Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Eugenic Darwinism
Accuracy in Academia's campusreportonline.net ^ | June 4, 2007 | Wendy Cook

Posted on 06/13/2007 11:59:38 AM PDT by LUMary

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

1 posted on 06/13/2007 11:59:38 AM PDT by LUMary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LUMary

Woo hoo! ANOTHER evolution thread!

/sarc


2 posted on 06/13/2007 12:04:25 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Yeah, we need to figure out how to combine the evo debate with the dispensationalism thread ... that would be a blast.


3 posted on 06/13/2007 12:05:49 PM PDT by dartuser ("If you torture the data long enough, it will confess, even to crimes it did not commit")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LUMary

The idea of breeding better humans was around for a long time prior to Charles Darwin. The ancient Spartans for example, would discard babies which they did not deem worthy once they were born. Ancient Romans also engaged in the practice.


4 posted on 06/13/2007 12:06:20 PM PDT by pnh102
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LUMary

Whew, that settles it I guess!


5 posted on 06/13/2007 12:08:36 PM PDT by Paradox (In the final analysis, its mostly a team sport, Principles cast off like yesterdays free agents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Woo hoo! ANOTHER evolution thread!

/sarc
________

LOL. And here you are, the first one to comment on the thread. Methinks you doth protest too much, I think you like evo threads.

I’ll just say this, if Darwin is partly responsible for eugenics, then Christ is partly responsible for everything evil done in His name. And I find that notion ABSURD!


6 posted on 06/13/2007 12:10:21 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dmz

if Darwin is responsilbe for Eugenics, and “Christ is responsilbe for everything evil done in his name”: Then Christ is also responsilbe for much more good “Done in his name” such as saving people from their sins, the raise of western civilization, good works done over the years by those whom claim to follow Christ (Oh and your very breath of life and intelligence).

What has Darwin given us “in his name” good..?


7 posted on 06/13/2007 12:17:36 PM PDT by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LUMary

Fallacy here. Evolution cannot be directed or affected by the will although socialists have been trying and recently Pres Bill Clinton said he could enhance the pace of societal evolution.


8 posted on 06/13/2007 12:21:17 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LUMary

Its a stretch to blame Darwin for eugenics. Better to blame the folks who used his observations to promote it.


9 posted on 06/13/2007 12:23:56 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
...Pres Bill Clinton said he could enhance the pace of societal evolution.

Yet there is Rush already at "the cutting edge of societal evolution".

10 posted on 06/13/2007 12:25:48 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

You did read that I thought the concept was absurd, right? Just like I wrote in the post that you responded to, that you read in its entirety, right?

Quoting me out of context to try to draw me into a discussion over a notion that I plainly stated I thought was absurd might work on a child, but it will not work with me.


11 posted on 06/13/2007 12:26:39 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

That’s right. Well, we all are even if we aren’t syndicated.


12 posted on 06/13/2007 12:28:02 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dmz

You’re mad at me, aren’t you?


13 posted on 06/13/2007 12:29:31 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1
if Darwin is responsilbe for Eugenics, and “Christ is responsilbe for everything evil done in his name”...

A valid point. But I keep wondering why Darwin is so often compared to Christ. What do they really have in common?

14 posted on 06/13/2007 12:30:12 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dmz
“I’ll just say this, if Darwin is partly responsible for eugenics, then Christ is partly responsible for everything evil done in His name. And I find that notion ABSURD!”

Your notion that it is equally absurd to blame evil actions of others to Darwin and Christ doesn’t quite hold up.

I agree that Christ has had many horrible, evil things done in His name - but, all those acts were contrary to His teachings. What evil act by others can you honestly attribute to one of His sayings or teachings from the New Testament?

Darwin, on the other hand, while he may not have been a complete believer in eugenics, taught ideas about human origins that logically and ultimately lead one to the beliefs held by eugenic’s ideologists. Human beings are just flukes of nature with no special claim over any other fluke or flukes of nature. Moral objections to eugenics are nonsensical if there is no God.

15 posted on 06/13/2007 12:32:55 PM PDT by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear; JSDude1; dmz
Opps, I meant to say that dmz had a valid point. i.e. that it wasn't fair to blame Darwin for things done in his name.

I was responding to the wrong post.

16 posted on 06/13/2007 12:33:41 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

I think you may be putting some words in Darwin’s mouth. I don’t think he was promoting the idea that there was no God.


17 posted on 06/13/2007 12:35:28 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

You’re mad at me, aren’t you?
______

Chuckling ... I find it hard to be mad at anonymous posters on internet forums ...

My sarcastic side, however, is incapable of letting anyone slide when they groan at particular varieties of threads as they are reading and commenting on the very thread they groan at.


