The Corner

D-H Email Fiesta

From a reader:

Dear Jonah,

It seems that the point both you and Derb make that Klinghoffer’s

analysis does not disprove Darwin’s theory of evolution through

natural selection is certainly true. But Klinghoffer explicitly admits

this in his article, so I don’t really understand why you and Derb are

addressing a point Klinghoffer never makes. Is it because he may

personally not believe Darwin’s theory and this renders his article


The main thrust of Klinghoffer’s article is that Darwin’s explicit

writings in which Darwin contemplates what he sees as the inevitable

effects of his theory, provided the intellectual impetus for later

atrocities. The fact that this does not disprove Darwin’s actual

theory, or that Darwin himself would never engage in or countenance

such atrocities, is irrelevant to the thrust of his argument.

LF was fascinating, keep up the great work, and I have complete

confidence you will never remain silent on topics of interest!

Me: Thanks. Fair point, I was, at least in my head, as much responding to the Darwin-Hitler stuff that’s been flooding my email box since I raised the issue ever so briefly last week over at the LF. Blog.



Mr. Goldberg,

There are a couple of things going on in the minds of your critics regarding the Darwin-Hitler “controversy.”

Chief among them is the widespread inability to distinguish between science and faith, and particularly the scientific and political ideas espoused by the same man. (Surely you will concede that all political beliefs are articles of faith, unless you hew to the oxymoronical notion of political “science.”)

If you want to attract moonbats like moths to a flame, few names will do it more quickly or efficiently than “Darwin” (although you might try “Tesla” if you want to attract some of the more exotic species).

The last time I looked, the “big bang” theory of cosmology was being taught in schools. If someone wants to know where people (and everything else) came from, this is where I would point them. Why no “Kitzmiller v Dover” level of controversy there? People are funny (and I don’t mean “funny: ha-ha”).


First of all, you did a major disservice to both NR and conservatism by

printing Klinghoffer and Berg’s pieces but those letters you just responded

to-gads, what idiocy! Each and everyone of them is wrong, wrong, WRONG and

stupid beyond belief. They’re all dumber than Alec Baldwin after having a

tasty meal of fish and paintchips.

OK, I’ve made my point. Now, we get to the gristle.

Spencer’s Social Darwinism DID precede Darwin with his essay “Progress: its

laws and causes” but Spencer coined the term “survival of the fittest” in

1864, after The Origin of Species was published, and it meant little to

Darwin, who incidentally, was a classical liberal (which would be called

conservative today) and a firm supporter of abolition and suffrage. The

work of Spencer which DID influence Darwin was Spencer’s comparative work

between domesticated and wild breeds belonging to the same species, which

led Darwin to conclude that the same process of breeding to ensure favored

traits occured in nature and this random process was superior to the

process of controlled breeding which is the exact opposite conclusion of

eugenics. Malthus was actually a much greater influence on Darwin, in the

way he analyzed the complex interactions between individuals, populations

and resources, and as a pious Christian, he would be horrified at the

suggestion that his theories were responsible for Fascism and racism (or

worse: he was born with a cleft lip, and while it caused him much shame

until he had it fixed, I don’t think he would advocate infanticide of those

with a similar condition).

Now that dispenses with your first correspondant, as well as part of your

second writer, who is probably the most thunderously stupid correspondant

you’ve ever had. Of course so many important scientists were creationists,


EVOLUTION WAS PROPOSED! How the hell could Newton have ridiculed Darwin

when he died 130 years before The Origin of Species was published? The word

“race” in the title has nothing to do with human races specifically, but

ALL variations of living things; as noted earlier, Darwin was very ahead of

his time in believing in human equality. And Alfred Wallace, who came up

with the theory of evolution through natural selection at the same time,

was a Christian Socialist, which is 180 the opposite of type of fascism

that dumbell was thinking about.

