From Darwin’s Descent of Man

[Deedee]

Please, list those Biblical references.  I'm not saying they didn't do that, I just want you to post them so that I can learn something new and so that you have something to support your claim.

You say that the Bible influenced many in the area of eugenics.  Please post references to back that up.

Deedee,  just out of courtesy to readers of your posts, it would be nice if you would please include references to support claims such as these, claims that are not common knowledge or that are debatable.  Otherwise, we could all just pull claims and statements out of our butts, then tell anyone who disagrees to go read a book or to go get an education.  That's not much of a good debate in my opinion.

Thank you!

I have no problem with that, other than when I do, very often people don't read them, just as you didn't read a link I posted for you yesterday, or at least, ignored it. I'm at work, so I don't like to waste time.

Those quotes you provided regarding your position, are simply opinions of people and don't prove anything one way or another. I can write with authority that you are a creationist, but that is still my opinion based on my perceptions.  I haven't provided proof that you are. In the same way, you have not posted anything that directly links Hitler and Darwanism.  That's why I say, people often label things mistakenly.

Just out of curiosity though in the meantime.  You're claiming that Christians were "influenced" by Darwin, twisting his theory and writings to accommodate sterilizing immigrants and degenerates, yet even reading his works at that time was blasphemous to the faithful.  Tell me, how can people be influenced by something they shun and disdain altogether?

[Deedee]

Deedee, why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much?

Stop it. Darwin inspired Hitler and nothing else! The Nazis' hatred of the Jews had nothing, nothing to do with centuries of Church (both Catholic and Protestant) incitement and pogroms against the Jews.

It was that damn evolution and Darwin. Once you accept that, next thing you know you'll be out throwing people into ovens because you came from monkeys.

 

[loco]

I have no problem with that, other than when I do, very often people don't read them, just as you didn't read a link I posted for you yesterday, or at least, ignored it. I'm at work, so I don't like to waste time.

I read it.  Why do you assume that I did not read it or that I ignored it?

Those quotes you provided regarding your position, are simply opinions of people and don't prove anything one way or another. I can write with authority that you are a creationist, but that is still my opinion based on my perceptions.  I haven't provided proof that you are. In the same way, you have not posted anything that directly links Hitler and Darwanism.  That's why I say, people often label things mistakenly.

And you know that these are simply opinions because?  Besides, opinions by historians and biologists do count, so please do post those to support your claim.  An expert's opinion is better than nothing.  Also, opinions or claims by those who were close to the person discussed also count.  They may not prove anything, but they at least give your claims and statements more credibility.

Just out of curiosity though in the meantime.  You're claiming that Christians were "influenced" by Darwin, twisting his theory and writings to accommodate sterilizing immigrants and degenerates, yet even reading his works at that time was blasphemous to the faithful.  Tell me, how can people be influenced by something they shun and disdain altogether?

Some Christians, even Christian Scientists such as R. A. Fisher accepted evolution and did not find it blasphemous.

[Deedee]

I read it.  Why do you assume that I did not read it or that I ignored it?

And you know that these are simply opinions because?  Besides, opinions by historians and biologists do count, so please do post those to support your claim.  An expert's opinion is better than nothing.  Also, opinions or claims by those who were close to the person discussed also count.  They may not prove anything, but they at least give your claims and statements more credibility.

Some Christians, even Christian Scientists such as R. A. Fisher accepted evolution and did not find it blasphemous.

I figured if you had read it, you wouldn't have repeated some of the same things over and over. 

You haven't provided us with any direct links vis a vis Darwin's theories and Hitler's plan 'o action. I'll give you some that show how Hitler followed Luther's blueprint almost to the letter for dealing with the Jews, (adding in just a smattering of his own modern day creative madness with his use of the gas chamber and importing some mystical embroidery to make it exciting).  Unfortunately, for some reason, people always feel they should dump stuff on my desk at the end of the day, so it'll have to wait while I toil like a slave all night.  But in the meantime you could try and google it yourself. It's all out there.

For starters though, here's a little something from a Christian proponent of Eugenics. I haven't even dug back to the turn of the century yet... but this is going on TODAY!  Now where do you think this guy got his impetus from... Darwin... or the bible?

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/03/christian-eugenics.html

What to do if your baby is gay!
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

P.S. You posted once again, an anecdotal story of one man, but forget about the hundreds of thousands who thought a different way. And I find it funny that you dismiss the actions of many Christians, while you doggedly stick to your story that Darwin is responsible for the scandal of eugenics, a notion that existed well into history before him.

[loco]

No you didn't.    You highlighted half a sentence. Had you highlighted the rest, you would have noted that Darwin believed that you couldn't morally neglect the weak and sick.  Nowhere does Darwin ever advocate violence against others.  Natural selection is all about the weak dying off on their own, not with a helping hand from the rest of the herd.

Oh Ozmo!!!!  Read this sentence this paragraph.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;

You don't like it that he's matter of fact in his tone and that puts you off. However, he's a scientist and his plain, factual language illustrates that. He clearly states that the original instinct of sympathy, which contributed to man's survival (banding together, helping to ward off predators etc) has become even more pronounced as we evolved. And that if we were to neglect saving the weak and sick, it might be practical in some small sense for human society but with "certain and great present evil" i.e. bad, dire moral consequences.  For morality's sake we have to take care of our imbeciles...but we can still hope they won't marry.

