From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenia, and Racism in Germany – Author's Introduction

From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenia, and Racism in Germany – Author's Introduction Preface I became passionate about evolutionary ethics during the preparation of my thesis Social Darwinism: Evolution in German Social Thought from Marx to Bernstein. As I examined Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Tootght from Marx to Bernstein, I found that most Darwinists never thought of the way in which they would study. But as soon as I read the writings of Ernst Haeckel and other early Darwinists, my focus shifted to a particular ethical area; what is today called biomedical ethics. Then I discovered that many German Eugenies wrote articles and paragraphs in their books about how Darwinism applied to morality and values. Eugenies were not to play an important role in this study, but I could not exclude them; the leaders of the Eugenie movement were prominent supporters of evolutionary ethics. Last but certainly not least, I was intrigued by James Rachels’ 1990 book Creating from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Rahim is similar to ideas I came across in Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Rachels’s book, in addition to the views of Heikal and some proponents of social Darwinism and Eugene, suggested that I look for an answer to a new question: Did German Darwinists use Darwinism to break down the sanctity of human life? Or to put it another way: what does Darwinism or even those affected say about the value of human life? After the question was formulated in this way, other themes of death and life emerged, specifically racial wars and conflicts. After I rewrote my thesis on evolutionary ethics to include the value of human life, there was a new and difficult topic to escape from: the influence of this discourse on Hitler. Hitler was not at first visible to me in the picture, and Daniel Gasman’s attempt to link Hitler’s structure made me worry. But the more I read about Darwinism and Eugene’s books and articles in the late 19th century, as well as the beginnings of the 20th century. My role in this thesis is limited to showing this route from Darwin's time until about World War I (in Hitler's case, the debate spanned the time after World War I since most of Hitler's speeches and writings were after World War I). Some of the material featured in this book has previously appeared in periodic articles such as: The Origins of Social Darwinism in Germany, 1859 to 1895, Darwinism and Death: The Debasement of Life in Germany, 1860 to 1920, and The Evolution of Racial Annihilation in Darwinism, Eugenie, and pacifism in Germany, 1860 to 1918. I would also like to thank those who made this book possible. First of all, California State University at Stanislaus; who provided numerous references in addition to giving me a research sabbatical and a research grant. The secondment department at the university library (thanks to Julie Ruben) gave a pivotal role to the project, and without him this study would have been very difficult or impossible. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the history department for their continued encouragement. I would also like to thank the Templeton Foundation for their funding of the 2001 Summer College Conference (Biology and Purpose: Altruism, Morality and Human Nature in Evolutionary Theory), which greatly stimulated my thinking. I would also like to thank the many libraries and archive records that allowed me to access the information I needed to complete this research; The University of California at Berkeley Library, Berkeley, Stanford University Archives and Library, Hoover Institution, the State Library of the Prussian Cultural Heritage, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin Preu?ischer Kulturbesitz, and the Archive Academy of Arts Akademie der K?nste in Berlin, the Humboldt University archives in Berlin, the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, and the Federal Archive in the Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek State Library of Munich, Ernst-Haeckel-Haus House Archive of Jena, University of Freiburg Archive, University of Zurich Archive, City and State Archive Vienna Wiener Land- und Stadtarchiv, the Austrian public library ?sterreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna, the research centre and documentation centre of Austrian philosophy Forschungsstelle und Dokumentationszentrum f?r ?sterreichische Philosophie in Graz, archive League of Nations Archives in Geneva, University of Geneva Archive, and University of Wroclaw Archive. A special thanks to Wilfred Ploetz, who allowed me to see the papers of his father Alfred Ploetz, and was truly hospitable. I have benefited from many colleagues who have actively contributed to my intellectual development. Without them, this project would have been impossible. I also thank Mitch Ash and Alan Megill for helping me understand Germany’s cultural history and the history of science. I am also very grateful to Edward Ross Dickinson for reading part of the manuscript, reviewing it and adding suggestions for improvement, as well as his participation in the conference and many of our correspondence by name. Editor Brendan O'Malley made a great effort. He kept me constantly informed of every stage of the review and answered all my questions in a short time. Many thanks to him for all this. Finally I would like to thank my parents, Ray and Louis, for their support and encouragement incalculably. I dedicate this book to my wife; Lisa, and my precious sons; Joey, John, Joseph, Miriam, Kristen, and Hannah. They brought joy to my life while I was engaged in the project, and they always reminded me of the value of human life. [*] "The Origins of Social Darwinism in Germany, 1859-1895," Journal of the History of Ideas 54 (1993): 469-88; "Darwinism and Death: Devaluing Human Life in Germany, 1860-1920," Journal of the History of Ideas 63 (2002): 323-44; and "Progress through Racial Extermination: Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and Pacifism in Germany, 1860-1918," German Studies Review 26 (2003): 273-94. Introduction The conflict flared as soon as Darwin's On the Origin of Species appeared in 1859, and the controversy was not limited to whether single-celled organisms emerged in natural or supernatural ways. But many of Darwin's contemporaries considered the ethical application unclear, though it was not until 1871 that he explicitly discussed the question of human evolution and its impact on morality in his book The Descent of Man. “Just as there is a physical side to nature, there are also moral and metaphysical aspects, and those who deny this fall into the solution of folly. The height of the greatness of natural science is that it links matter to morality... You have ignored this link, and if I do not misunderstand what you want, you have tried hard to break this link in one or two important cases. The influence of Darwinism on the moral system was the main driver of William Jennings