Posted on 02/25/2019 8:10:49 AM PST by fishtank
PBS Unmasks Darwinian Eugenics
Dr Jerry Bergman reviews the new PBS documentary on one of the evils of Darwinism, The Eugenics Crusade.
Finally, One of the Evils of Darwinism Has Gone Mainstream
by Dr Jerry Bergman
2-24-19
A new PBS documentary, The Eugenics Crusade, begins with Darwin, who inspired his cousin, Francis Galton, who spent his life developing Darwinian eugenics with the hope that it would be used to make both better people and a better society. To do this, Francis Galton was inspired by the “work of his half cousin Charles Darwin [who] believed that evolution was this natural process that was inevitably leading towards what they called the ‘survival of the fittest.’”[1] Galton turned that idea on its head, and concluded, “natural selection isn’t working very well. We need to do a form of selection. We need to intervene” in nature to evolve better people.[2]
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
Sorry for commenting without clicking and reading the article, but I just have to say that the idea of humans selecting strains (and even hybridizing) plants both for desired characteristics as well their fitness, and also animal husbandry and selective breeding (look at all the tasks dogs were bred to do) has been going on for millennia before darwin came along. These are not new concepts.
1859: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
... Should the guv do it???
I am not sure what “Darwinism” is.
If the OP is about trying to selectively breed humans the way animals and plants have been done then Darwin has nothing to do with it, except he identified what happens in nature.
Is there a point here? Besides Eugenics = bad?
Would it be better if we didn’t understand the concept of natural selection?
Implying that we should remain ignorant just because someone may misuse knowledge is pretty much on brand for Creation Evolution Headlines.
No, it should be common sense that humans not do it to humans. It’s just that the ability to conceptualize things that way is not foreign. It doesn’t surprise me that some people with a twisted set of humanist ethics would try to apply the concepts. In fact, if I recall correctly they would suggest that eugenics is moral and compassionate, which is ironic, but I don’t know if they ever fully believed that or if it was propaganda.
Gotta love Progressivism.
If you don’t believe in a conscious creator, you get to make up your own ethics out of whole cloth or, if you are a beta, adapt the ethics of somebody else.
Watch the series. It provides a clear and direct link to Darwin as participants in his work carried it forward and created the human eugenics movement. And that was a horror show, and inspired Hitler who got a lot of his race theory from their writings.
That was well stated. I think you might actually enjoy the film
“I am not sure what “Darwinism” is.”
Darwin’s theory consisted of two main points; 1) diverse groups of animals evolve from one or a few common ancestors; 2) the mechanism by which this evolution takes place is natural selection.”
This has been tried in many places and times. Many animals mate by the strongest or more fierce getting the blood lines passed. Many human societies still use this by “allowing” a select group do the deed. Question is, what is natural selection?
But the best analogy is the picture of Adolf Hitler who tried this with the Aryan race that failed miserably like most societies have with this theory of predetermine selection.
rwood
I bet King Herod was a proto-Darwinian.
>>Darwin’s theory consisted of two main points; 1) diverse groups of animals evolve from one or a few common ancestors; 2) the mechanism by which this evolution takes place is natural selection.”<<
I am quite aware of what the TToE is. I am one of the few Science survivors of the CREVO wars.
But I know of no scientific branch known as “Darwinism.” It is a trite derisive term used by people who are incapable of understanding it.
Of course Eugenics must fail, per the TToE — from a macro perspective it ends up being inbreeding.
That wasn’t the point of my post. I was asking what the point of the OP is. It it trying to somehow tie TToE to Nazi Eugenics? If so, it is a VERY old, worn, weak and refuted assertion.
>>Watch the series. It provides a clear and direct link to Darwin as participants in his work carried it forward and created the human eugenics movement. And that was a horror show, and inspired Hitler who got a lot of his race theory from their writings.<<
Yes, and? People used gunpowder to kill many many people very quickly. We are to blame the discoverer of gunpowder?
Peraps this is the difference: The Descent of Man, by extension, eliminated the specialness of man as a bearer of God’s image. By this reductionist extension, man is merely a strangely intelligent animal. That very intelligence (hubris) then makes the culling of the herd even more important.
Darwin and Galton were brilliant. They were the result of ten thousand years of social stratification. Ironic that just when they described the principle, the industrial revolution turned it on its ear.
Now we are suffering the effect of disgenics terribly, and everyone is blaming Darwin and Galton for describing the old cure.
The singularity is upon us, so the whole discussion is moot.
>>Peraps this is the difference: The Descent of Man, by extension, eliminated the specialness of man as a bearer of God’s image. By this reductionist extension, man is merely a strangely intelligent animal. That very intelligence (hubris) then makes the culling of the herd even more important.<<
The TToE is silent about God. Any divinity or lack thereof is read into it by people who project their own existential issues onto its inevitable conclusions.
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.