This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by Coel

Go to: Translations of my books

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by Coel

Not only was the title changed into "The Creation Lie" (Die Schöpfungslüge), the beautiful original cover was substituted by an alternation of The God Delusion artwork.

How much control does Prof. Dawkins have over such things? One would think that he'd have quite a lot of clout with publishers.

Wed, 02 Nov 2011 10:12:33 UTC | #886364

Go to: Cosmic distance record 'broken'

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by Coel

I may be mistaken here, but logically if we see light which originated at a certain point 13.14 Gya, wouldn't that indicate a point close to the 'center of expansion' of the universe?

There is no "center of expansion", that is a common misconception, thinking, wrongly, of the universe as expanding away from a particular location in a pre-existing, static space. Instead, the universe is the same everywhere and expands the same everywhere. Thus the Big Bang happened everywhere equally. That's easier to think about if you imagine running time backwards, with all space contracting equally, so that eventually everything ends up in the same place. That was the Big Bang.

Wed, 25 May 2011 20:37:54 UTC | #630897

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 130 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

Coel claims "If you accept that I've shown (or gone a long way to showing) that he rejected evolutionary biology with regards to humans, then we are close to agreement. "
Except I don't. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Sheesh, Roger, that sentence was a direct reply to you saying (comment 127):

You've not shown that Hitler either accepted or rejected evolutionary biology in total - only that he rejects it for humans.

Now, in what way was I misrepresenting you or "putting words in your mouth"??? Your words amount to saying that I've shown that Hitler rejected evolutionary biology for humans!

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 22:48:48 UTC | #573462

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 127 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

You've not show n that Hitler eiher accepted or rejected avolutionary biology in total - only that he rejects it for humans.

If you accept that I've shown (or gone a long way to showing) that he rejected evolutionary biology with regards to humans, then we are close to agreement. Afterall, that's what creationists care about. It is Hitler's treatment of humans that the religious claim to have been motivated by Darwinism. Showing that it wasn't is 99% of what the argument is about.

So you're right, I didn't discuss other species in my set of quotes, for that reason. But since you ask, here's a chunk of Mein Kampf showing that he applied the same beliefs to animals. As context, Hitler is asserting that Aryans and Jews are seperate creations, and should be kept separate by preventing interbreeding. As part of this he argues that this seperateness of species and fixidity of species is general in nature:

Hilter: "This urge for the maintenance of the unmixed breed, which is a phenomenon that prevails throughout the whole of the natural world, results not only in the sharply defined outward distinction between one species and another but also in the internal similarity of characteristic qualities which are peculiar to each breed or species. The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.

Again, Hitler's view is that Aryans and Jews are distinct creations, and his desire is to preserve them in that form by preventing interbreeding, thus preserving the original primordial "master race" as originally created, God's "highest handiwork" in the Garden of Eden, which it would be sinful to allow to be destroyed by interbreeding. The above quote shows that he applies this thinking to other animals also. Note that he does allow some within-species or within-kind change, but then so do creationists.

Note that this view is the exact opposite of the usual accusation, that he was trying to create a future master race by selective breeding, based on Darwinism.

You've provided no evidence what he was taught about evolutionary biology at school. Heck, you've not even provided evidence that his schools taught or pushed religion at all.

So? What I am attempting to show is that Hitler believed that humans had been created in current form (rather than having evolved out of earlier life). And I'm showing that by taking a straightforward reading of what he wrote. Whether he had been taught it in school or not is not the point. Note, though, that he did have a Catholic upbringing in a religious, Catholic family, who at one point wanted him to become a priest. So it is clear that religion played big role in his formative years. See, e.g. the first watercolour by Hitler at http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/politics/twoartists.htm

You've provided no evidence, for or against, that he even had a basic understanding of evolutionary biology.

Irrelevant. You don't need any understanding of evolutionary biology in order to believe that humans had been created by God in their current form (which is all that I'm asserting Hitler believed). Oodles of Christians managed to believe that before evolution was even invented.

You've provided no cross references to the claims you quote from Mein Kampf.

They all come from http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt This is the Murphy translation, generally taken as standard, being authorised by the Third Reich. You can find any of my quotes easily with the "find" function of your browser.

You've completely avoided the counter claims that he accepted "Darwinism".

I am aware of such claims. I am genuinely unaware of any such evidence. I would be happy to address any such evidence if it is presented.

You've provided no recognised definitions of creationism and the one's you have don't stand up to scrutiny.

The belief that I am attributing to Hitler, that he believed that man had been created by God in current form, would be widely accepted as sufficient to label him a "creationist". (In the wide, general sense of that word.)

You've presented Hitler's "opinions" as black and white when we know that they were exceedingly muddled and frequently incosistent.

On the specific issue of whether he believed that man had been created in current form (as opposed to having evolved from primitive life) his opinions do seem fairly consistent. If you're aware of any counter-evidence please present it. Him being confused and inconsistent on other issues is, though, not particularly relevant.