So, where is the cry to violence toward the weak and sick? What he writes here is the complete opposite of what Hitler advocates.

And actually, I'm in complete agreement.  I wish imbeciles wouldn't marry either. 

Deedee, you sound like a fundamentalist defending your holy text....not that there is anything wrong with that!   

[loco]

I figured if you had read it, you wouldn't have repeated some of the same things over and over. 

Why?  Your link goes to a page that can be edited by anybody in the world.  It has a list of claims with no citations, no references to its sources, nothing.  Do you  have anything better, like a quotes from historians, scientists or anybody who was close to Hitler?  They don't have to be links as long as you list your references.  Thank you!

You haven't provided us with any direct links vis a vis Darwin's theories and Hitler's plan 'o action. I'll give you some that show how Hitler followed Luther's blueprint almost to the letter for dealing with the Jews, (adding in just a smattering of his own modern day creative madness with his use of the gas chamber and importing some mystical embroidery to make it exciting).  Unfortunately, for some reason, people always feel they should dump stuff on my desk at the end of the day, so it'll have to wait while I toil like a slave all night.  But in the meantime you could try and google it yourself. It's all out there.

I haven't?  I've posted a long quote by none other than Darwin himself for people to read and draw their own conclusions.  I then followed that with quotes from people who say Darwinism inspired Hitler, and then also biologists to promote the eugenics movement which led to forced sterilizations in the US in the 1800s.  These people are more reliable sources then myself and they have convincing arguments to support their claims. 

What have you posted to support your, so far baseless claims that Christian thinkers and that the Bible were more influential on Hitler and on biologists who promoted eugenics in the US 1890s–1945?

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as the part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without the deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence, we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

"Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism, especially in its social Darwinist and eugenics permutations, neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the world's greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy. Darwinism - or at least some naturalistic interpretation of darwinism - succeeded in turning morality on its head." 
Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany
 
"Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish … . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger." 
Peter Hoffman, Hitler's Personal Security (Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1979), p. 264.

"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution."
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman, 1947), p. 28.

"I assumed that Darwin's theory of evolution and "Social Darwinism" were substantially distinct, and that "Social Darwinism" was a twisting of Darwin's theory in a way that Darwin would not have approved. Then I read Charles Darwin's Descent of Man and realized that my simplistic dichotomy between Darwin and "Social Darwinism" could not be maintained."
Dr. John G. West, Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science

For starters though, here's a little something from a Christian proponent of Eugenics. I haven't even dug back to the turn of the century yet... but this is going on TODAY!  Now where do you think this guy got his impetus from... Darwin... or the bible?

http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2007/03/christian-eugenics.html

What to do if your baby is gay!
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

No, you said that essentially the bible itself influenced many to support the eugenics movement which let to forced sterilizations in the US during the early part of the 20th century.  I asked you to please cite references to support that, but you have not yet done that.  I asked you to please provide the Bible verses that you claim Christians used to support the above, but you have not yet done that either.

P.S. You posted once again, an anecdotal story of one man, but forget about the hundreds of thousands who thought a different way. And I find it funny that you dismiss the actions of many Christians, while you doggedly stick to your story that Darwin is responsible for the scandal of eugenics, a notion that existed well into history before him.

Excuse me? I have once again done what?  Please show me where I have posted an anecdotal story of one man?  You asked me a question and I gave you a more than valid answer:

A. Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher was not just "one man" or "just any man" for that matter.  He was a statistician, evolutionary biologist, and geneticist.  Anders Hald described him as "a genius who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science"[1] and Richard Dawkins described him as "the greatest of Darwin's successors".[2]

B. He was a Christian. [3]

C. He supported eugenics

D. He lived 1890 – 1962

Refernces:
1. Hald, Anders (1998). A History of Mathematical Statistics. New York: Wiley. 
2. Dawkins, Richard (1995). River out of Eden. 
3. H. Allen Orr describes him as "deeply devout Anglican who, between founding modern statistics and population genetics, penned articles for church magazines" in the Boston Review Gould on God Can religion and science be happily reconciled?

And it wasn't just him.  There were always Christians who accepted evolution, not all rejected it.  So my answer was more than adequate for your question.  You are the one who claims that the Bible inspired those Christians who supported the eugenics movement's forced sterilization.  The burden to support your own claim falls on you, not me.

And I have neither denied that of those who supported the eugenics movement some were Christians, neither have I held Darwin responsible.  Please stop putting words in my mouth.  You've done that plenty of times in this thread already.  I said Darwin's Descent of Man inspired the movement, not that Darwin is directly responsible.

[Deedee]

You post quotes from religious wack jobs with dubious intentions.  Sorry, just doesn't do it for me. And I don't have time for this today, but I'll get back to you loco. 


Richard Weikart:

In The Journal of Modern History (March 2006) Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of history at the University of Louisville explained that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian." Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since it predates evolutionary theory. Allen concluded:

"This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome of a 'culture war' between religion and science leads to serious distortions on both sides. The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically associated here with many beliefs — such as opposition to birth control, legalized abortion, and assisted suicide--that many believing Christians and Jews would reject. And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge of ideas about race, politics, and social issues. If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved obsolescence, this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science. Neither religion nor science is well served by this oversimplified view of their complex history."