Bryan’s campaign against Darwinism at the turn of the 20th century in the United States. As a pacifist, Bryan was angry at the Darwinian rhetoric of the German materialists, whom he held responsible for the outbreak of the First World War. The Protestant monk Rudolf Schmid explained in his 1876 book that many critics of Darwinism consider it "a mere unproven hypothesis, threatening to set fire to the noblest and highest cultural achievement of the last century, turning it into a pile of ashes". On the other hand, Darwinists rejoice in the moral liberation of Darwinism. Daniel Dennett, one of the most prominent materialist philosophers, glorified Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, which he described as a “universal sourness,” eating away at all traditional beliefs about religion and morality. While both Singer and Rachels saw this as a moral liberation, I think Sedgwick could have taken their views as confirmation of his prediction of Darwinism's monstrous tendencies. Many Darwinists in the late 19th century began to apply Darwinism to moral issues, including the question of the value of human life. The German zoologist Roby Kossmann, who later became a professor of medicine, was more explicit than others in his 1880 essay “The Value of an Individual’s Life in Darwin’s View of the World,” where he declared: “The Darwinian worldview should view the current emotional conception of the value of the human soul as an exaggerated concept that hinders the progress of humanity. Human beings, like other animal societies, must be put to the highest perfection possible, by eliminating the least talented elements for the benefit of the most talented individuals to gain more space for the spread of the atom...The state must concern itself with preserving the species and the privileged life at the expense of the less privileged.”3 Kusman's views on death and life were shocking and provocative in his time, but as we will see, many of his Darwinist counterparts expressed similar ideas. By the early 20th century, ideas similar to Cossman’s were widespread, especially among proponents of Eugenie, which defines itself as the science of human eugenics, and whose ideas were inspired by Darwinism. However, not all proponents of the movement agreed on where efforts should be based. In my view, the question and its possible answers are pernicious, but proponents of social Darwinism and Eugeneism were afraid that aspects of modern civilization would contribute to biodegradation. Their campaign to combat the terrifying decline focused on two groups: the disabled, and non-Europeans, who thought that they threatened the health and safety of the human race. Among those who embraced social Darwinism and a racist version of Eugenics, this German-born politician, whose name was simply mentioned, Hitler, was enough to invoke the fantasies of evil and death. Because Hitler was a symbol of evil, while Darwin had his prestigious scientific status, any attempt to connect them seems illogical. Politically, Darwin was a traditional English liberal, supporting a laissez-faire economy and opposing slavery. Like most of his contemporaries, Darwin regarded non-European races as inferior to European ones, but did not embrace the fierce Aryanism or anti-Semitism, which was the central idea in Hitler’s political philosophy. So what is the connection between Darwinism and Hitler? Are they so effective? We might ask: Did Hitler kidnap Darwinism and hold it hostage to his pernicious political philosophy? Or did he just ride it and let it go to its destination? The latter view may be oversimplified: Darwinism first undermined the traditional morality and the value of the human psyche, and then evolutionary progress became the new moral imperative. In fact, many scholars have spoken of the importance of Darwinism, or at least social Darwinism, in helping to prepare the ground for the rise of Nazi ideologies and the Holocaust.(4) In his study of the influence of social Darwinism on the formation of Nazi ideologies, Hans-Gjonther Zmarzlik wrote that "the analysis of social Darwinism's discourse informs the process of the degradation of norms, accompanied by a desire for the sacrifice of individuality." The counter view that Hitler kidnapped Darwinism has its rationale. Many scholars have pointed out that Darwinism did not lead anyone to embrace or practice a particular political philosophy. The social democrats, who held infallible Marxist credentials, were enthusiastic advocates of Darwinism and viewed it as an affirmation of their view of the world. The Eugenie speech was average across the political spectrum, leading historian Atina Grossmann to argue with the conviction that the path from Eugenie and sexual reform to Nazism was "a convoluted, conflict-ridden path."[8] Neither the Eugenies nor the Eugenies were at the beginning. The multi-level equivalence between Darwinist and Nazi ideologies, especially when applied to moral, political, and social thought, as well as to the multiple roots of Nazi ideologies, should lead us to doubt the single-origin claims of Nazism. The Jewish historian Steven Aschheim rightly warned us not to stop trying to trace the cultural influences leading to Nazism, however complicated his views may be. “It is very clear that the road from Darwin, Wagner, and Nietzsche, even from racism and anti-Semitism, to Nazism was not easy or straightforward. Of course, the different routes lead in different directions. No matter how much we fear the end of research, we must not fail in our determination to understand the process and motivations that led, at least in one case, to this fate. I believe that the fear of complicating the issue is a tenuous reason to abandon cultural history.”9 So, while we are aware of the multiple possibilities of pre-Nazi discourses of Darwinism, Eugeneism, and racism, we should not close our eyes to the parallels of late Nazi thought. (I would like to point out from the outset that, while I focus on the cultural influence of history, I also note that there is a political, social, and economic influence – among other factors – on the development of ideologies in general, and Nazism in particular.) Kevin Ripp maintained this balance with great precision in his seminal work on the existence of active German social reformers during the 20th century. Ripp's theory that Germany's social reformist milieu during Wilhelm's era, which included both moral reformers and Eugenes (some of whom would appear in the course of this study), had different possibilities; some were benign, some were malignant. Reformers in the Wilhelm era to reform the vast and changing landscape in the politics of the Weimar Republic."