You've used the term "intelligent" in a layman's meaning.

Hardly relevant to the issue of whether or not Hitler believed ditto ditto! That was only a counter to your claim that he was intellectually incapable of distinguishing between a creationist and an evolutionary origin of man. And that claim is not really sensible.

There are no citations given on virtually all of you claims except the obvious quotes from Mein Kampf.

Since the quotes from MK are the main thing I have presented, that's not a large flaw. What other things would you like cites to? Well, if the above is the extent of the holes in my case then I consider that I'm doing pretty well.

I suspect that to put together a coherent argument that stands up, you'll need many man months of work ... People who make big claims need robust arguments to back them up. They don't come cheap. You'd do yourself a big favour in getting involved in the NCSE.

I happily accept that the case can be built upon and developed. And you suggesting that that would be good is a better response than just pooh-poohing the whole thing, as you have done so far. And I've already got vastly better evidence than the religious have produced for their counter-claim. Have you ever seen even a single quote by Hitler where he mentions Darwin or says he is inspired by him?

Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:45:27 UTC | #573223

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 124 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

It's your position that I'm saying his full of holes.

So you keep saying. So why don't you point to one these holes? I'm interested, what evidence do you have to counter my claim (see post 11) that Mein Kampf shows quite clearly that Hitler believed that man had been created by God in current form? If there is no such evidence then there are no important holes in the claim.

Your suggestion that I am somehow "on the side" of creationists is sordid and second rate.

I'm not suggesting that. I am suggesting that your reluctance to accept the clear evidence that Hitler was a creationist could be because at least to some extent you have assimilated the Christian myth that he was an atheist/Darwinist.

This assimilation, even by atheists, is not that uncommon, unfortunately. As another example, at the time of the Pope's "Nazi" speech, the British Humanist Association (Andrew Copson) put out the statement:

"The notion that it was the atheism of Nazis that led to their extremist and hateful views or that it somehow fuels intolerance in Britain today is a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God.

See what's wrong with that? "The atheism of the Nazis". They were not atheists, all the evidence says exactly the opposite. Yet, here we are with people on our side assimilating and parroting the Christian lie. Sheesh! (I told him off for it also, by the way.)

It seems to me that you are doing something similar in pooh-poohing the actually quite clear and straightforward evidence that Hitler rejected Darwinism and believed in the special creation of man in current form.

Why don't you actually read Mein Kampf (google "gutenberg mein kampf" for the text)? Read my set of quotes (comment 11) first, and judge for yourself whether I am misrepresenting what is there (large chunks of the book are not relevant, but my quotes should guide to the relevant bits). You said that you'd love to be able to charge Hitler with creationism; and you may well be able to, if you go and read the evidence for yourself. That's what I did.

Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:22:18 UTC | #572833

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 121 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

No I'm not; I'm openly saying its drivel. See block word above.

While your point was indeed softened by the in-brackets "or drivel", the overall point of it seemed to be support for the idea that Hitler was a Darwinist based on mere creationist claims. Why else write this:?

I also point out that the modern day creationists virtually all claim that Hitler was a Darwinist and an atheist. They've produced copious amounts (or drivel) to support their claims.

Which of those were you arguing for? "They've produced copious amounts to support their claims? or "They've produced drivel to support their claims?" Anyhow, this is somewhat beside the point.

My position is that you and the OP have an argument that has more holes in it than a collander and is therefore unusable. It's amateur.

But you haven't actually demonstrated any holes in it. All you've really done is argue for a much narrower definition of the term "creationist" (which is really just semantics).

It#s also pretty amateur to start claiming that Hitler was intelligent in support of you argument.

I wasn't. I was merely pointing out that Hitler was reasonably intelligent as a reply to your claim that he was intellectually incapable of distinguishing between creationism and evolution. That's actually quite an absurd position.

However, my arguments would, based on what you say, simply be pulled to shreds and, almost certainly, be dismissed out of hand by professional historians of Germany as amateur conjecture.

There you go again, merely asserting that there are flaws in my arguments, and that they'd be pulled to shreds, without actually showing any of these claimed flaws. You are just making empty assertions here.

The fact is that Hitler's setting forth of his opinions (in Mein Kampf etc) is actually fairly clear and straightforward, and it is certainly clear enough to show that he believed that man was created in current form (rather than having evolved). That view runs repeatedly and consistently through one of the main themes of the book, as I've shown. If this was anyone else we were talking about it would be readily accepted as adequate evidence that that was indeed his opinion -- especially in the total absence of any quotes whatsoever saying the opposite.

So why the huge reluctance to accept it in the case of Hitler? It can only be that the Christians have been so successful in spreading their falsehood that Hitler was motivated by atheism/Darwinism that even non-Christians have assimilated, and thus suffer cognitive dissonance when presented with actually quite clear and straightforward evidence that says exactly the opposite.

Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:40:34 UTC | #572729

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 116 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

Coel "You seem, in several of your posts in this thread, to have a habit of taking creationist claims as conclusive, overlooking that creationist claims are quite often dishonest."
You've just move from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Not at all, for example take this post of yours:

I also point out that the modern day creationists virtually all claim that Hitler was a Darwinist" and an atheist. They've produced copious amounts (or drivel) to support their claims.

There you are, quoting creationist progaganda as an argument that Hitler was a Darwinist or could sensibly be regarded as a Darwinist (why else would you write that?). It's as though you've actually swallowed their propaganda! The truth is they've produced nothing, not one scrap of evidence, to support their claim that Hitler was a Darwinist.

The man was so incoherent in his views that just about anyone can claim that he was a Darwinist or a creationist according to their own prejudices. From my understanding Hitler wasn't even intellectually capable of distinguishing creationism from evolutionary biology.

Again, this is just wrong. Hitler was likely well above average intelligence, getting good grades in school near the top of his class. People who found and lead whole movements don't get to do so by being stupid. His book Mein Kampf is actually coherent and presents his arguments clearly and at length. Dunces simply can't do that. He is far more able to sustain a coherent argument at length than, for example, Alister McGrath or Rowan Williams (where accusation of being muddled, confused and incoherent are fair).

And because of this it is simply not true that his writings and speeches can be sensibly interpreted as being those of someone believing in Darwinism. A straightforward reading of his works says exactly the opposite. (Ditto atheism by the way.) In your reluctance to accept that you are falling for Christian propaganda, failing to appreciate that the Christian progaganda on this issue is flat-out lies and fabrication deriving not from any evidence but from pure prejudice.

Sun, 02 Jan 2011 16:47:47 UTC | #572353

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 114 by Coel

Biame writes:

Nostradamus makes reference to a figure known as Hister, ... Hister was proclaimed as an anti-christ in the prophecies, who would rule the world, this is one of the pieces of Nostradamus's work which was used.

In addition to providing evidence for your claim "this is one of the pieces of Nostradamus's work which was used [in Nazi leaflets]", please could you provide evidence for your claim "Hister was proclaimed as an anti-christ in the prophecies". According to wiki, Hister was merely the name for a river, and the relevant quatrain makes no reference to any anti-christ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hister

Oh, and evidence that these Nazi leaflets linked this Hister/anti-christ to Hitler would be good also. Afterall your original claim was: "Hitler also dropped leaflets proclaiming himself as an anti-christ".

Sun, 02 Jan 2011 11:04:30 UTC | #572230

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 113 by Coel

Schordinger's Cat writes:

The Origin Of Species is a scientific observation of the world, not a philosophical, political, or religious rambling. If Christians or anyone else are too stupid to see that.....then I doubt whether their one brain cell will cope with a more detailed argument.

You are overlooking that scientific statements about mankind can have clear implications for philosophy, politics and religion. Let's take an example: the scientific statements about the degree to which human DNA varies between people (ie. very little) has clear implications for racist ideologies. Similarly, the scientific account of the origin of man does have quite clear philosophical, political and religious implications. The Christians are quite correct to recognise that, and you are incorrect to ignore it.

Simply arguing that Hitler was a creationist doesn't really dispel the original slur on Darwin.

Actually it does. Showing that Hitler was a creationist who rejected Darwinism dispels the slur that Darwinist ideology inspired the holocaust. Why are you so reluctant to accept that, given that Hitler's creationist views are so clear in Mein Kampf and elsewhere?

Sun, 02 Jan 2011 10:33:47 UTC | #572221

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 112 by Coel

Biame writes:

Nostradamus makes reference to a figure known as Hister, many people align this, by association, to mean Hitler. Hister was proclaimed as an anti-christ in the prophecies, who would rule the world, this is one of the pieces of Nostradamus's work which was used.

First, you have not provided evidence that this "Hister" prophecy was in the Nazi propaganda leaflets (you only provided evidence that some of Nostradamus was in them). Second, you have not provide evidence that these leaflets associated "Hister" with Hitler, you're only asserting that "many people" make this association.

I remind you that your original claim was quite stark, namely: "Hitler also dropped leaflets proclaiming himself as an anti-christ". You have fallen well short of substantiating that claim.

Did you not see the supporting evidence to my statement there?

Why yes I did. And the evidence falls well short of supporting the actual claim. You have not provided any evidence that any Nazi leaflet proclaimed Hitler as an anti-christ. Please note that it was your claim so the onus is on you to support it.

You may have read Mein Kampf, you have definitely quoted from it, but you are adding words and knowledge, which are not there.

You have not shown that. The only deductions I am making about Hitler follow fairly clearly and directly from the quotes from Mein Kampf.