[Deedee]

Deedee, you sound like a fundamentalist defending your holy text....not that there is anything wrong with that!   

I do?    If I was a fundamentalist defending my holy text... I would have told Ozmo that he'd growing festering boils on his face and writhe burning for eternity in a black pit if he didn't come to his senses and agree with me. 

[loco]

I do?    If I was a fundamentalist defending my holy text... I would have told Ozmo that he'd growing festering boils on his face and writhe burning for eternity in a black pit if he didn't come to his senses and agree with me. 

Really?  Why is that?  Are you making a reference to somebody else?  Who would that be?

[loco]

You post quotes from religious wack jobs with dubious intentions.  Sorry, just doesn't do it for me. And I don't have time for this today, but I'll get back to you loco. 


Richard Weikart:

In The Journal of Modern History (March 2006) Ann Taylor Allen, a professor of history at the University of Louisville explained that Weikart's talk about "Darwinism" is not based on any careful reading of Darwin himself but on vague ideas by a variety of people who presented themselves as "Darwinian." Moreover, fundamental elements of Nazism like anti-Semitism cannot be attributed to Darwinism since it predates evolutionary theory. Allen concluded:

"This picture of the Holocaust as the outcome of a 'culture war' between religion and science leads to serious distortions on both sides. The 'Judeo-Christian' worldview is unproblematically associated here with many beliefs — such as opposition to birth control, legalized abortion, and assisted suicide--that many believing Christians and Jews would reject. And 'Darwinism' is equated with a hodgepodge of ideas about race, politics, and social issues. If all these ideas were to fall into well-deserved obsolescence, this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science. Neither religion nor science is well served by this oversimplified view of their complex history."

Deedee, first of all let me say Congratulations! You have finally posted a source that I consider reliable and acceptable.  You have posted a quote, from a  professor of history, naming the professor that you are quoting and the name of the University where she works, and the journal where the quote came from along with the month and the year of publication.  Not only that, but the quote is consistent with what we are discussing since she disagrees with Weikart on Darwinism's influence on Hitler.

Having said that, what you posted does not support your claim that Richard Weikart is a "religious wack job with dubious intentions".  He is a respected historian.  I could just as easily have claimed that Ann Taylor Allen is a "Darwinian wack job with dubious intentions".  You could have left that out, but since you didn't I would appreciate it if you would please back your claim.  Thank you!

Also, I never claimed that Darwinism inspired anti-semitism.  I am well aware that anti-semitism goes way back in history and that Hitler's anti-semitism was not inspired by Darwinism.  What Darwinism inspired Hitler to want to do and to try to do is to dominate the world and to destroy "the weak kind", regardless of race.  To Hitler, "the weak kind" happened to include all Jews.

Finally, what you posted about Ann Taylor Allen does not deny that Darwinism inspired Hitler's desire to dominate the world and to rid the world of "the weak kind", regardless of race.  All she is saying is that even if this is true "this would in no way detract from the validity of Darwin's contributions to modern biological science."

Oh, one more thing.  You have shown me why you disagree with only one of my sources.  I posted other sources.  What have you to say about them?

[Deedee]

Good things come to those who wait. 

Lol, what credible sources have you posted? Two "respected" authorities who are financed by the Discovery Institute.    One a white supremacist. These people aren't biased or anything are they?  I'm going to thank you also loco, as I had no idea that the new Christian agenda was to tastelessly attach Hitler's crimes to the theory of evolution in order to discredit it. By the way, here is what the Jews think of this.

ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin for Hitler

NEW YORK, Aug. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ — The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.”

After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy’s project, Dr. Collins said he is “absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy’s program utterly misguided and inflammatory,” he told ADL.

ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement: “This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.

It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to “reclaim America for Christ” and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.”

The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book “Evolution’s Fatal Fruit: How Darwin’s Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions.”

A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program “features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler’s ovens.”

I'll respond to the rest of your stuff when it gets less busy.

[loco]

Good things come to those who wait. 

Lol, what credible sources have you posted? Two "respected" authorities who are financed by the Discovery Institute.    One a white supremacist. These people aren't biased or anything are they?  I'm going to thank you also loco, as I had no idea that the new Christian agenda was to tastelessly attach Hitler's crimes to the theory of evolution in order to discredit it. By the way, here is what the Jews think of this.

ADL Blasts Christian Supremacist TV Special & Book Blaming Darwin for Hitler

NEW YORK, Aug. 22 /U.S. Newswire/ — The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today blasted a television documentary produced by Christian broadcaster Dr. D. James Kennedy’s Coral Ridge Ministries that attempts to link Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution to Adolf Hitler and the atrocities of the Holocaust. ADL also denounced Coral Ridge Ministries for misleading Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute for the NIH, and wrongfully using him as part of its twisted documentary, “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy.”

After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy’s project, Dr. Collins said he is “absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy’s program utterly misguided and inflammatory,” he told ADL.

ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman said in a statement: “This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.

It must be remembered that D. James Kennedy is a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to “reclaim America for Christ” and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.”