[10] While Ripe has often reminded us that the social reformers of the Wilhelm era did not constitute the beginnings of Nazism, he has not entirely disowned them, emphasizing: “It is even as Griffin Ashoff and Gerhardt point out that the enthusiasm of feminists and other reform movements in the Wilhelmic era for racial health and population policies is linked to brutality and inhumanity in the Holocaust. That is because they legitimized such notions. Moral and political ambiguity was not limited to Eugenies and social reform movements, but extended to German anthropologists, who are a critical component of our study, due to their legitimization of racial science on the basis of Darwinism. In his study of German anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Andrew Zimmerman explained the "more dangerous and contradictory potentialities" inherent in this system. It does not matter how twisted the road was between Darwinism and Nazism, Darwinism and Eugeneism paved the way for Nazi ideologies, especially for Nazism's focus on expansionism, racial conflict, and racial liquidation. One’s view of the straightness or twisting of the road between Darwinism and Nazism depends on the angles from which Nazism is viewed. Social Darwinism is only a component of Nazi thought, even if it is the central component. Some Jews were fierce Darwinists, some were Eugenia, and a few would appear on the pages of this work.14 Other aspects of Hitler's world view and political practice have nothing to do with Darwinism; for example, dictatorship. But if we focus on morality, the value of human life, and race – as I will over the next few pages – the historical link is clear. After her comprehensive exposition of the Darwinian roots of Eugenia, Sheila Faith Weiss was right when she said: "Finally, one can add, classifying people as 'valuable' and 'valuable', and considering them merely as modifiable variables to reach 'higher results', just as Chalmeier and all German Eugenies did, was only a view which led after many roles and stages to the emergence of bonded labor and death camps in Auschwitz." Let us then briefly explore the links between Darwinism and Hitler before moving on to another topic. First, it is important to understand that Hitler’s views on values and morality, although some of his positions appear conservative or reactionary, are by no means so. For example, some scholars emphasize that Hitler’s rejection of feminism and abortion illustrates the backwardness of Hitler’s ideas. However, as Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann show in their books (Germany: The Ethnic State 1933-1945), Nazi ideology cannot be simply classified, because Hitler opposed feminism and abortion with a completely different background than traditional conservatives. He believed that feminism and abortion were biologically harmful, and therefore anti-scientific (and only anti-Aryan). Although some of his policies were aligned with conservatives, he saw himself as a revolutionary who would bring progress and development to Germany and the world. Burley was right when he stated that Nazism was "a dystopian attempt to make new men and women by erasing or changing their inherited moral values into those derived from an updated and scientific version of pre-Jewish and Christian values. In other words, it is a transference of primitive and ancient civilizations through the prism of Darwin and Nietzsche."18 Hitler's view of morality can be summarized in the following quotation: "Ethical idealism demands us to put our whole life at its service, while racial idealism is what enables us to see by its rules. Every moment of action or moment of emptiness we must ask ourselves? Does this serve our race? Then we make our decision accordingly." Hitler or one of his entourage did not write these words. One of the fundamental components of the Nazi worldview is human inequality, where the value of human beings varies based on their biological traits. In his book Mein Kampf Hitler expressed these ideas repeatedly, when he outlined his worldview: “I do not believe in the equality of the races, but in their differences besides their highest or lowest value, and therefore this knowledge, according to the eternal will that governs this universe, is obliged to help the best and the strongest to triumph, and to surrender the worst and the weakest. I thus adopt in principle the aristocratic law of nature and believe in the validity of this law over all to the last being. I will explain this phrase in detail later (in Chapter 11), but I will now simply say that Hitler believed that these biologically unequal individuals, like all beings, were locked in an eternal Darwinian struggle to survive, where forces triumphed and remained, and the weakest were defeated and faded. There was a proliferation of Darwinian terms and expressions in Hitler’s speeches, and as far as I know, no one questioned what many scientists had asserted about Hitler’s being a social Darwinist. This is too obvious to be denied. 21 In order to save Darwinian science from Nazi pollution, some historians assert that Hitler's views were unscientific or anomalous, or refer to his view of Darwinism as crude and vulgar. For example, Brigitte Hamn wrote in her remarkable book, Hitler's Vienna: "Most of Hitler's favorite theories are not compatible with academic science, but they were the result of self-treatment of the ideas of certain scientists who despised highly regarded scientists, who were dismissive of them. On the contrary, recent studies of Nazi science (especially those of biology, medical science, and eugenia) have shown that mainstream scientists, professors, and physicians, including those on the political left, hold similar views of Darwinism and eugenia to those of Hitler. 23 Frits-Lents was not the only scientist to observe a harmony between his ideas and Nazism. My study will show that much of Hitler’s ideas were derived primarily from significant scholars and professors who were confronted with the influence of Darwinism on the moral system and society (although Hitler later drank the effects of Darwinism through a second or third medium). They go beyond them to professors of philosophy, economics and geography. Even Hitler's social Darwinist views on racial extremism were the same as those of prominent Darwinian social scientists and thinkers, but often without reference to Jews. As many Darwinist biologists and social theorists have shown, racial discrimination is inevitable, as well as beneficial, because it brings about the evolutionary progress of the species itself.24 Oscar Peschel, a prominent Darwinian ethnologist and editor of the journal Das Auslande, explains: "All that we really consider to be individuals must be vacated in favor of, if not in accordance with, the immediate requirements of human society. Thus, the extinction of the Tasmanian wolves must be seen as a fossil geological destiny; where the stronger species have replaced the weaker species. This extinction is sad in itself, but even more sad is that the natural order of the world crushes morality beneath it in every confrontation between them."