Sun, 02 Jan 2011 10:23:46 UTC | #572220

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 109 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

No it isn't! Wrong again! There is nothing I've seen either in the Dover trial transcripts or the recent presentations of Michael Behe or other IDers that says man was created in his present form; yet the courts have decided that Intelligent Design is creationism.

The Dover ruling didn't so much say that ID was creationism, it said that it was religiously motivated and a "progeny" of creationism. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision ) Basically it was creationism with lots left out for political reasons of trying to avoid the first amendment. So, obviously they (Behe etal) would not have been fully honest about all their beliefs in the Dover trial, for obvious reasons.

You seem, in several of your posts in this thread, to have a habit of taking creationist claims as conclusive, overlooking that creationist claims are quite often dishonest.

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 23:00:36 UTC | #572058

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 108 by Coel

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:

Wouldn't it just be a hell of a lot simpler to state that nothing Darwin wrote included the espousing of wholesale genocide of races ?

No, because that leaves open the possibility that belief in Darwinism tends to lead to genocide, regardless of whether Darwin wrote that. Sorry, what is wrong with the very simple, and supported by evidence, statement that Hitler rejected Darwinian evolution and instead was a creationist?

The best refutal of what ( some ) Christians say is to quite simply point out that nowhere does Darwin say " go out and round up inferior races and gas them ".

No, that's not a good "refutal", since it invites the above rejoinder, that Darwin's philosophy tends to leads to that conclusion, regardless of whether Darwin himself went along those lines.

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:51:43 UTC | #572054

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 105 by Coel

Schrodinger's Cat writes:

I can equally as well cherry pick quotes to show that Hitler had 'natural law' type beliefs....

So what? In what way is that incompatible with believing that man was specially created in his current form, rather than having evolved?

How about you reading sentences like at the end of the Vienna section where Hitler refers to " this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men. ...

I've read it, thanks. In what way is it incompatible with believing that man was specially created in his current form, rather than having evolved? I did address that quote of yours in my comment 91.

How can that possibly equate with what most people regard as creationism ?

Very easily. It is called "Old Earth Creationism". You, like Roger, are saying that this belief is not like the dominant strand of creationism these days. And you're right, it's not; today OEC is much less common than Biblical-literalist YEC. But then Hitler wasn't schooled today, he was schooled around 1900, and in those days OEC was much more common.

What 'aristocratic principle in nature' is there in creationism ?

"Creationism" is not a word for a specific ideology, it's a word for a group of ideologies that all have in common that man was created in current form, rather than having evolved. It includes OEC, YEC and lots of other strands.

He's clearly refering to what he sees as natural laws by which one group are more worthy than another. There you have two quotes from just one paragraph. I'm sure I could cherry pick more if I looked.

I'm sure you could. So what? None of those quotes are relevant to whether he was a creationist or not.

The reality is that Hitler's 'beliefs' are a mish-mash of a whole load of different things. He has himself cherry picked ideas that he sees to be useful.....from natural law and from religion.

Indeed so, his ideas are indeed a mish-mash of a whole load of things. And one of those things is creationism (and a rejection of the evolutionary alternative).

It all smacks of just ' Hitler was a creationist.....nanananana ! ', and a rather puerile and simplistic version of events.

Not at all, the conclusion I'm drawing from the clear evidence that Hitler was a creationist is that he was not motivated by a belief in Darwinian evolution (as many Christians quite falsely claim). That is all I'm concluding from it. Why are you so resistant to accepting that?

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 22:00:10 UTC | #572037

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 103 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

Like it or not, those fighting creationism need rigorous definitions of creationism ...

OK, so how about defining creationism as you just did:

Creationism, whether it be old earth creation, day age creationism, recolonisation, Intelligent Design or young earth creationism rejects the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Looks fine to me. So someone who believes that man was created by god in man's current form (rather than being evolved from other species) is thus a creationist. And thus the evidence of Mein Kampf etc is that, by that definition, Hitler was a creationist. If we can agree on that, based on your above definition, then we're getting somewhere.

If you start calling Christian scientists creationists even though they accept evolutionary biology, you'll make enemies of you best allies. That isn't smart. It's plain dumb.

But then no-one has suggested that on this thread (with the possible exception of the issue of how one describes someone who accepts evolution for man's material form but wants a creationist origin for a "soul").

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 21:08:32 UTC | #572018

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 101 by Coel

ColdThinker writes:

Look, I really don't see why so many here are so negative about this opener. Being critical of factual error is fine of course, but what's with all these attacks on the basic truth behind it?

Yep, it's utterly amazing isn't? I've been amazed by the hostility here to the clear and strong evidence that Hitler was a creationist. It's as though the Christians have been so successful in spreading their lie that Hitler was inspired by atheism/Darwinism that even non-Christians have assimilated it and now react negatively to the truth that is the exact opposite.

