Posted on 06/16/2007 3:05:47 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Well, the attack on Augustine was well-directed.
Augie didn’t have much use for the Pelagians, of which this critter is certainly a member.
See!! Some things DO descend from ancient generations.
Death culture ping.
Thanks for the ping!
In 1930 Pope Pius IX condemned eugenics in an encyclical. The reaction in Eugenical News was the usual, predictable kind of reaction we witness on FR from the Dem Central anti-Freepers: the Pope is a science-denier and his encyclical is an "attack on the whole texture of science and the liberty of thought" and so on. The encyclical was criticized in Time, Monday, Jan 19, 1931 and this bit is noteworthy:
"But one of the most compelling rebuttals was not a direct one. It came from Professor Julian Sorell Huxley. Brother of Novelist Aldous Leonard (Point Counterpoint) Huxley, and grandson of the late great Biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, Julian Huxley is himself a most distinguished biologist and eloquent member of the scientific vanguard. Speaking to the Philadelphia Forum, he said: "In the long run we must envisage the control of population in the same manner we now control contagious disease. Birth control is by no means perfect, but it is one of the major events in the world's history! . . . In one or two centuries ... we shall tell the man who can't provide for himself and his family that he cannot have State aid unless he agrees not to have any more children. If he refuses, State aid shall also be refused him or else he shall be locked up. ... In our society a man with a small family finds that he gets ahead quicker and that his smaller number of children can have greater advantages. All of this may seem very undemocratic, but heredity and biology are very undemocratic."
Yes, let's look at some educational material from the first half of the 20th century. John R. Baker was an Oxford cytologist. His 1974 book Race, Foundation for Human Understanding (Oxford Press) was endorsed by Peter Medawar, the Nobel laureate. Baker wrote the section on biology in An outline for Boys and Girls (1932). Here is the last part:
EUGENICSAll the hundreds of thousands of kinds of animals have evolved from very simple forms of life, and presumably from inorganic matter originally, without the existence of any mind to plan them. Mind itself is one of the products of evolution, and now at last one kind of living thing only has got the ability to control and plan the course of evolution. That one kind of living thing is the human kind. For centuries men have selected certain types of domestic animals for breeding, and have thus created all the variety of horses and cattle and sheep and pigs and dogs that exist to-day. They have improved all these animals for the purposes for which they require them, but they have not improved themselves. There is no reason at all to suppose that the inborn mental capacity of man has increased since prehistoric times.
When men were just evolving from ape-like ancestors, they evolved because the best individuals survived and had young ones, whilst the worst died oft and had none. That does not happen in civilisation. With us the weakly are looked after by the strong. If the weakliness is an inherited character, it is unfortunate that the people who have it should have children, because they will pass it on, generation after generation. On the average, the most successful people have the fewest children in most civilised countries to-day, and the least successful the most. It is possible nowadays for ordinary people to arrange whether they will have many or few children, or none at all. It would certainly be better if the most successful people had most children, because success in life is partly due to inherited qualities. Many people with excellent inherited qualities never get an opportunity to show them, from lack of a sufficiently good education. If we wanted to improve our race, we should give everyone an equal chance in life as far as possible. We should then encourage the most successful to have a lot of children. Many people are what is called feeble-minded. Their brain never develops beyond that of a child of six. Often this is a character which is inherited in the same way as blue eyes. If two such feeble-minded people marry, all their children will be feeble-minded. If a feeble-minded person marries a normal person, the children will be normal, but some of their descendants will be feeble-minded. It would be a good plan to prevent people who have inherited feeble-mindedness from having children, because feeble-minded people are not happy themselves, and they are not useful to other people, and they cost other people a lot of money. Unfortunately, they are increasing rapidly in numbers in Great Britain. Before long they will form quite a large proportion of our population, unless we decide not to allow them to have children. Members of Parliament, who decide these things, think it best to let them go on multiplying. When they were young, Members of Parliament did not have An Outline for Boys and Girls.
Eugenics ping...
Fat chance. Huxley is living in a World Of Make Believe.
Thanks for this informative post, ECO!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
TRUE... Man evolved from the animals (some say) evolved to the point they believe in GOD.. Man evolved to believe in God.. Because no animal ever did that..
1) MAN EVOLVED TO BELIEVE IN GOD!...
-or-
2) He was just MADE that way.. You know, to believe in God..
Amazingly... Both concepts arrive at the same answer..
Atheists then must be under evolved..
Above all, it unifies our knowledge and our thought . . .
Sounds like certain Freepers.
But what good is it to unify our knowledge and our thought according to an erroneous model? It just serves to sink one deeper in untruth.
I always find it curious that in denying, or remaining willfully blind to human nature, the deniers end up denying themselves without seeming to notice it.
Man is primed for God. As you say, God made him that way. The whole history of mankind attests to this fact, except for the history of the past two centuries, which evidences the trend of the intelligentsia towards the establishment of a totally man-centered universe. But you cannot establish that by fiat, especially if it completely cuts against the grain of what it is to be human.
The Huxleys of this world in effect proudly declare themselves to have "evolved" into a higher state of humanity. I tend to think they have devolved into a state that is less-than-human. For one of the supposed benefits of being more evolved than the other guy is that one has an excuse to devalue the dignity and humanity of the other guy. The eugenics movement, in arrogating to itself the judgment of which humans are greater or less "fit," enables them to tyrannize the "less fit." The historical record speaks plainly enough on this matter.
LOL, so I guess you may be right, dear 'pipe: "Atheists then must be under evolved."
No news there but I’ll read this later, when I have some time.
That's simply replacing on religion with another, but those who are doing so refuse to acknowledge what they're doing and have managed to convince (brainwash) a great many people somehow, that trusting in *science* is somehow better; more sane, more rational, more reasonable that believing in a god.
Actually, all men have faith, it's just a matter of what they put it in. Those who wish to reject God have simply replaced Him with science and/or *reason*. It takes faith in the system, that it will always work as it has, even though they have no reason to expect it except precedent- *it always has before*. And it takes trust that the practitioners are reliable and the system set up by those practitioners is accurate and reliable.
It is simply another system of beliefs; a religion or philosophy.
So very true, metmom.
Which basically puts them in the identical position as that of the ancient Greeks, who thought that the birth of "the grey-eyed Athena" -- the goddess of reason and intellect and cultic deity of Athens -- consisted in springing forth "fully formed from the brow of Zeus." Don't ask any questions about that! That's just the way "it happened."
Such men as think this way reject the Christian God as the foundation of truth; but Zeus would probably be okay for that purpose. :^) Any foundation at all for some sort of ersatz truth will do in the end, so long as it is not the God of the Christian Bible.
However, Zeus, like all the Olympian gods, is a created being. That is to say, all the Olympian gods (according to Plato) have a divine origin beyond themselves. They are intramundane gods. Yet it is to the extramundane, to the "Beyond" (i.e., beyond the Cosmos) or Unknown God that one must look for the Source of truth and reason, not to Zeus, who himself derives his existence from it.
Somehow I continue to find Greek mythology relevant to our own disordered times....
Thanks so much for writing, metmom!
Or from a different species... (they are of their father the De...)
Good thinking HP!
I was a primate myself before I was "re-born" or "born again"..
This is from February 2001. Its not really news.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0018.html
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."
When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." At that, Paul left the Council.
Nothing more to be said; neither to be added, nor subtracted. "In Him [the Logos of God, the Son, Alpha and Omega] we live and move and have our being" says it all.
May God bless you, dear metmom, for posting these excerpts from Acts.
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.