[25] Bischl wants us to believe that nature trumps morality every time. Science teaches us to give in to the fact that there are no human rights in this world, not even the right to life. I will discuss Hitler further in chapter 11, where I will show how Hitler relied on a generous stock of Darwinian ideas to establish his own racist philosophy. What really interested me in this work was not Hitler but Darwinism, and especially Darwinism’s effects on the moral system, as well as on our understanding of life and death. When I use Darwinism in this paper, I mean evolution through natural selection, as Darwin introduced it in The Origin of Species. In the late 19th century, the term Darwinism was often used loosely. Sometimes it refers to the idea of evolution in general, sometimes it refers to the theory of natural selection (as I use it here), and sometimes it refers to the naturalistic view of the world at the heart of which biological evolution is found. Many biologists adopted Lamarck's now-defunct idea that an organism passes on acquired traits to its offspring. Although Lamarck's explanation was not contrary to Darwin's idea of natural selection (even Darwin himself before Lamarckism), most German biologists of the 19th century followed the views of a structure that led to the combination of Darwinism and Darwinism. I would also like to make it clear from the beginning that this study is historical. When I link Darwinism, German Darwinists, Eugenies, racial theorists, and the military, this does not mean that I acknowledge their logic, I leave the reader to decide the logic of their situation. I also do not hold the absurd claim that Darwinism leads to Nazism directly or indirectly. Second, I would like to emphasize that I was limited to the discussion of the influence of Darwinism on the moral side and social thought, especially the ideas that are now called bioethics. I will focus mainly on the influence of Darwinism on both Euthanasia, racial theory, and militarism in Germany. While these principles are fundamental to Nazi thought, this does not mean that we have to call the holders of these ideas in a more peaceful way than the Nazis did. Another reason why Darwinism’s undervaluing of life as an introduction to Nazism is not to be taken for granted is that similar ideas have been circulating in the United States, Britain, and other democracies. Ian Dowbiggen and Nick Kemp, in their good study of the history of the euthanasia movement in the United States and Britain, argued that Darwinism must have played a pivotal role in laying the groundwork for the euthanasia movement. Numerous studies of the Eugenie movement in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere have shown the importance of Darwinism in serving as a mediator for the shift toward Eugenie and other ideas, including biological determinism, inequality, scientific racism, and the undervaluing of human life.[28] These ideas are expressed by Madison Grant, president of the Zoological Society of New York; in The Passing of the Great Race, 1916. Grant wrote: "The wrong view of what we believe to be divine law or an emotional belief in the sanctity of human life is why the elimination of corrupt children and the sterilization of adults of no value in society is forbidden. The laws of nature require the extermination of unsuitable elements, and human life has no value if it is of no benefit to society or to race."[29] As Stefan K-hl has explicitly explained, the many links between the American Eugenie movement and the Nazi-Eugenie program have been forged by Germany.[30] The theory of evolution in general and Darwinism in particular had an enormous impact on German thought. Darwin wrote to Wilhelm Preyer in 1868: "The support I receive from Germany is the origin on which my hope is based that one day our ideas will prevail."[31] Indeed, in the 1960s and 1970s In the 19th century, many young German scientists began to promote Darwinism, while prominent biologists and others, such as the famous theologian David Friedrich Strauss and the new Kantian philosopher Friedrich Albert Lang, turned to Darwinism to support their political theories. By the 19th century, many biologists and social theorists tried to apply the Darwinian struggle for survival to human societies, and Ludwig Wolttmann, who had criticized these attempts at one point in his life, began referring to them as all social Darwinists. The influence of Darwinism is not only measured by the flow of books and articles discussing the social and ethical applications of Darwinism in the late 19th century in Germany, Austria and Switzerland alone (so when I refer generally to German-speaking countries I mention only Germany for short), but it is also commonly found in biographical accounts. Richard Goldschmidt, one of the leading naturalists of the 20th century, has shown sympathy for Darwin's literary age in his youth. "With a glowing eye and a spirit and a spirit. All the problems of the universe seemed to be solved simply and with conviction, there was only one key to answering all the questions that worried the little mind. The theory of evolution was the answer to everything, and it could take the place of all the beliefs that I discarded. There is no creation, no creator, no heaven, no fire, only evolution and that wonderful law called the theory of summary, which proves the theory of evolution of the strongest believers in creation. Goldschmidt argues that his experience of embracing the Darwinian view of the world (in the structural way) was typical of the younger educated of his time, and is borne out by the abundant testimonies of his contemporaries. In 1921, the physiologist Max Verhorn said: "One can say without exaggeration, that no world has had as much influence on the development of our contemporary view of the world as Heikal did."[35] Ernest Heikal, the most famous Darwinist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, enthusiastically embraced Darwin's theory of natural selection and applied the struggle for survival to humans in numerous writings.[36] He believed that the most important aspect of Darwinism was man's descent from animal ancestors, which would "bring a complete revolution in man's view of the whole world." The famous physicist Ludwig Buchner, one of the most important and famous promoters of Darwinism in Germany, agrees. He wrote to the anthropologist Hermann Schaffhausen who discovered the Neanderthal fossil: "With the emergence of the new concept of life (Darwinism), I believe that one of the greatest transformations and developments in human knowledge that has passed on to man will emerge... At the same time our philosophy will become unexpectedly clear and simple." For them, Darwinism is a fundamental component of a new intellectual trend about a world that was previously locked into the ideas of traditional Christianity or any religion or dualist philosophy. A professor of social medicine at the University of Berlin (Alfred Grotjahn) and one of the leaders of the symbols of the Eugenie movement, he remembers with passion his reading of the book Matter and Power. “Like hundreds of thousands of young people,” says Grotien, “Darwinism has descended into my thought and cleansed it of occult concepts at a crucial age in the development of my opinion of the world and freed me to receive positive views of the moral values of this world.”41 Many German scientists and intellectuals have admitted similar confessions