18 posted on 06/13/2007 12:39:24 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

From a purely Darwinian perspective there’s a strong practical objection to eugenics. Evolution is the result of natural processes, we can only guess as to what made one species better than another and subsequently more deserving of survival. Eugenics is an attempt to override a natural process, declaring with our limited knowledge which section of humanity is better and more deserving of survival, the problem is the eugenicists might be wrong. The proper Darwinian approach to improving humanity is a species is to not, just do your thing and let nature take it’s course, eugenicists pervert the concept for their own twitsted purpose.


19 posted on 06/13/2007 12:41:25 PM PDT by discostu (only things a western savage understands are whiskey and rifles and an unarmed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LUMary

Women practice eugenics every time they decide that a man isnt good enough to be the father of their children.


20 posted on 06/13/2007 12:41:27 PM PDT by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LUMary

Justice Learned Hand, Buck V. Bell, 1927: “...three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Evidently, the Discovery Institute opposes forced sterilization of hereditary incompetents. In a welfare state like ours, what does that mean for the future?


21 posted on 06/13/2007 12:41:53 PM PDT by mdefranc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Darwin is responsible for his contribution to eugenics. Jesus paid the price for our sins, but he did not cause them. Your comparison makes no sense.


22 posted on 06/13/2007 12:48:43 PM PDT by LilAngel (No blood for quislings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dmz
Chuckling ... I find it hard to be mad at anonymous posters on internet forums ...

Anonymous? How do you know that my name isn't really Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus?

My sarcastic side, however, is incapable of letting anyone slide when they groan at particular varieties of threads as they are reading and commenting on the very thread they groan at.

I wasn't really groaning about another evolution thread. I was attempting to gauge the mood on the board, in general.

23 posted on 06/13/2007 12:53:31 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Run Fred RUN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LilAngel

Darwin is responsible for his contribution to eugenics.
__________

What exactly is Darwin’s contributions to eugenics? I’m sure that you’ll cite the appropriate sections of Darwin’s writings.

Eugenics is prescriptive. Darwin’s theory of evolution is descriptive. I have trouble getting from one to the other. But I’m sure you’ll let me know the error of my ways.


24 posted on 06/13/2007 1:02:54 PM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: discostu

Which society is more likely to survive?

The society that believes the survival of the fittest individuals is most important? Thus they destroy others within their group that don’t measure-up to some arbitrary ideal. Don’t bother to help others in their group since they should be able to fend for themselves. Believe immunizations perpetuate a streak of weak genes through the population.

Or the society that believes the survival of the group is most important? Believe that all individuals can contribute to the group in some way. Believes the group is more likely to survive because of its variation of traits and genes. Knows that those who die due to disease or accident may have been able to save them in the future.


25 posted on 06/13/2007 1:14:19 PM PDT by toast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dmz

Philosophically: not in actuality (when you take darwin’s theory applied to human beings): it means that some humans have to be “less developed”-Inferior*/- than others, that lends credence to some are better than others, which certain unethical people have used throught the 20th to “justify” their murder that includes the Nazis, and Eugenicists. Darwin is not directly responsible for these (and neither do most darwinists justify these heinous acts), but the truth is there that the philopical under-pinnings were taken from Darwinian thought applied to humanity.


26 posted on 06/13/2007 1:16:49 PM PDT by JSDude1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: toast

Society #2 though the differences between the two aren’t quite the way you label them in the first sentence. Both societies actually believe in survival of the fittest or at least evolutionary science (society 2 by understanding variations in DNA clearly has a grasp of evolution), the real difference is society 1 is eugenic and wants to drive evolution, and society 2 is Darwinian and is just allowing a natural process to do what it does.


27 posted on 06/13/2007 1:31:14 PM PDT by discostu (only things a western savage understands are whiskey and rifles and an unarmed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

Of course Darwin isn’t the only one to have his philosphy misapplied to decide a certain people are inferior. It’s happened over and over again throughout history, it’s the rallying cry excuse behind the aggressive side of most wars. When push comes to shove most encouragements for invasion boil down to “they don’t deserve what they have because they aren’t as cool as us”.


28 posted on 06/13/2007 1:34:28 PM PDT by discostu (only things a western savage understands are whiskey and rifles and an unarmed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LUMary

And, in support of eugenics: “Seven generations of imbeciles is enough.” (Oliver Wendell Holmes)


29 posted on 06/13/2007 1:41:33 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LUMary
Dr. West, meet Dr. Tinkle, Creationist eugenicist
30 posted on 06/13/2007 2:52:46 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools - Solon, Lawmaker of Athens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dmz

I don’t know what more you want from me. If his actual contributions (some of which are listed on this very thread) aren’t sufficient, maybe you want a quote from Darwin using the word “eugenics” and explaining in detail how to practice it. You might as well ask for a detailed wiring diagram of a modern car, drawn up by none other than Ben Franklin.