The documentary is scheduled to air this weekend along with the publication of an accompanying book “Evolution’s Fatal Fruit: How Darwin’s Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions.”

A Coral Ridge Ministries press release promoting the documentary says the program “features 14 scholars, scientists, and authors who outline the grim consequences of Darwin’s theory of evolution and show how his theory fueled Hitler’s ovens.”

I'll respond to the rest of your stuff when it gets less busy.

Deedee,
Hold on just one second.  Who is D. James Kennedy?  When did I quote him?

And which one of my sources is a white supremacist?

Why did you accuse Richard Weikart of being a "religious wack job with dubious intentions"?

I don't understand how your last post supports any of your claims or how it counters any of mine.  Are you simply dodging my questions and avoiding the issue?  I only say that because three times now you have posted sources and links that do not support your earlier claims, then you tell me that you'll get back to me, then you come back with more baseless claims and putting words in my mouth again.  Why don't you instead spend your time and energy producing the sources that will actually support your claims?

[Deedee]

Deedee,
Hold on just one second.  Who is D. James Kennedy?  When did I quote him?

And which one of my sources is a white supremacist?

Why did you accuse Richard Weikart of being a "religious wack job with dubious intentions"?

I don't understand how your last post supports any of your claims or how it counters any of mine.  Are you simply dodging my questions and avoiding the issue?  I only say that because three times now you have posted sources and links that do not support your earlier claims, then you tell me that you'll get back to me, then you come back with more baseless claims and putting words in my mouth again.  Why don't you instead spend your time and energy producing the sources that will actually support your claims?

Calm down loco... I'm not interested in changing your beliefs, nor will you change mine.  This is just an exercise in asking ourselves to think. 

I am not dodging your questions, but do have a life outside of getbig.

At least two of your sources aren't credible to me because they were financed to write what they did.  The Discovery Institute's mission is to instill the teaching of creationism in schools. So, in essence these writers are producing what we refer to as propaganda. To add to that, you post convenient snippets, out of context and disregarding whatever else the author may have said to balance the highlighted paragraph.  Your writer Richard Weikart, apparently states in his book that Darwin is NOT responsible for the holocaust.  I did misspeak about the white supremicist thing.  I was momentarily thinking of someone else, so I apologize for that one.

You, like many people, do not know the difference between theory of evolution (natural selection) and its opposite, eugenics (actively mucking around with the breeding of people).  Therefore, you cannot tell that Hitler was a creationist, not a darwinist.

Darwinism - theory of haphazard survival of species, based on naturally adapting to environment.

Eugenics - breeding favorable traits into humans while discouraging the mating/proliferation of undesirables and defectives. This concept has been around well into history.

Hitler - believed the Aryan race was the perfect, descended lineage of kings created by God. Inspired by the enthusiasm of the German medical community who had embraced the ideas of American Eugenicists, incorporated their notions into his mishmash of creationist, mystical ideas.  Worship of bloodlines = creationist, not Darwinist thinking. 

If you look back at my posts, I said that Hitler was inspired by many sources... the teachings of Luther, American Eugenicists, the smothering Treaty of Versailles, centuries of dogged anti-semitism, his addiction to amphetemines.

I know you didn't quote Kennedy, but your thinking is along the same lines, if I'm not mistaken.  You too, feel that Darwin is responsible for the holocaust. At least, that's what I'm getting from your posts. If you DON'T think Darwin is responsible, then just say so.

The reason I became interested in this thread is because due to my extended family I have personally known people whose lives were touched by the Holocaust, and I found it a little shocking that people would trivialize the suffering of so many just to serve an agenda. I figured I'm just overly sensitive to these things, but when I googled some Jewish responses, I saw that I was not alone. Many Jews find it tasteless as well. That's why I posted that story.

[Decker]

...Dr. D. James Kennedy...

He died recently.  He was a pontificating right wing jackass who dressed in fancy robes and thought he had an inside track to god.  His church was a cathedral worth millions.

In short, he is what is wrong with organized religion today.   

Sorry for the interruption.

[Deedee]

Here's some reading for you regarding the Christian community's embracing of eugenics in the early 20th century.

The great and rapidly increasing army of idiots, insane, imbeciles, blind, deaf-mutes, epileptics, paralytics, the murderers, thieves, drunkards and moral perverts are very poor material with which to "subdue the world," and usher in the glad day when "all shall know the Lord, whom to know aright is life everlasting." There are hundreds and thousands of men and women today to whom in the interests of future generations, some rigid law should say, "Write this one childless." Men and women whose habits of life are such as to curse their offspring, should be prohibited from marrying.6

In a later section, she connected such unfortunates with Malachi’s prophetic rebuke of postexilic Israel’s offering of blind, lame, and sick animals as sacrifices. She scoffed at the notion that "the lame, halt, deaf, blind, mutes, imbeciles, idiots, drunkards and moral perverts" could be properly called "God-given children," or considered a proper offering and gift to God.7

That's from here -------> http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/2/18-2-durst.htm  which is probably the most concise of what I've provided for you.