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:48:45 UTC | #571985

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 100 by Coel

Schrodinger's Cat writes:

There are plenty of people, and even were back then, who accept evolution but still believe in 'God'. There is no direct causal relationship between believing in a creator and NOT believing in evolution. Thus the one, even if it were a point, does not disprove the other.

Yes, I know that! It is bleeding obviously the case. Please note that I did NOT say that "Hitler believed in God and thus cannot have accepted evolution", what I said was (and isn't this utterly obviously what I said?) that the many quotes I've provided from Hitler's MK and elsewhere show quite clearly that he was a creationist who believed that God created man in man's current form, and thus that he rejected evolution and so cannot have been motivated by belief in Darwinism.

Now, why the heck are you trying to "answer" ridiculous strawmen that are totally different from what I actually claimed? Can you try reading please?

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 19:44:22 UTC | #571983

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 93 by Coel

Schrodinger's Cat writes:

I'm quite sure if I cherry picked phrases I could probably make a case that Das Kapital argues for capitalism.

But then my quotes from Mein Kampf are not cherry-picked, the strand of thought is clearly there; anyone can read if for themselves in the above link. No-one has shown that any of my quotes are out-of-context or misleading.

What's more 'old earth creationism' really is not the same as the Bible thumping stuff that's around these days.

Agreed, but so what? No-one has claimed that Hitler was an AiG-style 6000-yr-old-Earth, Biblical-literalist creationist; the claim is that he was a creationist (meaning, he believed in man being created by god in present form, and rejecting the idea of man's evolution from other species).

And the point of stating that is that it shows he was not motivated by a belief in Darwinism, as many people quite falsely, and contrary to all the evidence, allege.

The way the 'Hitler was a creationist' case is presented is as if its screaming out on every page.

Err, no, no-one has said or implied that. Why don't you deal with what has actually been claimed, rather than attack strawmen?

In time that developed into outright racism.....but at no point do I see creationism as being the causal factor.

Whether of not creationism was a CAUSAL factor, a root cause of his ideas, is a separate question to whether he was a creationist and whether his creationism was part of the arguments he gave. Both of the latter things are true (the evidence shows).

Whether that was the foundation and motivation for his hatred of the Jews is a different question -- almost certainly it wasn't. But that doesn't alter the point that he was a creationist and thus that his ideas were not motivated by a belief in Darwinian evolution. That last point is the sole point I am trying to establish on this thread -- and it is amazing how much ignoring-of-evidence people are willing to do to try to avoid accepting it!

Hitler is actually quite a clear writer and spells things out with more than sufficent clarity to show that the primary motivation was the political, cultural, and racial 'salvation' of Germany.

Why yes, indeed, you're right! But that does not alter the fact that Hitler was a creationist (meaning he believed that man had been created by god in current form, rejected an evolution from earlier life), and thus that he was not motivated by a belief in Darwinian evolution -- as the lies of the religious try to make out.

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 15:44:33 UTC | #571901

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 91 by Coel

Schrodinger's Cat writes:

If one stops cherry picking Mein Kampf and actually reads the whole book, Hitler actually goes into some detail about his motivations......and neither creationism or Darwinism feature at all as distinct elements. It is clearly political and nationalistic.

I have read the book, and you are wrong to say that creationism doesn't feature. Yes, the dominant themes are political and nationalistic and these provide the major motivations. But there is also a strand of creationism running through it, as I have shown quite clearly in comment 11 on this thread. Simply calling those quotes "cherry picked" is not a rebuttal.

In fact for every cherry picked so-called 'creationist' comment, one can find just as many naturalistic comments such as 'Eternal nature'....in one case right before a sentence with 'Almighty creator'.

So? Yes, there are "naturalistic" references to Nature and pagan/deistic ideas about gods in addition to Christian ones. But so what? In asserting that Hitler was a creationist I am asserting no more than he believed man of have been created by God in man's current form (as opposed to having evolved from earlier life forms). Nothing in Mein Kampf is incompatible with that.

By the way, the phrase "eternal nature" doesn't appear in the version of MK I'm reading ( http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt ). This is likely a translation issue, can you quote the whole sentence so I can see the context?

Neither would a creationist refer to a time when the Earth ' moved through the ether devoid of men '. That one phrase alone dispels all notion of creationism.

Not at all, it is entirely compatible with Old-Earth Creationism. OEC was actually the dominant view in many Christian circles in most of 19th C Europe, when science had begun to show that the Earth was far older than the recorded history of the Bible, but evolution was not yet widely accepted.

Please note that I am not asserting that Hitler was a Biblical-literalist 6000-yr-old Earth creationist in the modern American vein. Roger is right that that style of YEC was not common in Europe then. But OEC asserts that the Earth is far older than the creation of Man. There is nothing at all in that view incompatible with creationism (by which I mean creation of man in man's current form).

By the way, in the above linked version of MK that passage is (ending of Chapter 2):

Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago. And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.

