doesn't make him right. Why would we suffer because we killed someone (technically he killed himself, but I'm sure he would have been executed) who used an idea to commit one of the most heinous acts in history? Countless people have used religion as a basis to commit atrocities that have benefited themselves, and there's yet to be a single recorded instance of divine retribution. Unless Jerry's saying that Hitler was Jesus and will come back to smite us, and in that case he sure has taken his sweet time to take his revenge.

If Darwinism is not true, what Hitler attempted to do must be ranked with the most heinous crimes of history and Darwin as the father of one of the most destructive philosophies of history.

Darwinism is true (to the best of our knowledge, certainly much better-supported than intelligent design or other theories), and Hitler's actions are still heinous; they're not mutually exclusive statements.
Darwin had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. Under this logic, we should blame the Chinese for inventing firearms, which have killed far more than the Holocaust did.

old comment by farpadokly

Almost everything in this is wrong. Let's parse it.
"Firmly convinced that Darwinian evolution was true". Actually no, he expressed doubts about whether it was true.
I don't know, but it's highly unlikely that Hitler would want to be thought of as a "scientific socialist". Nazism was much more based on irrational nationalist notions of "the Volk" and the mystical purity of blood.
"The benefactor of all humankind"? No. The benefactor of "the Aryan race", yes. Everyone else in Europe would be subject to this "herrenvolk" (master race) and, in the case of the Slavs, basically used as a slave class.
"If Darwinism is true, Hitler was our saviour and we have crucified him". No. That does not follow, because "Darwinism" (the theories of Charles Darwin) is not identical with the racist policies of Nazi Germany, even if Hitler himself may have misused or misunderstood Darwin's ideas to support his own prejudices.
"What Hitler attempted to do must be ranked with the most heinous crimes of history". This is the only part that is correct.
"Darwin as the father of one of the most destructive philosophies of history". No. For the simple fact is that Darwin was not a Nazi, or a German, or a racist, and cannot be held responsible for people who half-understood his ideas.
Also, if "Darwinism" (ie the Theory of Evolution) is not true, then that doesn't mean that creationism is automatically true.
Associating Hitler with Darwin just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, for the simple reason that Hitler was not an orthodox Darwinist (at best he was a misuser and misunderstander of some of those ideas) and Darwin was not a eugencicist or a Nazi, or even a "Social Darwinist". The misleadingly named "Social Darwinism" can be blamed here, but that was more a product of people like Herbert Spencer, and based on a deliberate or ignorant misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.