This has lotsa pictures, and is a very interesting reading.

http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/davis01.pdf

And this is a lot to get through, but I found it a very engrossing read!!! You'll find the biblical references that were utilized to convince people of the godliness of eugenics  on page 123 I think.  Sermon of the Mount is mentioned, as is "Sins of the Father, shall be visited etc... and Noah and the Flood is noted.  If you want to read the first couple of introductory chapters, go to Amazon and find PREACHING EUGENICS: RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND THE AMERICAN EUGENICS MOVEMENT.

 http://books.google.com/books?id=DrKgIIxCHVIC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=the+american+eugenics+christians+biblical+references&source=web&ots=ChXkSjvbLE&sig=QPIz9ke_h3aiOsyOC0Qgy6b3SPo#PPA9,M1

Hitler admired what the American Eugenicists were accomplishing so much, that he got his own people right on that.  There's an infamous quote by a Virginia physician "They're beating us at our own game."

http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/22/eugenics-daniel-kevles.html

I think, based on your logic, it would seem that American Christians had much more of a hand in causing the holocaust, than Darwin.

I'll post you some Hitler/Luther stuff at a later time.

[Deedee]

He died recently.  He was a pontificating right wing jackass who dressed in fancy robes and thought he had an inside track to god.  His church was a cathedral worth millions.

In short, he is what is wrong with organized religion today.   

Sorry for the interruption.

Can't say I'm sorry. 

And I welcome the interruption.  The more the merrier. 

[MMC78]

I have to say that as someone who culturally identifies as a Jew and has orthodox Jews in his family, blaming Darwin for the holocaust is akin to blaming Jesus for the pogroms.

[Dos Equis]

He died recently.  He was a pontificating right wing jackass who dressed in fancy robes and thought he had an inside track to god.  His church was a cathedral worth millions.

In short, he is what is wrong with organized religion today.   

Sorry for the interruption.

He can't be what's wrong with organized religion when he's dead. 

I was never much of a Kennedy fan, because I didn't like his church-state views, but organized religion is fine overall.  Part of the backbone of our society. 

[loco]

At least two of your sources aren't credible to me because they were financed to write what they did.  The Discovery Institute's mission is to instill the teaching of creationism in schools. So, in essence these writers are producing what we refer to as propaganda. To add to that, you post convenient snippets, out of context and disregarding whatever else the author may have said to balance the highlighted paragraph.  Your writer Richard Weikart, apparently states in his book that Darwin is NOT responsible for the holocaust.  I did misspeak about the white supremicist thing.  I was momentarily thinking of someone else, so I apologize for that one.

Deedee,
So you falsely make it seem as if I'm quoting somebody who I did not quote. You falsely accused one of my sources of being a white supremacist and a "religious wack job with dubious intentions".  Then you finally admit it after I ask you to substantiate your baseless claims.
 
Looks to me like you are desperate to discredit me and my sources.

And if The Discovery Institute was a good for nothing bunch of "religious wack jobs with dubious intentions", then it would not be funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which provides $1 million a year for The Discovery Institute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=24bc7c9b16cac8a8&ex=1282276800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
 

You, like many people, do not know the difference between theory of evolution (natural selection) and its opposite, eugenics (actively mucking around with the breeding of people).  Therefore, you cannot tell that Hitler was a creationist, not a darwinist.

Hitler, a creationist?  First you call me a creationist, now Hitler is a creationist.  Deedee, what is your definition of a creationist?  So Hitler did not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?  Yeah, right Deedee.
 

If you look back at my posts, I said that Hitler was inspired by many sources... the teachings of Luther, American Eugenicists, the smothering Treaty of Versailles, centuries of dogged anti-semitism, his addiction to amphetemines.

You conveniently left Darwinism out of your list above.

"Hitler believed in struggle as a Darwinian principle of human life that forced every people to try to dominate all others; without struggle they would rot and perish … . Even in his own defeat in April 1945, Hitler expressed his faith in the survival of the stronger and declared the Slavic peoples to have proven themselves the stronger." 
Peter Hoffman, Hitler's Personal Security (Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1979), p. 264.

"To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy … . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution."
Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Putman, 1947), p. 28.

I know you didn't quote Kennedy, but your thinking is along the same lines, if I'm not mistaken.  You too, feel that Darwin is responsible for the holocaust. At least, that's what I'm getting from your posts. If you DON'T think Darwin is responsible, then just say so.

Then why did you not make that clear in the post where you accuse one of my sources of being a white supremacist, then immediately follow that with an article that talks about this Kennedy guy, a "Christian Supremacist" according to your post, whom I did not quote?  Very sneaky of you if you ask me.

And you are mistaken. I've already told you:

I said Darwin's Descent of Man inspired the movement, not that Darwin is directly responsible.

I've also said Darwinism inspired Hitler, but I do not and cannot hold Darwin directly responsible.

[loco]

Here's some reading for you regarding the Christian community's embracing of eugenics in the early 20th century.