when confronted with the famous Darwinian writings, especially those of Heikal and Poincher, which were crucial in shaping their vision of the world.42 While Buchner defended materialism, in which the mind is merely an instrument of matter, the structure of his philosophy called naturalistic phenomena, in which he saw matter and the mind as intricately united. When the structure of even non-living materials and single-celled organisms had psychological properties. Sometimes the structure of his doctrine was called pantheism, which he regarded as synonymous with monism. However different the structure of Bouchner, Carner and other Darwinists, they all agreed that natural processes could explain all aspects of human society and the behavior of its members, including morality. They rejected any possibility of divine intervention, ridiculed the dualism of mind and body, and rejected free will in favor of absolute algebra. For them, any phenomenon of the universe, including human thought, society and ethics, could be explained by a natural reason and an effect. Most, if not all, of the thinkers I'm going to address in this book have embraced Darwin's naturalistic view of the world. Of course, there are many of their contemporaries who have accepted the evolutionary validity of biological processes, but have rejected any influence of Darwinism on religion, morality, and social thought. German theologians drew an explicit dividing line between God and nature, due to the influence of irreligious Darwinism and in response to the emergence of the Biblical criticism movement they espoused, and while the latter belonged to the scientific field, the former belonged to theology. This made religious science immune to the onslaught of science (but also less relevant to the real world).[44] Most German philosophers and many social scientists confronted the onslaught of science on their field in the same way, adopting Wilhelm Dielthey's method of distinguishing between the natural sciences and the humanities. Diltai and his followers strongly refused to apply scientific methods to the social sciences. Moore) argued that any attempt to extract morality from nature is a perpetration of the "naturalist fallacy."45 Despite these resistances to Darwinism's naturalistic view of the world, many, especially scientists and doctors, have embraced it with enthusiasm. So it's natural Darwinists who have tried to apply biological evolution to morality, not those who reject its applicability, and we're going to address them in this work. So the question arises: Are the cultural developments I am drawing up in this work the result of something particularly Darwinian? Or does it stem from a naturalistic view of the world (both material and monistic)? This question is difficult given the enormous complexity of the historical links between Darwinism and naturalism. These evidences can be presented as follows: (1) The naturalist appeared before Darwin published his theory (in Germany the three leading materialists Ludwig Buncher, Karl Vogt, and Jacob Molchot published most of their work in the 15th century). (2) The order that most Darwinists embraced it after they were naturalists. (3) Many have embraced Darwinism without naturalism (e.g., followers of New Kantianism, Christian clergy). While these indications suggest that there is no need for a relationship between Darwinism and materialism or between it and monism (one of which can substitute for the other in its absence), strong historical ties between Darwinism and naturalism emerged in the late 19th century in Germany. Those factors that link the two include: (1) Most materialists and monotheists have embraced Darwinism enthusiastically and argued that it supports their materialistic or monotheistic ideas. (2) Many have stated that Darwinism was the primary factor in their conversion to materialism or monotheism. (3) Darwinist biologists and moral philosophers explicitly argue that Darwinism contains an algebraic philosophy and thus a materialistic view of the mind. The historical picture was further clouded by the fact that some important voices in the diffusion of Darwinism argued that they not only propagated biological theory but also sought to spread Darwinian thought in general. Although they held their own views prior to their adoption of Darwinism, it was appropriate to call Darwinism’s endorsement of their theories. Despite the strong links between Darwinism and naturalism, it is still appropriate to return to the question: Which has directly affected ethics and the value system; Darwinism or naturalism? Some of the ideas about ethics that I discuss are Darwinian in particular, bringing the elements of biological theory as justification... Some of them do not seem to have Darwinian implications but are based on general naturalistic principles. Because Darwinism penetrated the Eugenie movement in its infancy, a number of prominent Eugenies will be presented in this study. It is not only that many prominent Darwinians embrace Eugenie, but that most Eugenies – indeed, all of their advanced leaders – regard Eugenie as a clear application of the principles of Darwinism to morality and society. Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin and the founder of modern eugenics, developed his idea while reading The Origin of Species, and German eugenic leaders also relied heavily on the principles of Darwinism. Alfred Politz, founder of the German Society for Racial Health, the world's first Eugene body, and one of the scientific publications devoted to Eugene, was heavily influenced by a young structure. He told a friend in 1892 that his basic ideas about Eugenia were derived from Darwinism, and he was always praising Heikal as the main influence on his ideas. 48 He also told Heikal that his scientific periodicity: will stand by Darwinism." which was evident from the declaration he sent to potential participants, and which was imbued with Darwinian terminology. 49 Moreover, one editor with him was Ludwig Plate, a Darwinian zoologist who replaced Hulk upon his retirement at his professorship at the University of Jena. It is not surprising, then, that Plots employed Germany’s two leading Darwinian leaders Hulk and Wittesmann as honorary members of the Racial Health Society he founded in 1905. The first Krupp Prize competition, which was held in 1900 and lasted until 1903, clearly illustrates the strong link between Darwinism and Eugenia. The industrialist Friedrich Krupp and an ardent amateur naturalist funded a prize for the best answer the size of a book on the question: "What do we learn from the principles of biological evolution with regard to the development of domestic policy and state legislation?" Acquiring that 10,000-dollar prize at the time was Wilhelm Schallmayer's confession of his 1903 book Inheritance and Selection, an expansion of his earlier Eugenie pamphlet The Threat of the Physical Decline of Civilized Peoples (1891). In fact, Eugenie was trying to develop a "scientific ethic" ostensibly based on Darwinian theory. In the introduction to his award-winning book, Chalmaier