Skip to comments.The Gentle Darwinians - What Darwin’s Champions Won’t Mention
Posted on 03/08/2007 7:46:04 PM PST by ofwaihhbtn
The enthusiasm Nietzsche expresses in this passage is for eugenics, a theory of biological determinism invented by Francis Galton, Charles Darwins first cousin. However extreme Nietzsches recommendation might sound today, by the first part of the twentieth century eugenics came to be widely practiced. In 1933, little more than thirty years after Nietzsches death, the Hereditary Health Courts set up in Nazi Germany were enforcing a rigorous policy of enforced sterilization; to a lesser degree, similar policies were carried out in societies from the United States to Scandinavia.The full text of the article is here: The Gentle Darwinians - What Darwins Champions Wont Mention
In 1912, in his presidential address to the First International Congress of Eugenics, a landmark gathering in London of racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world, Major Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwins son, trumpeted the spread of eugenics and evolution. As described by Nicholas Wright Gillham in his A Life of Francis Galton, Major Darwin foresaw the day when eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, as Galton had hoped, but a paramount duty whose tenets would presumably become enforceable. The major repeated his fathers admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by the spirit of civilization, society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst without further delay.
Leonard Darwins recognition of his fathers role in the formation and promotion of eugenics was more than filial piety.
(Excerpt) Read more at commonwealmagazine.org ...
If you connect the two, then it is by choice and no logical reason.
Bottom dollar says Peter Singer subscribes to evolutionary theory.
This is absurd. Natural selection and eugenic principles (at least the kind of forced eugenics to which he refers) are polar opposites. With natural selection, man is not the decision-maker. With forced eugenics, he is. By practicing forced eugenics, a society does not embrace natural selection. It turns it on its head.
No matter how hard people like Quinn try, the fact will remain that Darwin was a very decent man who did not advocate forced eugenics.
Isn't funny how the very evolutionists who refuse to see any distinction between ID and creationism are the first to cry foul when the obvious connections between evolutionism and eugenics are pointed out. Your jig is about up.
Lame logical fallacy.
Yet, it represents the creationist's lack of understanding pretty well.
BTW, Hitler loved dogs, ergo dog lovers are all nazis.
A good book to read:
The State Boys Rebellion
Its interesting that Germany looked to the US for its ideas on eugenics.
Excerpt from link:
Though they couldn't possible know it, the children of the Fernald State School were the victims of bad science and a newly developed bureaucracy designed to save America from the so-called "menace of the feebleminded." Beginning early in the twentieth century, United States health officials used crude versions of the modern IQ tests to identify supposedly "deficient" children and lock them away. The idea was to protect society from potential criminals and to prevent so-called undesirables from having children and degrading the American gene pool......
...... It reveals the danger in misguided science, the fearsome power of unchecked bureaucracies,
"Bottom dollar says Peter Singer subscribes to evolutionary theory."
"BTW, Hitler loved dogs, ergo dog lovers are all nazis."
And how many other people like dogs?
How many believe in Eugenics?
OK, let me spoon feed this to you, moron:
The fact that Hitler liked dogs did not distinguish him from the masses. The fact that he believed in eugenics did. And his belief in eugenics was based on evolutionism -- whether you like or not.
You wouldn't know a "logical fallacy" if it bit you on the ass, and you couldn't reason your way out of a wet paper bag if your life depended on it, moron.
Sorry, but I'm just sick and tired of dealing with the mental midgets here.
Anyway, here's a Toyko dailies take on the debate (see how many characters you can recognize):
I was pointing out how stupid your argument was by presenting an equally stupid one.
I'd explain the concept to you, but I don't think you'd get it.
Mental Midgets? Yeah, go talk to "Dr." Hovind and his scholars.
So? It also looked to the US for its ideas on assembly lines.
The connection between creationists and blood-thirsty islamicists you always knew was there.....
The problem was not that your "equally stupid" argument was "stupid," the problem was that it missed the point entirely. And I'll bet dollars to dimes you miss the point here again, moron.
And we looked to Germany for autobahns? :) I think
Godwin is about to make an entrance...
No, eugenics fit right in with what most people believed then --- (and many still do) -- i.e. that you could categorize peoples intelligence, talents, faults or proclivities based upon their race or ethnicity.