The great and rapidly increasing army of idiots, insane, imbeciles, blind, deaf-mutes, epileptics, paralytics, the murderers, thieves, drunkards and moral perverts are very poor material with which to "subdue the world," and usher in the glad day when "all shall know the Lord, whom to know aright is life everlasting." There are hundreds and thousands of men and women today to whom in the interests of future generations, some rigid law should say, "Write this one childless." Men and women whose habits of life are such as to curse their offspring, should be prohibited from marrying.6

In a later section, she connected such unfortunates with Malachi’s prophetic rebuke of postexilic Israel’s offering of blind, lame, and sick animals as sacrifices. She scoffed at the notion that "the lame, halt, deaf, blind, mutes, imbeciles, idiots, drunkards and moral perverts" could be properly called "God-given children," or considered a proper offering and gift to God.7

That's from here -------> http://www.ethicsandmedicine.com/18/2/18-2-durst.htm  which is probably the most concise of what I've provided for you.

This has lotsa pictures, and is a very interesting reading.

http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/davis01.pdf

And this is a lot to get through, but I found it a very engrossing read!!! You'll find the biblical references that were utilized to convince people of the godliness of eugenics  on page 123 I think.  Sermon of the Mount is mentioned, as is "Sins of the Father, shall be visited etc... and Noah and the Flood is noted.  If you want to read the first couple of introductory chapters, go to Amazon and find PREACHING EUGENICS: RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND THE AMERICAN EUGENICS MOVEMENT.

 http://books.google.com/books?id=DrKgIIxCHVIC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=the+american+eugenics+christians+biblical+references&source=web&ots=ChXkSjvbLE&sig=QPIz9ke_h3aiOsyOC0Qgy6b3SPo#PPA9,M1

Hitler admired what the American Eugenicists were accomplishing so much, that he got his own people right on that.  There's an infamous quote by a Virginia physician "They're beating us at our own game."

http://ftp.metalab.unc.edu/pub/electronic-publications/stay-free/archives/22/eugenics-daniel-kevles.html

I think, based on your logic, it would seem that American Christians had much more of a hand in causing the holocaust, than Darwin.

I'll post you some Hitler/Luther stuff at a later time.

What?  You think that based on my logic, American Christians had "much more" of a hand in causing the holocaust, than Darwin?

Deedee,
You keep trying to turn this thing around and claim that no, not only did Darwin not inspired Hitler at all, but it was the Bible and Christianity that did.  That is false.

Hitler's actions are in no way, shape or form consistent with Jesus Christ or with true Christian doctrine.  Hitler himself was aware of this, but he tried Christian rhetoric anyway to get Catholics and Protestants on his side and turn them against the Jews. 

To the Catholics he would publicly claim to be a devout Catholic.  To the Protestants he would quote Luther, who never said anything about killing Jews or about exterminating the entire race, but Luther was the best Hitler had at his disposal.  By the way, Hitler was either a devout Catholic or he was a fan of Luther, but he couldn't be both.  Roman Catholics are no fans of Martin Luther. 

Anyway, Hitler's public statements about religion were confusing, but his private statements were more clear:

"The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay."
Joseph Goebbels(one of Hitler's closest associates and most devout followers), The Holy Reich by Richard Steigmann-Gall, p. 253

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"
Adolf Hitler as reported by Albert Speer(Hitler's chief architect before becoming his Minister for Armaments during the war), The Holy Reich by Richard Steigmann-Gall, p. 252-253

On Martin Bormann, Head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer
"Nazism, based as it was on a 'scientific' world-view, was completely incompatible with Christianity whose influence was regarded by Bormann as a serious obstacle to totalitarian rule"
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/bormann.html

[Deedee]

Some funny, zany Hitler quotes:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance
 with the will of the Almighty Creator."
    [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 46]

"This human world of ours would be inconceivable without
 the practical existence of a religious belief."
    [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.152]

"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence
 of the fatherland, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill
 the mission assigned to it by the Creator."
         [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp. 125]

"And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his
 estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary,
 He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
        [Adolph Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, pp.174]

"It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but
 the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god."
         [Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 2]

"....the personification of the devil as the symbol
 of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."
  [Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf", Vol. 1, Chapter 11,
   precisely echoing Martin Luther's teachings]

"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable
 stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin
 the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
       [Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 2 Chapter 1]

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for
 compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but
 in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."
           [Adolph Hitler, "Mein Kampf" Vol. 1 Chapter 12]

And there's this:

The Lutheran editor of the American translation of Luther's works comments: "It is impossible to publish Luther's treatise today . . . without noting how similar to his proposals were the actions of the National Socialist regime in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's." The Nazis would now and then pay tribute to their mentor by staging an event on a date or at a place associated with him. They declared, for example, that their first large-scale pogrom against the Jews in November, 1938 was a pious operation performed in honor of the anniversary of Luther's birthday.

To cite but one more example, the installation of Ludwig M?ller as Reich Bishop was conducted with great fanfare in the church at Wittenberg where Luther had preached. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, names Luther as one of the great heroes of the German people. The historian, Professor Friedrich Heer, is authority for the knowledge that Hitler "was prepared to concede that Luther had prepared the way for his own work." He quotes Hitler as saying, as early as 1918: "He saw the Jew as we are only now beginning to see him today." (Ominous.)