wrote: "This (Darwinian) view has a strong influence on ethics. Not only does it produce new views about the origin and evolution of moral orders and thus a new beginning for them, but it leads to a demand for a partial change in the moral views prevalent in the present." How did Darwinism affect moral thought? First, Darwin showed that free and realistic philosophies were more respectfully opposed to the appearance of morals by offering non-religious explanations. Before Darwin, some moral theories had been rejected or ignored of the religious origin of morality (e.g., Pantham’s utilitarian views), but no one could explain the existence of a moral disposition or conscience, or even explain why humans act altruistically. Most Darwinists interpret morality as a product of nature, as perpetually evolving as all manifestations of nature. Morality was not carved on stone slabs, but set on the ever-changing sands of time. III; Darwinism gave rise to the view that man's virtues are innate or at least based on an innate aspect rather than a divine gift (as Christianity says) or a logical process (as Kant says). Fourth, both natural selection and the struggle for survival have influenced people's view of morality. In his study of social Darwinism, Hans Joachim Koch said, "The concept of natural selection has a greater influence on the contemporaries of Darwinism than the idea of evolution; natural selection ... calls the question of the validity of present moral principles in all aspects of life, whether social, economic or political."[54] Finally; The concept of Darwinism is different from human nature and the value of life, which has a far-reaching moral (political and social) impact. So let’s examine this last point in more depth; what is there in Darwinism that makes a major change to the view of the value of life? First, Darwinism includes the idea that man emerged from the animal, and many have interpreted this to mean that man does not have the special status indicated by Jewish and Christian culture. Instead of being created in the image of God and being generous in origin, man evolved from a monkey. To explain the evolution of the mind and human traits about the animal, Darwin and most Darwinians rejected the idea that the soul is eternal and immaterial (the central idea in both Jewish and Christian culture that is inherent to the sanctity of life). Second, Darwinism emphasized diversity within species, suggesting biological inequality. By applying this to humans, many Darwinian biologists, anthropologists, and social thinkers have been used to justify social and racial inequality. Third, natural selection and the struggle for survival in Darwin’s theory were based on the principle of Malthus population, and he pointed out that death without natural descendants in organic life, and therefore the death of a number of (invalid) beings is beneficial and an incubator for progress. Traditionally, Europeans’ view of death was an evil to be overcome, not a useful force. Darwin’s theory then raises several key themes that intersect with traditional religious teachings, including the origin of morality, the formation of a value system, and the meaning of life and death. Many recent studies of clergymen’s reception of Darwin’s theory have focused on the question of adaptation, with many Christian clergy and monks, including conservatives, willing to embrace some form of evolutionary theory. As Detlev Peukert observed, for many German learners in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they replaced religion with science as "a mythological source of meaning". In the first three chapters of the book, we will examine the ways in which Darwinism has attempted to explain ethics and the value system in general. Then we will turn to the most specific moral value, the value of life, to look at how Darwinism has reduced the value of life, especially for the disabled and non-Europeans. 1. Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin, November 24, 1859 [in some works this letter is misdated as December 24, 1859], in The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 7: 1858-1859 (Cambridge, 1991), 397. I have added punctuation to the original. 2. Rudolf Schmid, Die Darwinischen Theorien (Stuttgart, 1876), 3. 3. Robby Kossmann, "Die Bedeutung des Einzellebens in der Darwinistischen Weltanschauung," Nord und Süd 12 (1880): 420-1. Emphasis is mine. 4. The Haeckel-to-Hitler (and Haeckel-to-Fascism) thesis is pursued relentlessly by Daniel Gasman in The Scientific Origins of National Socialism (London, 1971), and Haeckel's Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology (New York, 1998). Gasman's work is not highly regarded by most historians, and with good cause. However, other scholars have linked social Darwinism to Hitler in a more rea¬sonable fashion: Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought (Cambridge, 1997), ch. 11; Richard J. Evans, "In Search of German Social Darwinism: The History and Historiography of a Concept," in Medicine and Modernity (Washington, 1997), 55-79; Peter Emil Becker, Wege ins Dritte Reich, (vol. 1: Zur Geschichte der Rassenhygiene; vol. 2: Sozialdarwinismus, Rassismus, Antisemitismus und volkischer Gedanke) (Stuttgart, 1988-90); Jürgen Sandmann, "Ansätze einer biologistischen Ethik bei Ernst Haeckel und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Ideologie des Nationalsozialismus," in Heilen¬Verwahren—Vernichten, ed. G. Wahl and W. Schmitt (Reichenbach, 1997), 83-92; Jürgen Sandmann, Der Bruch mit der humanitären Tradition (Stuttgart, 1990); Günter Altner, Weltanschauliche Hintergründe (Zürich, 1968), chs. 1-2; Mario di Gregorio, "Entre Mephistophdks et Luther: Ernst Haeckel et la reforme de l'univers," in Darwinisme et Sociiti, ed. Patrick Tort (Paris, 1992), 237-83; C. Vogel, "Rassenhygiene—Rassenideologie—Sozialdarwinismus: die Wurzeln des Holocaust," in Dienstbare Medizin (Göttingen, 1992), 11-31; Gerhard Baader, "Sozialdarwinismus—Vernichtungsstrategien im Vorfeld des Nationalsozialismus," in "Bis endlich der langersehnte Umschwung kam . . ." (Marburg, 1991), 21-35. 5. Hans-Günter Zmarzlik, "Social Darwinism in Germany, Seen as a Historical Problem," in Republic to Reich: The Making of the Nazi Revolution, ed. Hajo Holborn, trans. Ralph Manheim (New York, 1972), 466; Peter Weingart, Jürgen Kroll, and Kurt Bayertz make very similar statements about Darwinism and ethics in Rasse, Blut, und Gene (Frankfurt, 1988), 16-18. 6. Evans, "In Search of German Social Darwinism," 55-79. The revisionist receiving mach of his criticism is Alfred Kelly, The Descent of Darwin (Chapel Hill, 1981). 7. Marx to Engels, December 19, 1860, in Marx—Engels Werke (Berlin, 1959 ff.), XXX: 131. For more on the socialist reception of Darwinism in Germany, see Richard Weikart, Socialist Darwinism (San Francisco, 1999); Kelly, Descent of Darwin, ch. 7; Ted Benton, "Social Darwinism and Socialist Darwinism in Germany: 1860 to 1900," Rivista di filosofia 73 (1982): 79-121; Kurt Bayertz, "Naturwissenschaft und Sozialismus. Tendenzen der Naturwissenschaft-Rezeption in der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung des 19. Jahrhundert," Social Studier of Science 13 (1983): 355-94; Hans-Josef Steinberg, Sozialismus und deutsche Sozialdemokratie (Hanover, 1967), ch. 3. 