|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Well it is about humans continuing to evolve. It's really more consistent than trying to justify eugenics on evolution, because it actually allows true evolution to continue rather than applying artificial selection in an attempt to direct evolution. Eugenics is an attempt to reach human goals which do NOT come from evolutionary theory as I have pointed out. Thus my suggestion has a firmer base in evolutionary theory than eugenics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4708 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
The idea is that detrimental mutations accumulate to the point where the species goes extinct. Awesome! Maybe we won't destroy the planet through overpopulation after all. Cool. lfen This message has been edited by lfen, 05-30-2005 02:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
They used Darwinism as an arguement. They were not based on Darwinism. They were based on an idea of superiority to other people and used Darwinism to dress up bigotry as an excuse for unethical behaviors. My impression is that the whole world was in a ferment about the implications of Darwinism and it was this basic fascination with its principles -- even if they misunderstood them to some extent -- that led to the ideas rather than the other way around. But even if some were already racists -- and there was a lot of racism in the air before Darwin of course -- the fact remains that evolutionism makes a good support for it, and at the time had the effect of officializing it into a science. The perfectly natural evolution-based idea that some people are more or less "evolved" than others is a very natural basis for racism and all kinds of social engineering schemes. By contrast, a Biblical ethic counters racist tendencies and leads to a concern for all members of the human race, because it says we are all made in the image of God and all descend from one set of parents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
By contrast, a Biblical ethic counters racist tendencies and leads to a concern for all members of the human race, because it says we are all made in the image of God and all descend from one set of parents. What ever it is supposed to lead to it was used to support slavery. The racist tendancies were around long before Darwinism and the Bible was a perfectly fine support for them. When anything new came along the bigots jumped on it to support their views. The Bible, according to some, says we are separated from the others who share this earth. Evolution says we all descend from one set of parents. There are those who believe the separation of us from the others is evil. Their ethical system is more inclusive than yours might be. That might be one measure to say it is "better" in some way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, it certainly is not a non-sequitur. If you can't get from the theory to justification of a course of action you cannot say that the course of action is the logical consequence of the theory. Oh nonsense. But in any case the supporters of the ideas in question had no problem justifying a course of action based on them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3737 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
By contrast, a Biblical ethic counters racist tendencies and leads to a concern for all members of the human race, because it says we are all made in the image of God and all descend from one set of parents. Tell that to the barbecued inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah amongst many others. Tell that to the victims of the Spanish Inquisition. Tell that to the victims of the Salem witch hunts. Since all of these horrendous acts were "justified" by using the Bible, can we say that they were the logical result of Christianity? Anything can be twisted to fit any purpose. For example, is drunk driving the logical result of the invention of the internal combustion engine? Is stabbing someone to death the logical result of inventing kitchen knives? Was the Columbine High School massacre the logical result of the invention of fire arms? It may have escaped your notice, but God actually gave us free will!!! We choose how to interpret information, each and every one of us. If we choose to use it for good, then that's down to us; if we choose to use it for evil, then that's down to us too. You can't blame the information for the subsequent actions of people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
So you are saying that ethical considerations should play no part in a choosing a course of action ? Because that seems to be the heart of your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Proof has already been given on this thread I believe. But here's one you should enjoy as the writer hates Judeo-Christian principles as much as he hates Marxism and he links the two. In the process, however, he also shows that Marx derived much of his thinking from Darwinism.
By the way I think he's right that Marx (whose family had converted to liberal Christianity) was aping the Judeo-Christian worldview and trying to establish his utopian view using the best principles from it, but without God of course, and with scientific justification too, which evolutionism provided.
Page not found | National Vanguard Marx, Darwin and the Scientific IdeologyPhilosophy; Posted on: 2004-09-13 10:09:05 [ Printer friendly / Instant flyer ] ntific investigation of the nature of life supports racialism, demolishes Marxism and equalitarianism. by John Thornton Bannerman WHEN IN 1867 Karl Marx had completed the first volume of his major work, Das Kapital, he offered to dedicate it to the great biologist Charles Darwin. Darwin cautiously declined the honour, pleading his "ignorance of economics." It is one of the great ironies of history that the main founder of one of the major ideologies contending for the soul of the Twentieth Century should thus have wished to dedicate his magnum opus to the man who was to play an equally significant, if less overt, role in founding the other great contending world-view. No less ironic were the words spoken sixteen years later at Marx's graveside by his amanuensis and financial backer, Friedrich Engels. "Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature," eulogised Engels, "so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history." Ironic, for the social consequences of the law of evolution in organic nature Darwin discovered sounded the death-knell of Marx's pretended "law of evolution in human history." (ILLUSTRATION: The young Jew, Karl Marx, left; the young European, Charles Darwin, right. Each in his own way would dramatically affect the future of the West.) The invocation of Darwin's name by Marx and Engels cannot have reflected any grasp on their part of the social implications of his discoveries. Implications which are in fact utterly fatal to the Marxist world-view. Instead, Marx and Engels trotted out the name of Darwin as part of their ambition to present as "new" and "scientific" a body of belief which actually is very old and wholly unscientific. Marx's "scientific" "law of evolution in human history" is, at bottom, little more than the old Judaeo-Christian superstition dressed up in the trappings of pseudo-scientific jargon. Trappings which, in turn, merely reflect the rising prestige of Science and the declining prestige of religion in the Nineteenth Century Western society in which Marx lived. Marx's vision of human history, past and future, shares the basic Judaeo-Christian theme of the Fall and Redemption of Man. In the beginning, according to Marx, was the primal Eden of "primitive Communism." Therein entered the serpent of private ownership. This, as the distinguished Oxford historian, R. N. Carew-Hunt, rightly put it, "in the Marxist scheme takes the place of the Fall of Man, since the inclination of men to take advantage of one another was a corruption introduced into history by the private ownership of the means of production." [1] And another interesting one I think, which not only addresses Hitler as well as Marx, but even condemns capitalism as it is defended on evolutionistic principles!
