On the metaphysical/transcendental side of things: it is apparent that Darwin’s world was that of the Victorian gentleman-naturalist seeing subtle small adaptations in orchids or barnacles, not that of someone prone to ex cathedra statements about the universe or meaning of life. (Darwin was only obliquely interested in phylogeny per se: the Origin is much more about how organisms evolve by adaptation (natural selection) than speculation about long-term evolution, ‘from Monad to Man’.) In short, an interesting book but one to be read critically alongside other Darwinalia, lest the unitiated take on board too much. A final thought: Darwin seems to have finally lost any faith when his beloved daughter Annie died aged 10. There are opportunities to draw parallels with Haeckel’s own ‘tragic’ loss, which Richards choses not to take. I think this analysis would have been illuminating as to what made the two men tick.

I’ve read many passages from Haeckel myself, and he is clearly a fanatical eugenicist with quite sinister social views that have totalitarian implications. In contrast, despite some then-commonplace bigoted beliefs Darwin was a humanitarian and liberal by the standards of his time.

So the mystery is this: Why the effort to rehabilitate Haeckel through the revision of his character and legacy? Richards is not the only one. My hunch is that people do not want an intellectual ancestor whom they are ashamed of. Haeckel was a major figure in ecology, devolopmental biology, and evo-devo. So there are two choices: reject the ancestor, or revise his legacy.

However,as important as these individuals are for the development of National Socialist ideology, it was Haeckel and the Monist movement he created that spelled out an ideological program that was closest to that of Nazism. This is seen in the Monist journals and in the writings of the Monists, the content of which I have detailed in my two books on Haeckel and the origins of Fascist ideology. I would especially urge Colugo to read carefully the Campagne nationaliste [1903] of Jules Soury who was a close follower of Haeckel and a translator into French of some of Haeckel’s major writings. The Campagne nationaliste is an avant-garde version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf and shows how Haeckel’s closest followers understood the Nazi-like content and meaning of Haeckel’s Monism and what its social and political implications were. To this end I would also recommend that he read the articles I have written in response to Robert Richards’ defense of Haeckel. These are available on the website of the Institute for the Academic Study of Racism — Ferris.edu/ISAR/Gasman Controversy. ISAR under the direction of Professor Barry Mehler, had the courage to publish my writings and to buck the resistance of MIT Press and their journal, Biological Theory, edited by Werner Callebaut, which turned down my request to be able to respond to an article by Richards that introduced the theme of his then forthcoming biography of Haeckel and which attempted to discredit my writings on Haeckel and to whitewash Haeckel’s anti-Semitism.

As for a weighing of the comparative racist sentiments of Darwin and Haeckel I leave the task to Colugo. What is more important is that in the end Darwin did not elaborate a proto-Nazi ideology or a metaphysics of National Socialism as Haeckel did, and unlike Haeckel had little or nothing to do with the actual creation of Fascist ideology.

Isn’t that overstating it a bit?

Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man, 1871:

“Ernst Haeckel “has recently …published his Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. [The Descent of Man] Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine.”

Among other things, Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte is a work of ghastly scientific racism. Advocating the abolition of slavery and the incorrect racist belief in black evolutionary inferiority are, unfortunately, not mutually exclusive. I don’t need to quote Darwin’s remarks on the inferiority of black Africans or other races, nor on his praise for a paper by Wallace in which the latter asserts the same.

Intellectual history is messy. Did Darwin and Haeckel differ markedly on a number of issues? Sure. Did they agree on some things that are quite unpleasant? Yes, along with many other late 19th c figures, including theologians and anti-evolutionists. Am I suggesting that Darwin shares blame for Haeckel’s malignant and eccentric excesses? No.

I tend to agree with you that Richards’ benign characterization of Haeckel is hardly defensible.

However, while Haeckel was a key figure in the development of National Socialism, so were Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Wagner, Madison Grant, Steiner, Spengler, Nietzsche… I’ll even accept that he was more influential than any other single Nazi inspiration. But I do not believe that Haeckel’s unique influence outshone the combined influence of these other individuals. (If that is in fact your view; I don’t know if it is.)