8. Atina Grossmann, Reforming Sex (New York, 1995), vii. On the German social¬ists' receptivity to eugenics, see Michael Schwartz, Sozialistische Eugenik (Bonn, 1995); and Doris Byer, Rassenhygiene und Wohlfahrtspflege (Frankfurt, 1988). 9. Steven E. Aschheim, In Times of Crisis (Madison, 2001), 111. 10. Kevin Repp, Reformers, Critics, and the Paths of German Moderne, 1890-1914 (Cambridge, MA, 2000), 322; Paul Weindling also shows the ambiguities of eugenics, which promoted social reform, but also increased the authoritarian social control of health professionals, laying the groundwork for Nazi health measures; see Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics (Cambridge, 1989). Richard F. Wetzell shows similar ambiguities among criminologists in Inventing the Criminal (Chapel Hill, 2000). 11. Repp, Reformers, 130. Geoff Eley makes a similar point in the introduction to Society, Culture, and the State in Germanys 1870-1930, ed. Geoff Eley (Ann Arbor, 1996), 14. 12. Andrew Zimmerman, Anthropology and Antihumanism in Imperial Germany (Chicago, 2001), 10-11, 242-5; see also Pascal Grosse, Kolonialismus, Eugenik und Bürgerliche Gesellschaft in Deutschland, 1850-1918 (Frankfurt, 2000), who shows how eugenicists' influence on colonial policy linked to the rise of the Nazi racial state (though he denies it is a straight line from one to the other). 13. Heinz-Georg Marten does, however, trace the some connections between Social Darwinism, racism, and anti-Semitism in "Racism, Social Darwinism, Anti-Semitism and Aryan Supremacy," International Journal of the History of Sport 16, 2 (1999): 23-41. 14. For more on Jews' involvement in race science, see John Efron, Defenders of the Race (New Haven, 1994). 15. Sheila Faith Weiss, Race Hygiene and National Efficiency (Berkeley, 1987), 158; see also Weiss, "The Race Hygiene Movement in Germany" Osiris, 2nd series, 3 (1987): 236; Detlev Peukert, "The Genesis of the 'Final Solution' from the Spirit of Science," in Reevaluating the Third Reich, ed. Thomas Childers and Jane Caplan (New York, 1993); Christian Pross and Götz Aly, eds., Der Wert des Menschen (Berlin, 1989); Weingart et al., Rasse, Blut, und Gene. 16. Renate Bridenthal et al., eds., When Biology Became Destiny: Wanzen in Weimar and Nazi Germany (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1984). 17. Many scholars discuss the complex issue of Nazism and modernity, but see especially Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann, The Racial State: German» 1933-1945 (Cambridge, 1991); Norbert Frei, "Wie modern war der Nationalsozialismus," Geschichte und Gesellschaft 19 (1993): 367-87; Jeffrey Herf, Reactionary Modernism (Cambridge, 1984); Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989); Michael Prinz and Rainer Zitelmann, eds., Nationalsozialismus und Modernisierung (Darmstadt, 1991); Richard Rubenstein, "Modernization and the Politics of Extermination," in A Mosaic of Victims, ed. Michael Berenbaum (New York, 1990), 3-19; and Rainer Zitelmann, Hitler: Selbstverständnis eines Revolutionärs (Hamburg, 1987). Mitchell G. Ash, Gestalt Psychology in German Culture, 1880-1967, Holism and the Qauest for Objectivity (Cambridge, 1995), and Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler (Princeton, 1996), both show that scientific thought in early-twentieth-century Germany contained ambiguities in relation to modernity and rationalism. 18. Michael Burleigh, "The Legacy of Nazi Medicine in Context," in Medicine and Medical Ethics in Nazi Germany, ed. Francis Nicosia and Jonathan Huener (New York, 2002), 119. 19. Fritz Lenz, Die Rasse als Wertprinzip, Zur Erneuerung der Ethik (Munich, 1933), 39, 7. 20. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 2 vols. in 1 (Munich, 1943), 420-1. Emphasis is mine. 21. lan Kershaw in his magisterial biography of Hitler repeatedly mentions social Darwinism as a key component of Hitler's world view; see Hitler, 2 vols. (New York, 1998-2000), 1:78, 134-7, 290; 2:19, 208, 405, 780; Eberhard Jäckel also sees the Darwinian racial struKle as an important part of Hitler's ideology in Hitler's Weltanschauung (Middleton, CN, 1972), ch. 5; Brigitte Hamann discusses Darwinian racial thought in Hitler's Viennese milieu in Hitler's Vienna (New York, 1999), 82, 84, 102, 202-3. See also Burleigh and Wippermann, The Racial State, ch. 2. 22. Hamann, Hitler's Vienna, 233; Joachim Fest, Hitler, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (New York, 1974), 54, likewise calls Hitler's social Darwinism pseudoscientific. Gasman in Scientific Origins and Haeckel's Monism makes a similar move by distancing Haeckel from Darwin (and by wrongly portraying Haeckel's philosophy as mystical and vitalistic). 23. For example, Robert Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge, 1988); Ute Deichmann, Biologists under Hitler (Cambridge, MA, 1996); Benno Müller-Hill, Murderous Science (Oxford, 1988). Michael Burleigh shows an awareness of this problem when he recently stated that "we may be overstating Nazism as an aberrant branch of the scientific imagination, thereby overlooking the extent to which even the scientists were informed by what might be described as historical fantasizing" (Burleigh, "The Legacy of Nazi Medicine in Context," 119). 24. Richard Weikart, "Progress through Racial Extermination: Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and Pacifism, 1860-1918," German Studies Review 26 (2003): 273-94. 25. Quoted in Friedrich Hellwald, Naturgeschichte des Menschen, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 1880), 1:66. 26. Ian Dowbiggin, A Mercifid End (Oxford, 2003), 8. 27. N. D. A. Kemp, "Mercifid Release" (Manchester, 2002), 19. 28. Greta Jones, Social Darwinism and English Thought (Sussex, 1980); Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought; Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics (Berkeley, 1985); Diane B. Paul, Controlling Human Heredity, 1865 to the Present (Atlantic Highlands, NJ, 1995); Gunnar Broberg, and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State (East Lansing, MI, 1996); Nancy Stepan, "The Hour of Eugenies", Race, Gender and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca, NY, 1991); William H. Schneider, Quality and Quante (Cambridge, 1990); Frank Dikötter, Imperfect Conceptions (New York, 1998). 29. Quoted in Paul, Controlling Human Heredity, 17 ; Phillip Gassert and Daniel S. Mattem, eds. The Hitler Library: A Bibliography (Westport, CT, 2001). 30. Stefan Kühl, The Nazi Connection (Oxford, 1994). 31. The Lift and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (New York, 1919), 2:270. 32. David Friedrich Strauss, Der alte und der neue Glaube (Leipzig, 1872); Friedrich Albert Lange, Die Arbeiterfrage in ihrer Bedeutungftir Gegenwart und Zukunft (Duisburg, 1865; rprt. Duisburg, 1975). 