Thus in this OEC view you have an old Earth existing for eons before God then created a Garden of Eden and created in it humans, or specifically Aryans, as Hitler believed. Note that in that "defending the handiwork of the Lord" the "handiwork of the Lord" is the creation of Aryans in the Garden of Eden. Hitler wanted to defend that handiwork by preventing interbreeding with "lesser races".

Some more quotes from MK, since people are accusing me of not providing evidence:

Everybody who has the right kind of feeling for his country is solemnly bound, each within his own denomination, to see to it that he is not constantly talking about the Will of God merely from the lips but that in actual fact he fulfils the Will of God and does not allow God's handiwork to be debased.
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.

Again, "destroying His work" means allowing interbreeding that would destroy the purity of the Aryan race.

Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures [ie. Aryans] would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 13:41:12 UTC | #571873

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 90 by Coel

Biame's claim: "Hitler also dropped leaflets proclaiming himself as an anti-christ."
Me: Evidence for that claim please?

Now Biame replies:

Hi Coel, evidence? I am wondering what you would do with evidence, so far you seem to be making a case from fantasy and the power of suggestion you personally attach to it.

What I would do with evidence is consider it. Your comment is bizarre, considering I have produced quite a bit of evidence to back my claim that Hitler was a creationist (e.g. comment 11 in this thread), whereas those disagreeing with that claim have produced no evidence. Is this comment of yours a smokescreen for the fact that you can't support your claim?

However for people interested in evidence: The Ministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda allegedly did use Nostradamus. Goebbels notes in his diary that ... (transl.: Nostradamus is being exploited for a pamphlet and for so-called chain-letters. Taubert did a great job.) Apparently Goebbels himself (whose wife was also fascinated by the 'prophecies') encouraged this circulation of (hand- or typewritten) versions of Nostradamus' 'prophecies' for propaganda reasons. As it seems, the ministry produced such propaganda leaflets also in English, French, Italian, Serbian, Croatian, and Swedish.

Err, excuse me, but what part of that is supposed to be evidence that "Hitler also dropped leaflets proclaiming himself as an anti-christ"?? Now, if the claim had been "Nazi propaganda leaflets referred to Nostradamus's prophecies" then that would indeed be evidence. But your claim wasn't that, it was "Hitler also dropped leaflets proclaiming himself as an anti-christ". So, do you have evidence for that claim?

It would be a rather extraordinary thing for Hitler to have done, considering that the populations of both his own country and his main foes were overwhelmingly Christian. And extraordinary claims require quite a bit of evidence. So, I'll ask again, what evidence do you have for it?

Sat, 01 Jan 2011 13:05:10 UTC | #571856

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 86 by Coel

Stevehill asls:

... what does it matter whether [Hitler] was a creationist or not? Is that some "worse" kind of Christian?

It matters because it pertains to the issue of whether Hitler was motivated by Darwinism. All the evidence is that Hitler was a creationist, who (in common with other Nazis) rejected and opposed Darwinism.

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:32:51 UTC | #571682

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by Coel

Radesq asks:

Even Jews, Homosexuals and Roma? Why did he want to kill them so much then?

Yes, Hitler believed that Jews and other "lesser" races were created by God, but separately as races that were distinct from the Aryan. He killed them because he wanted to prevent them interbreeding with the Aryans, which would defile "God's highest handiwork" and would thus be a blasphemy against God. Thus he thought that a "higher purpose" was to protect the Aryans by eradicating lesser races. See Mein Kampf for an extended account of all of this.

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:29:07 UTC | #571681

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 82 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

It's full of quotes lifted off the Internet, unsubstantiated guesses, lacking rigorous definitions and with an extremely transparent agenda, to attack religion in general. It shows no understanding of the history of creationism and no understanding of theology. No historian would touch it with a bargepole.

You resort to such empty blather because you have no actual substance or evidence to say on this issue.

If you want to make a sustainable claim that Hitler was the exact opposite, I suggest that point scoring and cut and paste quotes on Internet is will quickly leave you with a serious credibility problem.

My quotes from Mein Kampf came from (and derived from reading) the full text of the book. What exactly is wrong with that? At least I've presented evidence -- you've presented nothing. You're behaving like a creationist, when presented with evidence you weasel and attack the poster; you haven't actually either rebutted or dealt with the actual evidence. Though, to your credit you have now accepted the main point I was making all along: that the evidence shows that Hitler believed that man was specially created by God in man's current form.

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 21:53:45 UTC | #571666

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 77 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

I am asserting that Hitler believed that man had been created by God in man's current form. And I've presented many quotes from Mein Kampf and other places to support that view. Would you agree that, as best we can tell, that was Hitler's opinion?"

No. It's being presented as creationism.

How revealing that you avoid answering the question.

Even if he did believe this it wouldn't be creationism ...

It might not be Stanyard-defined-creationism but it would be creationism, but this dispute about labels is pointless.

Nothing you've said shows that he [Hitler] rejected evolution except with mankind.

Ah good, so you accept that I've shown that Hitler rejected the evolution of mankind -- the only species that creationists actually care about. You know, the whole debate is about how Christian or Darwinist ideas apply to man.

I simply cannot turn to creationists and say that they are wrong about Hitler supporting evolution and being an atheist based on what you have provided.

I think you'll find that you can! And it is very effective to. I've done it quite a few times. The creationists start off by angrily accusing me of lying. Then when I give them links to Mein Kampf to prove it they start whimpering, snivelling, wanting their mummies, and desperately trying to change the subject.

You would be right to conclude that I am not an expert on Hitler. Unfortunately, neither are you, it appears.

Ah, that snide ending is your cover for the fact that you've provided absolutely nothing to support your assertions about Hitler, nothing at all, whereas I have produced ample quotes to show that he believed that man had been specially created by God in current form, and thus could be fairly and sensibly labeled a creationist (by any reasonable meaning of the word).

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 20:09:25 UTC | #571619

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 76 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

Oh, I see. You don't actually know what Hitler was taught. ... Your position is just speculation. I don't know either ...

You're right, I don't know about curricula in German Catholic schools at around 1900. But note that my discussion of then Catholic teaching was in response to your assertions that Hitler had been brought up in an evolution-accepting environment. You said (post 15):

Let's get this absolutely straight. ... most [Christians] accept evolutionary biology and most accept the Bible, including Genesis, as allegory and metaphore. Hitler came from that tradition.

You have presented no evidence that the "tradition" of Hitler's environment in 1900 accepted evolution. I don't claim to be an expert on schooling then but I consider it fairly unlikely for education up to age 15 (when Hitler left school) in the 1900s.

But I'm quite happy to leave Catholic teaching out of this (you raising it was the only reason I was discussing it) and focus simply on what Hitler believed, and the evidence is quite clear that he believed in the special creation of man in our current form.

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 19:53:52 UTC | #571614

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 72 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

In the Islamic word, creationism isn't the same thing as amongst fundamentalist Christians. Different beast altogether. As far as I can make out, Islamic creationism is not based at all on the young age of the earth and accepts the big bang.

Tell you what, how about we have a word for the set of all these variants of creationism, including that "different beast altogether" Islamic creationism. How about this word includes all beliefs in which man was created by God in man's current form (as opposed to evolving from earlier life). And how about we use a word such as, hmm, I dunno, how about "creationism"?, that seems to fit.

Your stance seems to me akin to insisting that Christianity was founded in England in the 1700s by Charles Wesley, and that the word "Christianity" can only be used for products of that revival, and that any other forms of Christianity are "different beasts altogether".

" ... most Christians ... would have believed that humans were specially created by God in their present form. ... And in what way is it unreasonable to call that view "creationism" ...?"
Yes, very, very unreasonable.

Fine, we'll have to agree to differ on that. I'm going to continue using "creationism" to refer to all beliefs that man was created by God in man's present form, regardless of which flavour of religion they spring from.

Creationism claims to be based solely on science; ...

Claims, yes indeed. And as with nearly all creationist claims they're simply wrong.

Back to Hitler's education - I've never seen the slightest evidence that he was taught that evolutionary biology was wrong or was systematicaaly surpressed by the RCC in his school.

Most likely there was no teaching about evolution at all at that level, either for or against (this was 1900 after all), leaving kids by default with the traditional Christian pre-scientific account based on Genesis.

It's irrelevent what people beleived before modern science developed.

Considering that in 1900 or so these modern scientific developments would not have made it as far as most secondary-school classrooms, it is indeed relevant.

... the real issue is whether they [Christians/Catholics] reject evolutionary biology ...

This issue here is not whether they do today, but whether they did around 1900. And to a large extent it wasn't so much about "rejecting" it, as not yet having incorporated it into their thinking, particularly regarding what an 11-yr-old might hear in church or the classroom.

"... back to earlier comments about Hitler being a Catholic; ..."

The earlier comments were not so much about Hitler "being a Catholic" so much as having received a Catholic upbringing, and what he might have been taught.

Anyway, can we concentrate on the central point. I am asserting that Hitler believed that man had been created by God in man's current form. And I've presented many quotes from Mein Kampf and other places to support that view. Would you agree that, as best we can tell, that was Hitler's opinion?

If you disagree, and want to argue that Hitler instead believed that man had evolved from earlier non-human life-forms then please present your evidence. So far none has been presented. And please note that creationists, who would be desperately keen for any such evidence and would quote it incessantly, have never produced any such evidence.

If you have no such evidence, can we then agree that Hitler believed that man had been created in man's current form? (And note that in asking that I'm avoiding questions of what labels could be used for that belief or whether or not it is or was compatible with Catholic teaching.)

