|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,485 Year: 3,742/9,624 Month: 613/974 Week: 226/276 Day: 2/64 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is antithetical to racism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Thomas H. Huxley.... From the ending paragraphs of "VII": Supposing the administrator to be guided by purely scientific considerations, he would, like the gardener, meet this most serious difficulty by systematic extirpation, or exclusion, of the superfluous. The hopelessly diseased, the infirm aged, the weak or deformed in body or in mind, the excess of infants born, would be put away, as the gardener pulls up defective and superfluous plants, or the breeder destroys undesirable cattle. Only the strong and the healthy, carefully matched, with a view to the progeny best adapted to the purposes of the administrator, would be permitted to perpetuate their kind. Where's the theory of evolution in all of this? This is pretty much mundane animal breeding as it has been practiced for thousands of years, well before Darwin or the discovery of evolution. Animal and plant breeders already knew that systematic extirpation of the superfluous will result in improving the breed. What is the theory of evolution adding to this? Also, where is the racism? Added by edit: And I can't emphasis enough the point that crashfrog made in the previous post (something I've been trying to say, but haven't found near as succinct a way of saying it). The theory of evolution is a description of what happens in nature, not a prescription of what people should do. Just like the Law of Gravity is a description of what happens when objects fall, not a prescription that people should crawl on their bellies and avoid airplanes and tall buildings. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
What about my previous point that Huxley wasn't even talking about evolution but mundane animal breeding, as it was practiced for centuries or even millenia, before Darwin? That's all eugenics really is, it's animal husbandry applied to humans.
Huxley isn't speaking about evolution. He's speaking about animal husbandry. Eugenicists aren't applying the theory of evolution; they are applying the usual methods known to animal breeders for centuries. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Huxley says otherwise. I dunno. I can read what you have posted, but maybe my reading comprehension skills are better than yours. I've been getting the impression from your posts that your reading skills are none too good. When I read the selections that you have posted, all I see is exactly what animal breeders have been doing for hundreds, even thousands, of years. I see nothing that is unique to Darwin's theory of evolution. But seeing how you seem to have a better grasp of these issues, why don't you point out the parts that aren't just animal breeding techniques? Why don't you point out the parts that are unique to the theory of evolution beyond what ordinary animal breeders have been doing to improve their breeds? In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
CTD, repeating this same exact quotation again, writes: Supposing the administrator to be guided by purely scientificconsiderations, he would, like the gardener, meet this most serious difficulty by systematic extirpation, or exclusion, of the superfluous. And this is exactly what normal animals breeders have done since time immemorial. Animal breeders already knew all about the systematic extirpation of the superfluous. What you are saying is that animal husbandry, not evolution, leads to racism and eugenics. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this. This is the only accurate thing that you have said so far. You are correct; the theory of evolution neither supports nor advocates against racism, just as the theory of gravity neither supports nor advocates against flying in airplanes. The theory of evolution is, at most, a description of what happens in the world. It is not a prescription of how people should organize their lives or their societies. -
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history. Except that it hasn't. It has been explained that before that only the fake history believed by creationists support their views. In real history, there were creationists who were racists and there were evolutionists who were racists, and they both used the explanatory frameworks available to them to explain what they thought were racist truths. -
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism. No. It is true that the theory of evolution is not antithetical to racism. This was acknowledged, and then the discussion moved on to whether the theory of evolution supports racism. This is not goalpost moving. Goalpost moving would be moving on the question of whether the theory of evolution supports racism while pretending we were still discussing the original question. -
They're not here to learn, but to propagandize and insult; I've see enough of that. Seems that you are not entirely innocent of this yourself, Mr. Pot. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Huh. So, by this reasoning, what isn't racism? By this reasoning, hospitals who only hire people with medical degrees to be doctors will be racist.
So now you've reduced the word "racism" to meaninglessness. Good job. Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given. In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Until some flaw can be found in Huxley's logic, I don't see that there's much to argue about. The only flaw I've found is that it's based upon evolutionism... Except that it wasn't. It was based on ordinary animal breeding techniques that has been practiced for thousands of years. Edited by Chiroptera, : added "techniques" In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Some time ago, when we were discussing the alleged role of the theory of evolution in racism and eugenics, I wrote:
This is pretty much mundane animal breeding as it has been practiced for thousands of years, well before Darwin or the discovery of evolution. Animal and plant breeders already knew that systematic extirpation of the superfluous will result in improving the breed. PZ Meyers, someone far smarter than I, is making the same point on Pharyngula. Maybe this point should be added to the arsenal against the "evolution leads to eugenics" argument. There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024