http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/humanism/evol_genocide.htm Mussolini was strengthened in his belief that violence was basic to social transformation by the philosophy of Nietzsche. Mussolini's attitude was completely dominated by Evolutionism. In public utterances he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace: it would only hinder the evolutionary process. Likewise Hitler based his politics on Darwin. Jews must be segregated, he urged in Mein Kampf, to avoid mixed marriages; were they to occur, all nature's efforts "to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile." Sir Arthur Keith, an evolutionist, writing just after World War II, observed,
The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. . . . To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied vigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. . . . The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people were organized slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood. . . . Such conduct is highly immoral as measured by every scale of ethics, yet Germany justifies it; it is consonant with tribal or evolutionary morality. Germany has reverted to the tribal past, and is demonstrating to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution. If Marx was not "converted" by the preaching of Darwin, he was certainly "sanctified" by it. Jacques Barzun[16] notes that
In an age of social Darwinism, the combination of the ideas of struggle, of historical evolution, and of progress proved irresistible. The Marxists became merely a sect in the larger church . . . . Marx wished to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin, but Darwin declined the offer, thinking it would have an adverse effect on the popularity of his own books. He had little to worry about. While Modernism was sweeping the Bible under the rug, Evolutionism literally swept the globe. And its chief propagandists were Hitler, Mussolini, and their totalitarian ilk, who, early in their "careers," were well-respected by the United States aristocracy because they were "scientific" social reformers who defended "law and order."[17] Nazism may have been (temporarily) forced underground, but the anti-Christian world-and-life-view it so successfully propagated remains the centerpiece of the Dominant Culture.[18] The Christian Patriarch can have no part in it.[19] "CAPITALISM" Social Darwinism in Economics is perhaps more familiar to some. Use the State to put your competitors out of business; ethics must not stand in the way of the "Survival of the Fittest."The railroad magnate James J. Hill, manipulating to get more railways under his control, said that "the fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of the survival of the fittest." Andrew Carnegie, who made his fortune in the State-protected steel industry, describes his conversion to Evolutionism upon reading Darwin and Herbert Spencer: I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear. Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. John D. Rockefeller, who, like so many, attempted to seduce Christians into Evolutionist harlotry, propagated his religion in Christian Sunday School classes. His "testimony" was inspiring:
The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest. . . . This is not an evil tendency in business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God. Needless to say, the "God" of John D. Rockefeller and Adolph Hitler is not the God of Micah and Jesus. But these are the roots of corporate fascism in America. They are also the roots of Racism . . . and we are now seeing the fruit of this deadly tree.George Gaylord Simpson, one of the highest of Evolutionism's high priests, who ministered in the parish of Harvard University, has pontificated that Darwin finally and definitely established evolution as a fact, no longer a speculation or an alternative hypothesis for scientific investigation. Apparently I left out a part that shows the connection with racism. Will be back to insert it. Turns out I didn't leave anything out, it ends there. Oh well, I'll leave it in its oddly truncated state. This message has been edited by Faith, 05-30-2005 06:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There was nothing racist about the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah. God punishes all for transgressions of His Law without partiality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4708 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
A memory is starting to surface from decades ago.
I was watching some character with an attitude similiar to Faith's on t.v. only this person blamed the modern problems on Einstein's theory of relativity being responsible for "situtional ethics" (everything is relative! very baaaad) which he regarded as the scourge of the day. Anyone remember "situational ethics" and the uproar that caused? Einstein's Theory of Relativity, now Darwin's Theory of Evolution, what other scientific theories have resulted in the decline and fall of western civilization? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Ah yes a quality link from a site that states (for membership):
quote: and the second which opposes:
quote:- so incest is best? keep it in the family and all that. This is wind-up,no? I can find sites that say Jesus liked nothing better than to finish the day by having the diciples perform oral sex on him - but what would that prove? This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-May-2005 06:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Not much of a connection. Most of it seems to be other people's opiniosn without any supporting evidence. And when we consider that Stalin persecuted Darwinists, it doesn't seem that Communism owed that much to Darwin (Marxists seem to have preferred Lamarckism - one of the reasons for Lysenko's success).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Ifen writes: Anyone remember "situational ethics" and the uproar that caused? If you're in a lifeboat and there isn't room for everybody, who do you throw out? The sick, injured Captain who knows how to navigate a boat? Or the healthy teenager who couldn't find his a** with both hands? In a situation like that, eugenics doesn't seem very logical. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh well I ddidn't take a lot of time screening the sites. But they do provide quotes, which should be a reply to Jar's quotes of Hitler pretending to be a Christian if nothing else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4708 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
Relativity and Evolution are high profile media science that are the lightning rods for those who fear science. Rarely does philosophy get the attention science does. But wasn't Hegel and his philosophy of the dialectic more fundamental to Marx than Darwin? It was called Dialectical Materialism.
It would appear Faith is quote mining some odd web pages in her quixotic attempt to undermine ToE by a smear campaign based on its failure to provide a basis for a good ethical system (something that wasn't claimed for it nor was part of Darwin's or any other biologist's intention.) On the other hand it doesn't appear you, Ned, or anyone else here will ever be able to get her to recognize the difference between philosophy and science, or the difference between ethics and biology. I'll hand it to you for trying. lfen edited typo: odds changed back to odd This message has been edited by lfen, 05-30-2005 04:10 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024