E-MAIL NEWSLETTERS







There was an error processing this request. We cannot subscribe you to newsletters at this time. Please contact technical support with details.
Featured Sponsors
COMMENTARY Sponsorship

AVERAGE USER RATING

RATE THIS ARTICLE

  • Email
  • Print
  • Discuss
Search The Bible   
Advanced Search

Stein is Right: Darwinism Led to the Holocaust

Ken Ham

Answers in Genesis


April 15, 2008

Ben Stein, star of the forthcoming movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” can usually be counted on to provide interesting conversation fodder.

With “Expelled,” Stein makes a compelling case that the scientific community quashes views opposing evolution. There is one thing Stein says that shouldn’t be overlooked in evolution controversies.

“Darwinism led—in a pretty much straight line—to Nazism and the Holocaust,” he declares.

Although racism of course did not begin with Charles Darwin, he did more than any other person to popularize it. After he “proved” that all humans descended from apes, it was natural to conclude that some races had descended further than others.

In his opinion, some races (namely the white ones) left the others far behind, while other races hardly matured at all.

The subtitle of Darwin’s 1859 book, “The Origin of the Species,” was “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” The book dealt with the evolution of animals in general, and his later book, “The Descent of Man,” applied his theory to humans.

Darwin wrote that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a “savage.” In describing those with darker skin, he often used words like “savage,” “low,” and “degraded” to describe American Indians, pygmies, and almost every ethnic group whose physical appearance and culture differed from his own.

In the 1860s, around the time of the abolition of slavery, Darwinism made its way to American shores. It was used to justify racism against blacks, as well as the elimination of “savage native tribes” who hindered westward expansion in the name of “manifest destiny.”

The fruit of Darwin’s theories was (and is) being reaped in my homeland of Australia, which was involved in a gruesome trade in “missing link” specimens fueled by early evolutionary and racist ideas. Documented evidence shows that the remains of perhaps 10,000 of Australia’s Aborigines, many murdered, were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the “missing link.”

As the seeds of Darwinism continued to spread in the 1900s, the question being asked was: “Who is human and what is not?” The widely held view was that blacks evolved from the strong but less-intelligent gorilla, Asians from the orangutan and whites from the most intelligent of all primates, the chimpanzee.

Across the globe, such conclusions led to racism, oppression, and genocide. Within decades, however, evolution would be used as justification for the whites of Europe to turn upon themselves.

Perhaps the most infamous abuse of evolution to justify racism was Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime, which promoted a master race and sought to exterminate so-called inferior races.

In Asia, the Japanese justified their expansionist aggression by saying that they were the most “highly evolved” race on earth. After all, the Europeans, with their longer arms and hairy chests, were clearly closer to the ape, weren’t they? Westerners, in turn, justified their acts of mass destruction by portraying the Japanese as uncivilized savages.

Today, Darwinism and evolutionary thinking also enable ordinary, respectable professionals — otherwise dedicated to the saving of life — to justify their involvement in the slaughter of millions of unborn human beings, who (like the Aborigines of earlier Darwinian thinking) are also deemed “not yet fully human.”

The murder of Australian Aborigines, the oppression of African Americans, the slaughter of European Jews — the list goes on and on and the only way humans can justify their evil actions is to abuse the truth about science, history, and religion.

As Ben Stein says, there’s nothing morally neutral about Darwinism. It is a worldview with deadly fruits.

Ken Ham is the co-author, with Dr. A. Charles Ware, of “Darwin’s Plantation: Evolution’s Racist Roots,” and president and CEO of Answers in Genesis, which operates the popular Creation Museum in the Cincinnati area.


Most Recent User Comments
DavArn
5/3/2008 10:26 AM
ProfessorT is correct, scientific laws are not to be judged by their effects, but knowing the fact that evolution has such a racist connection helps our understanding of why such a spurious and unproven theory could get such a stranglehold on the western world in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Think about it. Darwin knew nothing of DNA, mutations, radiation, genes and chromosomes, and yet his theory launched (or at least justified) global conquest for racial or cultural purity.

It makes you imagine, once you examine the many flaws, inconsistencies and downright errors in the modern theory of neo-evolution, what may be the motivation for squelching dialog and study of any idea opposing evolution.
MindzEye
4/21/2008 4:43 PM
ProfessorT analogy attempts to compare two topics dissimilar in important ways. The scientific investigation into the nature of matter is different in kind in many respects to the attempt to scientifically discover and/or prove the origin of life, specifically of human life. Physics experiments can be achieved through current experimentation, but scientific effort to prove evolution is largely if not completely forensic. Also, metaphysical truth claims about origins of life, especially of humans, have a direct impact on the value people give to life. This is not true for truth claims about the scientific models of matter. And, by the way, ProfessorT, Mr. Ham's commentary is not claiming the Holocaust as proof that evolution is untrue. You seem to be the perfect example of people who attempt to prevent questioning of evolution theory by obfuscation, confusion, and misrepresenting claims of those that do not believe in evolution.
ProfessorT
4/17/2008 4:24 PM
This is a very unconvincing argument, putting it mildly. By analogy, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would indicate that understanding atomic structure is not morally neutral. So does Ben Stein advocate banning the teaching of physics in our schools? Trying to disprove evolution by pointing to immoral behavior committed using evolution as a justification will not get very far. One might as well state that the falseness of Christianity is proven by the burning of Protestants and Catholics at the stake. No, Ben Stein is not the best of allies to pick in this particular battle. In fact, he is one of the worst, because his arguments are so vacuous.
Sign up to post your comments

It's quick and easy to register with Crosswalk.com! Just fill out the short form below. You'll have the opportunity to post comments, and be more involved in our community and forums. Plus, with this one account, you can sign in anywhere in our network of sites displaying the Salem All-Pass logo, including Oneplace.com, Christianity.com, Lightsource.com, Crosscards.com, and more!