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:40:30 UTC | #571551

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 66 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

Likewise Intelligent Design originated wholly in the USA after 1987.

No it doesn't! Sheesh Roger, you have an absurdly narrow view of this! The classic work of Intelligent Design was in 1809, William Paley's Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity collected from the appearances of Nature. As the title suggests, there is almost nothing in modern ID that isn't there in that book!

You are totally overlooking that intelligent-design creationism was the dominant view of almost all Christians before modern science!

... has long established that young earth creationism had been almost wholly abandoned in Britain prior to Darwin's 1859 publishing.

The key word there is "young" earth creationism. You might be right that the 6000-yr-old view has losing ground well before Darwin, in the face of geology, but YEC is only one strand of creationism. It is still the case that before 1859 almost all Christians would have regarded man as specially created by God in our current form (the timescale being a side issue). Do you have any evidence against that statement?

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:29:59 UTC | #571444

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by Coel

Roger Stanyard writes:

I have already defined the core of creationism; Sola Scriptura.

Wiki defines "sola scriptura" as "the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness". Note that that is not necessarily Biblical literalism. Note also that your definition prevents any Muslim being a creationist.

Sorry, your definition of creationism is way too narrow. The simple fact is that for most of Christendom, let's say AD 800 to AD 1900, most Christians (including most Catholics) would have believed that humans were specially created by God in their present form. (What else would they have believed, before modern evolutionary science?) And in what way is it unreasonable to call that view "creationism", regardless of whether they are full-blown literalists or not?

Strange, isn't it that we have never come across a Catholic school in Britain promoting creationism;

No, it is not at all strange. You are talking about today! Catholicism tends to accept science (eventually), and certainly since WW2 Catholic schools have uusally presented the scientific account of human origins. We are not disputing that!

But the point is that Hitler's schooling was back in 1894 to 1905! At that time dominant Catholic schooling was creationist (in the sense of regarding man as having been specially created by God in man's current form). What are you trying to argue here, that because Catholic school teaching is not creationist then that it wasn't 100 years ago?? How does that follow?

Anyhow, since this dispute over the meaning of the word "creationist" is somewhat silly, would you accept that the evidence from Mein Kampf is that Hitler was a person who regarded man as having been created by God in our current form (rather than having evolved out of previous life forms)? If so, can you think of a useful shorthand word for that belief? Something beginning with c r ... perhaps?

If you don't accept that Hitler believed that, please present your evidence. My evidence from Mein Kampf is above. Here's another bit of evidence, though it is from "Table Talk" and so less reliable.

"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."

You also say:

"... selected out of context quotes to justify their claims = just like some doing so right now in this thread."

If you are accusing me of "selected out of context quotes" then please defend the accusation by discussing the context and showing that my quotes are misinterpreted. So far you have presented absolutely nothing at all to support your dissent from what we are saying.

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:17:58 UTC | #571441

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by Coel

Biame writes:

Hitler also dropped leaflets proclaiming himself as an anti-christ.

Evidence for that claim please?

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 10:44:21 UTC | #571384

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by Coel

Schrodinger's Cat writes:

Religion enters into it only in the sense of a tool to be used.

How do you know that? Your post is full of assertions, but without any actual evidence.

Whatever views he had on any such religious matters were ( deliberately in some respects ) extremely vague and ill defined."

No, in many cases they are fairly well defined and specified.

Religion was a handy tool if it furthered that goal, ...

Again, is this just your conjecture, or do you have evidence supporting the idea that, to Hitler, religion was nothing but a tool? For example, we know that several times, when at private dinner parties with close associates, he would declaim at length of his religious views, giving hour-long monologues expounding his religious ideas. Why would he do that if he didn't actually mean it and regarded religion as nothing but a tool?

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 21:09:15 UTC | #571067

Go to: Adolf Hitler: the world's most famous creationist

Coel's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by Coel

More on the Catholic position in evolution. This is JP2 from as recently as 1996, the first major update to the 1950 statement by Pius XII.

Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions. ...

The earlier cite is to the 1950 encyclical:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, ...

Note the "no opposition" wording.

Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis.

So the 1950 encyclical was luke-warm, merely saying that "evoluitionism" was "a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation", but that its status was "equal to that of the opposing hypothesis".

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. ... It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge."

So that, as recently as 1996, was the first official Catholic acceptance of evolution as likely true. (Of course it didn't apply to our "spiritual souls", where were God-given and not evolved.) But anyway, this is all way after Hitler's youth, when he would have been taught the traditional picture -- as believed by the vast majority of Christians until after WW2 -- that God created humans in their current form. And, as is clear from Mein Kampf, that is what Hitler believed. And as is clear from the above quotes from Houston Chamberlain, the Nazis explicitly rejected Darwinism, regarding it as an "English disease".

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:02:01 UTC | #570990