33. Ludwig Woltmann, Die Darwinsche Theorie und der Sozialismus (Düsseldorf, 1899). For a more precise definition of social Darwinism, see Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, ch. 1. For a more restricted definition, see Kurt Bayertz, "Darwinismus als Politik: Zur Genese des Sozialdarwinismus in Deutschland 1860-1900," in Welträtsel und Lebenswunder (Linz, 1998), 241. 34. Richard Goldschmidt, Portraits ftom Memo?), (Seattle, 1956), 34. 35. Quoted in Jürgen Sandmann, "Ernst Haeckels Entwicklungslehre als Teil seiner biologistischen Weltanschauung," in Die Rezeption von Evolutionstheorien im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Eve-Marie Engels (Frankfurt, 1995), 330. 36. Ernst Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte (Berlin, 1868), 16, 125-8, 206; some scholars wrongly claim that because Haeckel was a Lamarckian, he rejected natural selection-see Peter Bowler, The Non-Darwinian Revolution (Baltimore, 1988), 83; and Britta Rupp-Eisenreich, "Le darwinisme social en Allemagne," in Darwinisme et Sociitd, ed. Patrick Tort (Paris, 1992), 169-236. Probably the most balanced portrait of Haeckel is Erika Krausse, Ernst Haeckel, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1984). 37. Haeckel, Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 5, quote at 487. 38. Ernst Haeckel to Charles Darwin, February 9, 1879, in Georg Uschmann, Ernst Haeckel Biographie in Briefen (Gütersloh, 1983), 156. 39. For one example, see Haeckel, Die Welträthsel, Volksausgabe (Bonn, 1903), 11. 40. Ludwig Büchner to Hermann Schaffhausen, July 11, 1863, in Autographen, S 2620a, Handschriftenabteilung, University of Bonn Library; see also Büchner, Der Mensch und seine Stellung, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1872), 5-6. 41. Alfred Grotjahn, Erlebtes und Erstrebtes (Berlin, 1932), 44. 42. Heinrich Schmidt, ed., Was wir Ernst Haeckel verdanken, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1914); Kelly, Descent of Darwin. 43. Ernst Haeckel, Der Monismus als Band zwischen Religion und Wissenschaft (Bonn, 1892), 10; Haeckel, Die Welträthsel, 116-17. Gasman incorrectly inter¬prets Haeckel's pantheism as mystical in Scientific Origins of National Socialism, xiii–xiv; and Haeckel's Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology, 15, 34. Niles Holt also stresses Haeckel's pantheistic side in "Ernst Haeckel's Monistic Religion," Journal of the History ofldeas 32 (1971): 265-80. Gasman's Position is odd, since Haeckel devoted an entire speech to the annual Monist Congress in 1913 to voice his antipathy to mysticism—see Ernst Haeckel, "Monismus und Mystik," in Der Düsseldorfer Monistentag, ed. Wilhelm Blossfeldt (Leipzig, 1914), 93-8. Jürgen Sandmann not only interprets Haeckel's monism as essen¬tially materialistic, but notes that almost all the secondary literature follows this line—see Sandmann, Der Bruch mit der humanitären Tradition, 52, 60-1. An excellent discussion of the tension in Haeckel's thought between materialism and pantheism is 0. Breidbach, "Monismus um 1900—Wissenschaftspraxis oder Weltanschauung?" in Welträtsel und Lebenswunder: Ernst Haeckel—Werk, Wirkung, und Folgen, ed. Erna Aescht et al. (Linz, 1998), 289-316. For further discussion of this issue, see Richard Weikart, " 'Evolutionäre Aufklärung'? Zur Geschichte des Monistenbundes," in Wissenschaft, Politik, und Öffentlichkeit, ed. Mitchell G. Ash and Christian H. Stifter (Vienna, 2002), 131-48. 44. Frederick Gregory, Nature Lost? Natural Science and the German Theological Traditions of the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992). 45. On Dilthey, see Rudolf A. Makkreel, Dilthey: Philosopher of the Human Studies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992); on neo-Kantianism, see Klaus Christian Köhnke, The Rise of Neo-Kantianism (Cambridge, 1991). 46. Annette Wittkau-Horgby, Materialismus (Göttingen, 1998), chs. 7-8, concurs with my view. 47. Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics; Weingart et al., Rasse, Blut, und Gene.; Paul, Controlling Human Heredity, ch. 2; Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics; Becker, Wege ins Dritte Reich. 48. Alfred Ploetz to Carl Hauptmann, January 14, 1892, in Carl Hauptmann papers, K 121, Akademie der Künste Archives, Berlin; Alfred Ploetz to Ernst Haeckel, April 18, 1902, in Ernst Haeckel papers, Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Jena; for more on Ploetz, see W. Doeleke, "Alfred Ploetz (1860-1940): Sozialdarwinist und Gesellschaftsbiologe," dissertation, University of Frankfurt, 1975. 49. Alfred Ploetz to Ernst Haeckel, October 19, 1903, in Alfred Ploetz papers, pri¬vately held by Wilfried Ploetz, Herrsching am Ammersee; "Aufforderung zum Abonnement. Archiv für Rassen- und Gesellschafts-Biologie," August 1903, in Felix von Luschan papers (among Alfred Ploetz's letters), in Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. 50. Heinrich Ernst Ziegler, "Einleitung zu dem Sammelwerke Natur und Staat," in Natur und Staat, vol. 1 (bound with Heinrich Matzat, Philosophie der Anpassung) (Jena, 1903), 1-2; Klaus-Dieter Thomann and Werner Friedrich Kümmel, "Naturwissenschaft, Kapital und Weltanschauung: Das Kruppsche Preisausschreiben und der Sozialdarwinismus," Medizinhistorisches Journal 30 (1995): 99-143, 205-43. Sheila Faith Weiss provides a good discussion of the Krupp Prize competition in Race Hygiene and National Efficiency, 64-74. 51. Wilhelm Schallmayer, Vererbung und Auslese ( Jena, 1903), ix–x. 52. Wilhelm Schallmayer to Alfred Grotjahn, June 3, 1910, in Alfred Grotjahn papers, Humboldt University Archives, Berlin; Schallmayer makes a similar claim in "Rassedienst," Sexual-Probleme 7 (1911): 547. 53. Schallmayer, Vererbung und Auslese, ix–x; see also Schallmayer, Beiträge zu einer Nationalbiologie (Jena, 1905), 124. 54. Hannsjoachim W. Koch, Der Sozialdarwinismus Denken (Munich, 1973), 64. 55. For a good philosophical discussion of the implications of body–soul dualism for biomedical ethics, see J. P. Moreland and Scort Rae, Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove, IL, 2000). 56. Darwin, The Origin of Species (London: Penguin, 1968), 459. 57. Works stressing accommodationism include David N. Livingstone, Darwin's Forgotten Defenders (Grand Rapids, 1987); James R. Moore, The Post¬Darwinian Controversies (Cambridge, 1979); while rejecting the warfare thesis, some scholars rightly caution against overreacting—see John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge, 1991); Holmes Rolston III, Science and Religion: A Critical Survey (Philadelphia, 1987); David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers, eds., God and Nature (Berkeley, 1986); David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, and Mark A. Noll, eds., Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective (New York, 1999). 58. Peukert, "The Genesis of the 'Final Solution' from the Spirit of Science," 240, 247. - Dr. Richard Waikart. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published on 2019-01-17 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/publications/intros/من-داروين-إلى-هتلر-الأخلاق-التطورية-واليوجينيا-والعنصرية-في-ألمانيا-مقدمة-المؤلف