As for your last nattering nabob of know-nothingism, who says there was no

precedent for scientific racism prior to Darwin, Gobineau published An

Essay on the Inequality of the Races a full SIX years before the

publication of The Origin of Species, and so-called craniometricians were

attempting to justify the inequality of races by measuring skull shape at

least EIGHTY years earlier. Darwin opposed all of this; he believed that

all humans evolved from a single ancestor, and that not enough time had

elapsed from this point to create any substanial differences between human

populations. And once again, he was right.

For more info, see this page here, which effectively debunks the notion

that Darwin led to Nazism and eugenics:

Also go here, to see the Expelled-Fascism connection.

And oh yeah, there were no important contributions made by Nazis to X-Rays.

You may have been thinking of Philip Lenard, a Nobel Laureate in physics

and life-long anti-Semite who became a fervent Nazi when he was old and

senile. He did important work in cathode rays and the photoelectric effect,

but nothing with X-Rays. He was actually insanely jealous of Rontgen for

having discovered them, and it is believed that this pushed him to the


Please print these corrections; whenever you let the creationists and other

anti-science or scientifically illiterate types use NRO as a mouthpiece, it

makes us all look like fools. If you don’t, well, I’ll just put them on the

Darwin Central blog.

Me: I dunno how of a disservice NR or anybody else is guilty of and I’m usually loathe to post letters beating up on other readers like this. But it’s sort of a free-for-all topic. As for the x-ray correction, I could swear Procter’s the Nazi War on Cancer gets into some breakthroughs and innovations on X-ray technology. But it’s been about five years since I read it, and the X-ray stuff wasn’t exactly central to what I was reading it for. I’ll withhold the right to respond until I find my copy.

And, finally (for now):

(By the way, I haven’t finished it yet, but your recent book is excellent)

Your correspondent has a serious historical problem when he says:

“Newton ridiculed Darwin and his silly theory.”

Newton could not have ridiculed Darwin, because Newton predated Darwin by 150 years or more.

It *is* historically correct that most of the famous scientists from the origin of modern science in the 17th, 18th and 19th century were devout Christians. Some authors have made the case that their Christian faith was more than just an accident; the Christian belief in God’s creation of a universe that was not capricious made them able to envision the possibility of the laws that led to modern science.

Your correspondent also claims that:

“You also ignore Klinghoffer’s central point, Darwin’s statement in The Descent of Man that “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.””

The correspondent seems to think this is a terrible racist statement by Darwin; given his times, it might be to some extent However, I find it hard to find much fault in Darwin’s statement. He was not making a moral judgment; he was making an observation and prediction. And his prediction has turned out to be largely true. The more civilized cultures *have* largely replaced, or in more cases ‘converted’ the less civilized races – ‘converted’ in the sense that the other ‘races’ have adopted civilized culture.

As a biologist, I find the whole concept of ‘race’ to be very problematic. It’s not really a biologically useful term. It’s a term that arises out of anthropology and sociology. There are certainly genetic differences, sometimes important ones, between people of different ethnic and geographic ancestry. But there are not genetic markers that you can use to neatly divide people into different ‘races’. People fall at various places along the genetic continuum..

As a practicing biologist, I find evolutionary theory to be exceedingly useful. It’s a very powerful tool. But it has, unfortunately, sometimes been used in negative ways, in particular as an alternative to God. I find this philosophically silly; no scientific theory can tell you ultimately where the laws of nature came from, why we’re here, etc. So I have some sympathy with the many evangelicals who are uncomfortable with evolutionary theory. On a philosophical basis, I am a creationist, in the broad sense of the term, meaning that creation is the result of God’s work. Exactly how he accomplished that is another issue, and I’m open to whatever science can establish as actual historical record. But from a practical basis, evolutionary theory is useful biologically simply because it provides a parsimonious explanation for so much of what we observe, and it makes useful predictions about what we’re likely to find – what we’re likely to find in the genetic record, the fossil record, etc. It can be medically useful. But in the final analysis, evolutionary theory is just a useful tool. If I was an auto mechanic, a wrench would be an indispensable tool of daily use. But I wouldn’t worship it because of that utility.


The Latest