Darwin’s contributions to eugenics are not in any way comparable to Jesus Christ’s contribution to the salvation of mankind.


31 posted on 06/13/2007 3:21:39 PM PDT by LilAngel (No blood for quislings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: discostu
“From a purely Darwinian perspective there’s a strong practical objection to eugenics. Evolution is the result of natural processes, we can only guess as to what made one species better than another and subsequently more deserving of survival.”

I see your point, but look at the full title of Darwin’s book:

On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life

I think you can see just from the title (i.e. ‘favoured races’) that human eugenics could be a tempting implementation of Darwinian ideas for some people. I’m not saying that Darwin actively encouaraged human engineering, but he discusses at length how animal breeding went about producing improvements in various species. It doesn’t take much of an imagination to move from animal breeding to human breeding. After all, doesn’t Darwinian theory demonstrate that we are all “animals”.

So, my point is that Darwinian theory lends itself to human eugenics - maybe not necessarily so, but it is not a stretch to see how it could be used that way. On the other hand, it is not possible for Jesus’ teachings, taken as a whole, to be used as a defense or motivation to commit the atrocities done in His name. The acts would be completely at odds with His character and moral teachings (as in the Sermon on the Mount).

32 posted on 06/13/2007 5:00:50 PM PDT by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

“I think you may be putting some words in Darwin’s mouth. I don’t think he was promoting the idea that there was no God.”

I’m not saying that Darwin himself did, but there is no denying that many Darwinists today are “naturalistic” evolutionists - that is, they believe that all that exists occured by a natural process - not from some imaginary diety. That idea is a logical outcome of Darwin’s theory. It may not have been his intent, but that has been the overall far reaching result.

So, my point is that eugenics, from a naturalistic evolutionary point of view, should be morally acceptable because in the naturalistic worldview, there is no God, therefore there are no moral absolutes to hinder any action. In fact, morality is irrelevant and has no meaning.


33 posted on 06/13/2007 5:08:54 PM PDT by Nevadan (nevadan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan

Sure if the idiots ignored the words “by Means of Natural Selection” they could grab onto the words “Favored Races” as an excuse for their bad ideas. Of course if their Jewish they could take the idea of being the Chosen People and run right off the cliff with it too. Just because people take one phrase out of context and turn it into an excuse for their own stupidity doesn’t mean the core idea of the writing that contains that phrase is bad or that the writers was a bad person. Look at all the stupid stuff liberals have done with the Commerce Clause in the last 40 years, does that mean the Constitution is bad and the Founders should be held responsible?

Bad people take perfectly good ideas and screw them up, that’s how you know they’re bad people. They do it with Darwin, they do it with the Constitution, they do it with the Bible, they do it with Wealth of Nations, they do it with mediocre Beatles songs, they just do it.

It’s not possible to take Darwin’s teachings as a WHOLE to get an excuse to commit atrocities either. That’s why the people that commit atrocities using Darwinism, or Jesus, as an excuse edit.


34 posted on 06/13/2007 5:46:21 PM PDT by discostu (only things a western savage understands are whiskey and rifles and an unarmed man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Eugenics is an attempt to override a natural process...

How so.

If human consciousness is itself a direct result of natural processes, then it follows that any activity, including human intelligence and intent, is also the result of natural processes.

How then can eugenics be considered a foreign agent or mechanism within the very system that created it?

35 posted on 06/13/2007 7:38:27 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: csense

Read the rest of the sentence.


36 posted on 06/13/2007 10:57:04 PM PDT by discostu (only things a western savage understands are whiskey and rifles and an unarmed man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: LUMary

Thank you for signing up in preparation for posting this thread.

You do know you are gonna be mocked, don’t you...

...and deservedly so.

The only question that remains unanswered is...

...WHO were you in a prior life?


37 posted on 06/13/2007 11:08:14 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csense; discostu

“...declaring with our limited knowledge which section of humanity is better and more deserving of survival, the problem is the eugenicists might be wrong. The proper Darwinian approach to improving humanity is a species is to not, just do your thing and let nature take it’s course, eugenicists pervert the concept for their own twitsted purpose.”

Bump


38 posted on 06/13/2007 11:12:42 PM PDT by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: discostu
Read the rest of the sentence. Well, I did, but it's obvious you just don't get it, so I'll put it bluntly. In what way is any course of human action considered to be anything other than natural from the perspective of evolution.
39 posted on 06/13/2007 11:42:24 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000

Since you ping’d me, and are obviously interested, care to take a shot at answering the question?