What was it that Luther offered that made him so attractive to the Nazis? It was a book-length treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies, in which he gave expression to his unbridled, not to say utterly maniacal, detestation of Jews, and which contained more than a hint of genocidal intentions toward them. Luther's vehement attacks on the Jews were frequently recalled and widely disseminated by the Nazis. The original edition of Luther's loathsome volume was exhibited in a special glass case at party rallies in Nuremberg.



http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hakeem/holocaust4.html

Some quotes from people who were actually "there"

Few people today realize that Luther wrote 'On the Jews and Their Lies.' (He also wrote such works like "Against the Sabbatarians.") Freethinkers should become aware of the anti-Semitic influence that Luther has brought on the world. His vehement attack on Jews and his powerful influence on the believers of the Germans has brought a new hypothesis to mind: that the Jewish holocaust, and indeed, the eliminationist form of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany may not have occurred without the influence from Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies."

Walter Buch, the head of the Nazi Party court, admitted Luther's influence on Nazi Germany:

When Luther turned his attention to the Jews, after he completed his translation of the Bible, he left behind "on the Jews and their Lies" for posterity.
-cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Many people confess their amazement that Hitler preaches ideas which they have always held.... From the Middle Ages we can look to the same example in Martin Luther. What stirred in the soul and spirit of the German people of that time, finally found expression in his person, in his words and deeds.

-"Geist und Kampf" (speech), Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Hans Hinkel, a Nazi who worked in Goebbels' Reich Chamber of Culture said:

Through his acts and his spiritual attitude he began the fight which we still wage today; with Luther the revolution of German blood and feeling against alien elements of the Volk was begun.
-cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich

Erich Koch, the Reich Commissioner for Ukraine and President of the East Prussian Protestant Church Synod wrote:

Only we can enter into Luther's spirit.... Human cults do not set us free from all sin, but faith alone. With us the church shall become a serving member of the state.... There is a deep sense that our celebration is not attended by superficiality, but rather by thanks to a man who saved German cultural values.
-Konigsberg-Hartungsche Zeitung, 20 Nov. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Bernhard Rust served as Minister of Education in Nazi Germany. He wrote:
    
Since Martin Luther closed his eyes, no such son of our people has appeared again. It has been decided that we shall be the first to witness his reappearance.... I think the time is past when one may not say the names of Hitler and Luther in the same breath. They belong together; they are of the same old stamp [Schrot und Korn].
-Volkischer Beobachter, 25 Aug. 1933, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
Hans Schemm became Bavarian Minister of Education and Culture. Throughout the Reich, Germans particularly knew Schemm for his slogan, "Our religion is Christ, our politics Fatherland!" He writes:
    
His engagement against the decomposing Jewish spirit is clearly evident not only from his writing against the Jews; his life too was idealistically, philosophically antisemitic. Now we Germans of today have the duty to recognize and acknowledge this.
-"Luther und das Deutschtum," Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf (19 Nov. 1933: Berlin), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Our confession to God is a confession of a doctrine of totality.... To give ultimate significance to the totalities of race, resistance and personality there is added the supreme totalitarian slogan of our Volk: "Religion and God." God is the greatest totality and extends over all else.

-(Gertrud Kahl-Furthmann (ed.), Hans Schemm spricht: Seine Reden und sein Werk (Bayreuth, 1935), [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]

Julius Streicher (one of Hitler's top henchmen and publisher of the anti-Semitic Der Sturmer) was asked during the Nuremberg trials if there were any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way., Streicher put it well:

"Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book 'The Jews and Their Lies,' Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them..."

The list goes on and on, but you are convinced and brainwashed by the latest marketing tactics of the "Discovery Institute" that venerable insitution seeking to inform and promote knowledge and freethinking.  Bwahahahaha.

Do you think people are stupid loco?  It's very easy to google the Discovery Institute to find out exactly who and what that disgusting organization is comprised of, and exactly what they stand for.  And yeah, I think anyone who is financed by such an unethical institution must be a religious wack job.  That's my opinion. Go check out who else gives generous donations to this institute you try to sell so eagerly.  But then again, I'm sure you'd be absolutely thrilled to live under one big, happy theocracy together. 

And you DO post convenient snippets.  You even posted a sentence on another thread that clearly DIDN'T support your point of view AT ALL, and yet you bolded a few phrase fragments to make it seem so.  That was kind of funny actually. I giggled. 

I'm sure you're just repeating this Hitler shit (which you don't understand and know nothing about) because this is the newest marketing scheme of associations like the "Discovery Institute" in their latest venture to discredit the theory of evolution and have creationism taught nationwide in schools, and you don't bother to think for yourself.  You just repeat the party line over and over again.

As far as "Darwinism" goes, there are many people, even in academic circles, who have borrowed his name and attached his work as a label where it has no place in being, and what you've quoted bears that out.  Stick to your story though, no matter how crass and tasteless and belittling it is to the memory of millions. As someone said, associating the Holocaust to Darwin is the same as blaming Jesus for the pogroms. That is most concise and true statement in this thread.

[loco]

The list goes on and on, but you are convinced and brainwashed by the latest marketing tactics of the "Discovery Institute" that venerable insitution seeking to inform and promote knowledge and freethinking.  Bwahahahaha.

Do you think people are stupid loco?  It's very easy to google the Discovery Institute to find out exactly who and what that disgusting organization is comprised of, and exactly what they stand for.  And yeah, I think anyone who is financed by such an unethical institution must be a religious wack job.  That's my opinion. Go check out who else gives generous donations to this institute you try to sell so eagerly.  But then again, I'm sure you'd be absolutely thrilled to live under one big, happy theocracy together. 

And you DO post convenient snippets.  You even posted a sentence on another thread that clearly DIDN'T support your point of view AT ALL, and yet you bolded a few phrase fragments to make it seem so.  That was kind of funny actually. I giggled. 

I'm sure you're just repeating this Hitler shit (which you don't understand and know nothing about) because this is the newest marketing scheme of associations like the "Discovery Institute" in their latest venture to discredit the theory of evolution and have creationism taught nationwide in schools, and you don't bother to think for yourself.  You just repeat the party line over and over again.

As far as "Darwinism" goes, there are many people, even in academic circles, who have borrowed his name and attached his work as a label where it has no place in being, and what you've quoted bears that out.  Stick to your story though, no matter how crass and tasteless and belittling it is to the memory of millions. As someone said, associating the Holocaust to Darwin is the same as blaming Jesus for the pogroms. That is most concise and true statement in this thread.

Quote Luther all you want.  It does not follow that Hitler was inspired by Christianity.  And go ahead and continue adding to your long list of baseless claims and false accusations, and continue to dodge my questions and to put words in my mouth.  If I posted a sentence on another thread that "clearly DIDN'T support my point of view AT ALL", why did you even say that and not even tell me what that sentence is and show me how it "clearly DIDN'T support my point of view AT ALL"? 

And you yourself have gone on record saying that Hitler was inspired by the theory of evolution and by Darwin, and now you are going back and forth, contradicting yourself.  How can you be taken seriously after all that?

Um... that's not what we're talking about. Hitler was inspired by the religious Luther just as much as he was by the evolutionist Darwin. He twisted their words to suit his agenda. That's the point. And there were others as well.

Hitler was inspired by a number of things. His failure as an artist, his sado-sexual weirdnesses, and as Trapezecurl mentioned, centuries of European anti-semitism.  He was inspired by the theory of evolution, as well as the words of religious thinkers and anti-semitic composers.

[Deedee]

We're done with the Discovery Institute now? 

You say what Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf in clear, savage language, specifically talking about religion or Luther had no bearing on what he did.  I say it does. The exact timing of the violence commited on Kristalnacht with Luther's birthday is just an example.  You say Darwin's work inspired Hitler.  Okay fine, where does Hitler ever talk about Darwin? He does however, mention Luther. I say the religious American community readily embraced eugenics from a godly inspired point of view, and posted to that effect with proof. It's a historical fact that Hitler admired the American Eugenicists and his people learned much from them... and since the religious community embraced the American Eugenecist movement, it stands to follow that Hitler received some of his inspiration from the American religious community.  And THAT'S based on YOUR logic, not mine.

You can keep on with your pretzel logic though, as long as you like.  What is this... I post something and you just keep repeating "no it's not, no it's not, no it's not. "

Your funny little bolded snippet is from the "US Doomed if Creationist President Elected" thread.  Go find it. It's right on the first page. I find it funny also, that you quote a passage from Darwin, claiming it to be a damning and a clear link to Nazi atrocities, yet in that passage Darwin states as plain as day that because we have a nobler, more elevated nature than mere animals, we could never think to interfere with harming others, or leaving them to neglect.  Doesn't sound like that quote's backing up your claims much, far as I can see. 

Most people don't have a clue what the difference is between Darwinism, social Darwinism, theory of evolution and eugenics.  Many people mislabel all of these and generally throw it all under one big umbrella for convenience sake, even academics.  That's why I said Darwinism, instead of specifying exactly, with a huge underscore, that I meant eugenics.  I didn't realize this thread was so serious.

Of course Hitler WAS inspired by eugenics, and some bastardized notions of survival of the "strongest" (which has nothing to do with survival of the fittest... you don't seem to get that either loco). But if you've read any history at all, you'd know that he believed in the racial superiority of the Aryans. That again, is the complete opposite of theory of evolution, which says that species survive randomly and haphazardly and is dependant upon adapting to the environment.  Racial superiority, worshipping bloodlines... all of that is conducive to creationist thinking.

As a little aside, Hitler was quite practical when it came to euthanasia policies actually... once the war started, beds were needed and so were all the resources available.  The elderly and those with no hope went first. I don't see where the big Darwin influence there is.  Sounds like typical Nazi fiscal responsibility. 

This could go on and on, but like I said, you go around and around with your pretzel logic, others have already told you the same as I, and yet you are convinced that everything the Discovery Institute puts forward to you is utter truth.  So go be happy loco, but I'll tell you one last time, it's crass and tasteless. 

[loco]

Deedee,
Why did you say that Hitler was inspired by "the theory of evolution"?  Why did you say that Hitler was inspired by "Darwin"?

[Deedee]

Deedee,
Why did you say that Hitler was inspired by "the theory of evolution"?  Why did you say that Hitler was inspired by "Darwin"?

I didn't.  I said he was inspired by many sources, and as I told you in my last post, I was throwing the big umbrella over it all because most people who aren't scientists do just that.  You're right. I should have specified eugenics instead of theory of evolution, and Darwin.