Irish are drunks, Italians are lovers, Poles are stupid, Jews are greedy, Blacks are stupid, shiftless and whatever other negative trait you wanted to throw at them.
Eugenics was nothing but blatant racial stereotyping by college graduates instead of racist stumble bums down at the mill.
Yes, they used Darwin and five syllable words, but only to reinforce their own prejudices and to reach the Utopian ends they dreamed of. That's not Darwin's fault.
BTW. Before Darwin, the same people used the Bible to do the same thing.
Easy enough for a cave man bump...
I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. What is an "evo"? Do they hold local chapter meetings?
Posters from both sides of the debate have argued from association.
Things heated up last summer with a number of longtime FReepers--one person had a homepage disappear on them with no immediate explanation forthcoming; there was another thread in which one user posted real-life name and other information of another FReeper with whom he disagreed (both ended up banned or suspended--and I only heard of this secondhand, as I was in Alaska when it happened); and things generally got worse for all concerned, until an infamous thread in which the crud generally hit the fan.
Many of the pro-evo folks--but not all--quit or were banned at that point; a large contingent of them went over to another site called Darwin Central.
Quite a shame that things fell out in the fashion that they did : many of the now departed were PhD level and very intelligent and informed on a wide variety of topics.
(If you know where to look, there are still a goodly number of other folks of equal IQ and/or education left on FR: they just don't tend to congregate in crevo threads anymore.)
But I still wish things had been resolved more amicably.
According to RussP:
A=B therefor C=D.
Ada Byron rolls over in her grave while Babbage bursts out laughing and spits coffee onto the keyboard of his Analytical Engine.
I disagree entirely. Eugenics is rationally sound, and certainly does not depend on evolution or Darwinism for its basis. It depends only on a belief in human genetic variability. For example, you could have a eugenic program to improve eyesight, or any number of other traits. I don't think it can be denied that eyesight has degenerated in the human population by "regression towards the mean" due to artificial amelioration of the results of poor phenotypical outcomes, and the social acceptance of these efforts - i.e. the continued sexual fitness of the recipients thereof.
The big hit on eugenics is the offense it gives to our moral sensibilities. We are not willing to "harden our hearts" against those, such as myself, with poor eyesight in favor of the abstract notion of an improved race.
Clever? The term seems to imply some sort of illegitimacy to my argument. What about blind cave creatures? Do you think they have become blind over generations due to genetic regression? Or do you think an Intelligent Designer made them that way? If they did become blind over generations, is that evolution? I think these are hard questions!
BTW, did you see the 2 hour History Channel show aired tonight on the Spartan "300" ? They covered the Spartan practice of "exposure" of the newborn, and further stated ( which I hadn't known ) that each newborn would be carefully examined for defects by an elder, and disposed of accordingly. Not precisely a eugenically motivated program, but effectively a brutal version of one.
Dr_Lew...here is an article from Wikipedia, about eugenics...in the paragraph I have copied here, it makes mention of this Spartan practice of exposure of newborns...I know that many people do not like Wikipedia as the end source, so I am using Wikipedia as a starting point, as a place in which to begin looking at the subject of eugenics, and going on from there...anyway, here is the paragraph I am talking about, with a link...one can then go into further study on the subject if one wishes...
Selective breeding was suggested at least as far back as Plato, who believed human reproduction should be controlled by government. He recorded these ideals in The Republic: "The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior." Plato proposed that the process be concealed from the public via a form of lottery. Other ancient examples include Sparta's purported practice of infanticide. However, they would leave all babies outside for a length of time, and the survivors were considered stronger, while many "weaker" babies perished.'
Infanticide might have happened, but history shows that eugenics and/or eugenically motivated programs don't work.
"According to RussP:
A=B therefor C=D."
How long did it take you to pull that one out of your rear end? Give me a clue where I said anything even remotely resembling that.
You guys are a waste of my time.
I don't think history shows that. It shows that no eugenic program has ever been practiced widely enough and long enough to show results, unless one might care to admit that the Spartan stock did improve wrt physical endurance and strength.
The issue is uncontroversial in favor of eugenics in the case of domestic animals, and in fact Darwin leads off his treatise with a discussion of animal breeding. Do you want to maintain that humans are exempt from any such treatment? On what basis?
Why do you waste your precious time here?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.