40 posted on 06/13/2007 11:46:49 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: csense

eu·gen·ics (y-jnks) KEY

NOUN:
(used with a sing. verb)
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

Doesn’t appear to be “natural” evolution to me.


41 posted on 06/14/2007 12:25:48 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: discostu

I meant to ping you to my response above.


42 posted on 06/14/2007 12:29:32 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (There ought to be one day-- just one-- when there is open season on senators. ~~ Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LUMary
according to Discovery Institute senior fellow

Pretty much know what angle this one is coming from, don't we?

43 posted on 06/14/2007 12:34:47 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

Animal husbandry existed before recorded history. Selective breeding of animals to maximize desirable traits is older than writing — and the idea of doing the same with humans did not begin with Darwin.


44 posted on 06/14/2007 12:36:56 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
That idea is a logical outcome of Darwin’s theory.

I see your point, but Darwin's theory is hardly sufficient to logically support naturalism. If we accept that life came from inorganic material, then where did the inorganic material come from? The basic problem with naturalism remains completely unsolved. Darwinism is at best a shell game for the naturalist.

All the while the second law of thermo dynamics insists that the entire universe will use up all available energy in less then an eternity. Implying that matter must not have always existed.

Naturalists are free to reach any conclusions they want, but they sure don't seem to be basing it on logic.

45 posted on 06/14/2007 12:39:57 AM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mdefranc
Justice Learned Hand, Buck V. Bell, 1927: “...three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

That opinion was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, and is a dark blemish on his mostly admirable record. Learned Hand -- nomen est omen? -- was an influential and revered jurist and scholar, but never served on the US Supreme Court.

Evidently, the Discovery Institute opposes forced sterilization of hereditary incompetents. In a welfare state like ours, what does that mean for the future?

Not much. Impaired folks who are capable of making such decisions for themselves usually chose sterilization or persistent forms of birth control. Those who aren't capable of deciding have parents or guardians to make the decision. he eugenecist's nightmare of retards rutting in the streets has never happened and will never happen.

46 posted on 06/14/2007 12:51:31 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Nevadan
So, my point is that eugenics, from a naturalistic evolutionary point of view, should be morally acceptable because in the naturalistic worldview, there is no God, therefore there are no moral absolutes to hinder any action. In fact, morality is irrelevant and has no meaning.

If there is no god, it is still the height or hubris to see "survival of the fittest" and take upon yourself the judgment of who is fit. If you believe that natural selection is a self-correcting mechanism, why interfere? Things will shake out as they should. As they have to. For people who believe in evolution, as I do, the only sane solution is to leave it the hell alone.

Eugenics has always been rife with assumptions -- about the "lower races" with their vices and weaknesses, and built around how we can make more of us and fewer of them. Eugenics is not a problem with evolution. It's a problem with people who think they can game the system.

47 posted on 06/14/2007 1:04:49 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LilAngel
If his actual contributions (some of which are listed on this very thread) aren’t sufficient, maybe you want a quote from Darwin using the word “eugenics” and explaining in detail how to practice it.

Of course there is a connection between Darwin, Darwinism and eugenics. Here is an offhand list of great Darwinians who were eugenists:

Leonard Darwin, Eugenic Society, president
Charles Galton Darwin, Eugenics Society, president
Julian Huxley, Eugenics Society, president
Francis Galton, Eugenics Society, founder
R.A. Fisher, Eugenics Education Society, etc.
Karl Pearson, Galton Professor of Eugenics etc.
R. Lewontin, American Eugenics Society, president
J.H. Kellogg, American Eugenics Society
H.H. Newman (of scopes trial fame)
H.F. Osborn, American Eugenics Society
Ernst Rudin, infamous
H. Davenport and Harry Laughlin, infamous

And many, many others.

48 posted on 06/14/2007 4:55:06 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Of course there is a connection between Darwin, Darwinism and eugenics...
__________

So now we have reduced the charge against Darwin, from him being “responsible” for eugenics to the much lesser “there is a connection”.

I can live with that.


49 posted on 06/14/2007 5:45:45 AM PDT by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: csense

It’s not a matter of it being unnatural, it’s a matter of it probably being doomed to failure. Evolution to a higher form involves some aspects of a species being accentuated and some aspects fading away. But there’s no way for us to know which aspects of humanity belong in each list, so any attempt to steer our own evolution is more likely to lead to our eventual demise than our ascendance to a higher level. In the end that might be natural, it might be our evolutionary destiny to screw ourselves into oblivion with a misplaced ego, and if eugencists ever take over it probably will be. The smart person who wants to help his species evolve does nothing directly towards that goal because we just don’t know enough to know what direction to steer in.


50 posted on 06/14/2007 6:22:09 AM PDT by discostu (only things a western savage understands are whiskey and rifles and an unarmed man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson