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 Darwin’s first cousin. However extreme Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 Darwin’s Champions Won’t MentionIn 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 Darwin’s 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 father’s 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 Darwin’s recognition of his father’s role in the formation and promotion of eugenics was more than filial piety.
(Excerpt) Read more at commonwealmagazine.org ...
I love it !!!!
Nothing better than being called ignorant by the irony challenged.
Poe's Law. You blend in too well.
We're well on the way to yet another thread containing thousands of posts that fail to change a single mind.
Speaking plainly, the logical connection between Marxism and totalitarial government isn't remote or contrived. Marxism will always tend toward oppression. It is an inevitable consequence of the underlying philosophies.
It is fallacious to defend Marxism from my criticism by saying that there were examples of government tyranny that preceded Das Kapital therefore Marxism has nothing to do with goverment tyranny. It is also fallacious to argue that since racism predated Darwin, then evolution has nothing to do with racism.
If you believe in human evolution, doesn't it follow that there are some humans who are more evolved and others who are less evolved? If you can resist the temptation to be funny with the question you might agree that human evolution or devolution has to be ongoing even now.
If it's stopped due to genetic mixing, when did that occur do you think? Might there be some isolated piece of the gene pool that is less "advanced" than average? And if we managed to identify those individuals, wouldn't we be racists?
Smileys are an insult to the reader.
My comment about arrant nonsense stands. May I remind you of your response to my question in this very thread:
Gumlegs: "So, you're saying there was no racism before 1859."This would appear to undercut your non-point here:Yes I am.
It is also fallacious to argue that since racism predated Darwin, then evolution has nothing to do with racism.
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
What are the depths of your ignorance? How does an observation about speciation lead inevitably to or equate to racism? To state that it does is junk though of the most careless kind.
If you believe in human evolution, doesn't it follow that there are some humans who are more evolved and others who are less evolved?
No. All humans are the same species. You appear to be projecting your own psychological issues into a scientific theory that has nothing whatever to do with the various races of humanity.
If you can resist the temptation to be funny with the question you might agree that human evolution or devolution has to be ongoing even now.
So what? What does "devolution" mean? It’s nowhere to be found in the scientific literature, although I’ll readily admit that it appeared in a 1980s pop song. Is that where you got your science from?
If it's stopped due to genetic mixing, when did that occur do you think?
Why would "genetic mixing" whatever that might be, lead to a pause or so-called reversal in evolution? Are you aware that the Theory of Evolution does not specify a “direction”?
Might there be some isolated piece of the gene pool that is less "advanced" than average?
The question is meaningless. If you are human, you are human. If you’re a bearded dragon, you’re a bearded dragon. There isn't a degree of "advanceosity" to be measured. Unless, of course, you're really a closet racist yourself.
And if we managed to identify those individuals, wouldn't we be racists?
Speak for yourself.
Smileys are an insult to the reader.
As are your posts.
I wrote:
That may be, but maybe you can help me out here. Are you claiming that the eugenics practiced by Christians compared to the eugenics practiced by the Nazis?
You replied:
Not the old Darwin = Hitler nonsense again! It's an utterly ridiculous logical fallacy.
I reply:
You're the one who tried to associate various Christian groups with eugenics. Then, when I asked you a direct and simple question, you dodged it and launched into a non-sequiter and a red herring all rolled into one.
I guess your brain froze and you just reverted to parroting your standard talking points, even though they had no relevance to the question you were asked.
One doesn't "believe in" evolution. When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
You ask whether some humans are more, or less, evolved. That is a question without a referent. You need to ask, "Are some humans better adapted to specific conditions? While humans are all members of Homo sapiens and can freely interbreed, there are minor differences due to geographic and environmental conditions. Eskimos and the folks at Tierra del Fuego are better adapted to cold, while some groups have resistance to malaria via one of two different mutations. Each is better adapted to a local geography or environment, but it would be incorrect to say one is "more evolved" than the other.
There is no reason to assume that evolution, or more correctly, adaptation, has stopped. However, culture and technology will have produced significant changes in adaptation from the prehistoric patterns. The effects of these changes may not be known for several or many millennia.
If it's stopped due to genetic mixing, when did that occur do you think? Might there be some isolated piece of the gene pool that is less "advanced" than average?
Mixing averages the mutations, while culture and technology reduce the effects of some selection pressure. One example: folks who would have died of diseases now live much longer. If we ever lose those technologies, their descendants might be more susceptible to those diseases because they did not descend from individuals who had developed a natural resistance.
Evolution is not a straight-line phenomena. It is the result of thousands of tiny changes in reaction to all manner of local geographic and environmental conditions. This is why you can't claim one group is more advanced than another--each is adapted, in hundreds of small ways, to a different but specific environment!
And if we managed to identify those individuals, wouldn't we be racists?
To identify a group that is more resistant to malaria through a mutation is a fact, not racism. To claim that group is "more evolved" or "better" than other groups would be racist. It would be correct to say that, among thousands of mutations, that group has a better resistance to malaria.
Maybe you should spend less of your time denying reality. You seem to be fact-adverse if it interferes with your indoctrination and dogma. You are like every creationist I have ever dealt with. It is you who chose ignorancwe by denying the simple fact that ID is creationism under cloak. The people who came up with the idea have, on the record, said ID was designed to be a back door to creationism in schools. Stop lying about what ID really is. Why is it that Christians are the ones most likely to resort to un-Christian ways to push their points?
Yes I am.
Just as there were no totalitarian governments prior to Marx.
I can't believe you actually wrote that! Did you sleep under a rock when you were in History class? Dsid you even go to school or were you homeschooled with revisionist history? Virtually every government on earth prior to the founding of the United States was totalitarian. Racism is as old as civillization. The term 'barbarian' when used by the Ro0mans was not a term of endearment. It was racist 2000 years ago. And don't get me started on old testament stories where racism was also practiced.
The fact that someone wrote a document claiming that ID could help support creationism does not mean that ID *is* creationism. As I wrote earlier in this thread, ID does not identify the source of the intelligent design, and that is a *major* difference from creationism.
Marx wrote that Darwinism should be the foundation for Marxism in the arena of natural philosophy. According to your "logic", that proves conclusively that Darwinism is Marxism.
I never cease to be amazed at the level of ignorance out there, and your asinine assertion takes the cake.
I fixed your post.
As I wrote earlier in this thread, ID does not identify the source of the intelligent design, and that is a *major* difference from creationism.
And the fabricators of ID also claimed that it's obvious the designer is God. Look it up.
And if you get right down to it, the claim ID doesn't identify the designer, not offers any concept, evidence or testable hypothesis behind this is proof that ID is philosophical and not scientific. And you forgot to mention that even Behe admits ID does not contradict evolution.
Many atheists base their disbelief in a Creator on the science of evolution. Many other people believe in a Creator who used evolution in such a method as to be very far beyond the human mind to comprehend, even when man uses all his logic and still yet crude instruments to conclude that he has now, indeed, found all the answers.
If a man doesn't believe in God, that is his choice. However, I do suspect, given some strange examples of human arrogance and its final tragic consequences in individual lives, that when a man declares with finality that he is an atheist and "does not believe in a Creator" that the Creator who once thought of and held him in that great mind beyond human comprehension, will at the point of no return declare and conclude that He also then does not believe any longer in the existence of the unbeliever.
Man, you are one dense SOB. Whether ID was "designed" to support anything is irrelevant. What is relevant is the evidence to support it, and that is overwhelming. But don't take my word for it. Read what the greatest scientist of all time had to say about it -- before science had even an inkling about the amazing complexity of the simplest living cell:
"This most elegant system of the sun, planets, and comets could not have arisen without the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." --Sir Isaac Newton, The Principia
Read that over and over until you have it memorized, moron.
Theirs is a blind, irrational faith that believes that mindless, lifeless matter accidentally assembled itself into living, thinking beings -- that frogs really do turn into princes given enough time, and completely by chance! Their creation myth has it that not only did lifeless matter accidentally assemble itself into that first primitive life form, but that another miracle occurred at the same time: dumb luck also included in that first life form a working reproductive system! If that second miracle hadn’t happened, the first would have been in vain since that new life form would have just died and the great evolutionary project would have had to start all over again.
They are sure this double miracle occurred. They have no explanation as to how it happened or what caused it. They just believe it because their great faith in the creative power of mindless chance requires it. Theirs is indeed a blind, irrational faith.
They wouldn’t be a bother if they would just keep their idiotic creations myths to themselves. But no! They insist on perverting science by pretending it has proven their silly religious beliefs to be true!
And they are so devout! You noticed how they jumped to the defense of their great prophet -- Darwin -- on this thread, didn't you? They didn't really counter any point in the article; they just basically offered sophomoric comments that amounted to: "Boo anyone who would dare think a negative thought about our great prophet, Darwin! Hurray Darwin!” It is so very sad. They are so convinced of their position and they are so ridiculous.
NEWTON???
please excuse my laughter: it assuredly isn't directed at Sir Isaac Newton.
I suppose you're of the school which considers Sir Francis Bacon's assertion "I have taken all knowledge to be my province" to be possible today, despite the fact that the sheer quantity (let alone the quality, density, accuracy, and precision) of available knowledge today is greater by several orders of magnitude.
ah, well... ignorance must have some kind of appeal - else far fewer would revel so brazenly in it.
Evolution and Christianity are entirely compatible.
Great prophet Darwin?
No, it is folks like you that label Charles Darwin a profit.
He was a scientist, who studied, proposed, tested and formed hypotheses from testable data.
A prophet only has to say he hears voices from God and the gullible will believe him, without any data or proof.
So, get your nomenclature right, and stop saying silly things.
Who is or is not the "greatest scientist of all time" is obviously a matter of opinion, but Newton is widely considered to be just that that. You're welcome to disagree, but if you find it "funny," then you don't understand what he contributed to science.
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.