|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
My reason for starting this thread is something Faith said in Message 104. That post is reproduced below for completeness:
We have an apparent implicit perfection and we have the impression that something has twisted and deformed that original perfection. Apparent inplicit perfection? What extra-Biblical evidence is there that perfection existed sometime in the past? I was relying on the mere appearance of things, but of course some do not see this implicit perfection in nature. I was saying I think it's "apparent" -- but not all see it. Also the damage I was saying is also "apparent."
I agree that there is evidence that humans are becoming less fit to survive outside of the modern society. Those very medical advances that are keeping us from dying young, are allowing us to pass on the genes that would have been lost to the human gene pool due to natural selection. Childhood diabetes, hemophilia and other heriditary diseases are becoming more prevalent. Additionally, susceptibility to disease is somewhat an inherited trait. That susceptibility is passed on the the following generations. This is just an observation, not a suggestion that we allow children to die so we can improve the gene pool. This would be a good topic for contrasting the Biblical view with evolutionism, maybe for another thread sometime. Although humane motives prevail, the fact is that they are logically inconsistent with the assumptions of evolution, which logically would propose an ethics of selecting the healthy and strong and depriving the sick and weak of the ability to propagate. This was the philosophy that led to Nazism, but it is rarely acknowledged that it is a direct logical conclusion from evolutionism. In fact it was held quite seriously by much of the intelligentsia of the early part of the 20th century, and not only in Germany. Now we of course apply the principle of compassion to these situations, but the very explanation of the problem in evolutionistic terms makes this compassion an imposition upon the situation rather than an organic or logical conclusion based on it. Evolution and the ethics of compassion are in constant tension therefore. It was the last but one paragraph that got my attention. I have seen this claim repeatedly made by opponents of evolution and I think it is nonsense. As I have not had any formal biology education since my O levels (UK exams for 16 year olds a long time ago) I would appreciate the input of anyone who's a professional in that arena. All other views - for and against - will also be welcome of course ! The problem with the view Faith expresses above is that it is categorically not the logical conclusion of an evolutionary viewpoint. As far as I can tell there are only three things that matter:
If you apply this to humans then the logical conclusion isn't that you select healthy and strong people, it's that you select people who have lots of brothers and sisters (and probably aunts and uncles). This is all simplified of course but I hope it conveys what I'm trying to get across for people to understand my point.
This was the philosophy that led to Nazism, but it is rarely acknowledged that it is a direct logical conclusion from evolutionism. I dispute that this was the philosphy that led to Nazism or that it is a direct logical conclusion from evolutionism. What led to Nazism (at least the part relevant to this discussion) was that the Nazi elite were racial fantasists who believed in the manifest destiny of the German people and their inherent superiority over all other racial groups. Allied to this was the centuries old tradition of anti-semitism throught Europe (along with discrimination against other groups such as the Romany gypsies). In my opinion the Nazi obsession with breeding blonde haired, blue eyed 'supermen' isn't related to any aspect of evolutionary theory. After thinking about it I regard it as an example of selective breeding. Essentially what the Nazis were doing is what dog and cat breeders etc. do. They were breeding to an arbitrarily defined breed standard.
In fact it was held quite seriously by much of the intelligentsia of the early part of the 20th century, and not only in Germany. Absolutely true. Again, I don't think this was a result of evolutionary theory. Ultimately it reflects the tendency of intelligent and/or well educated people to think themselves superior to those who are not as intelligent or well educated. I guess Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution or Social Issues and Creation/Evolution? *Cowers and waits for the biologists to point out the obvious howling errors*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
1) I once saw a racist briefly interviewed on TV His argument (paraphrased) was that a pedigree dog was more valuable than a mongrel. Clearly he was thinking in terms of selective breeding and human values, not evolution - it would be not unusual for a mongrel to be more fit than a pedigree dog. I nearly made a point like this in my opening post. You only have to look at pedigree dog breeds to see what a mess the Kennel Club breed standards have made of them. Many of the smaller breeds have problems with their eyes, noses and teeth and the large breeds suffer from problems like arthritis and hip dysplasia. At least now some of the breeds are trying to address these problems - I used to have a girlfriend who had two Rottweilers and basically you can't breed them (and register the offspring as pedigree) unless they have been assessed for Hip Displaysia. That was twenty years ago so I don't know how succesful they have been. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
You make a telling point jar.
Sadly people have always slaughtered "others". This happened long before evolutionary theory - all that has happened is that the scale on which it can be done has increased. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Hi Faith.
Other people have responded to various parts of your post, but I'd like to discuss this:
Your version MAY be a more orthodox version of how the ToE might be intentionally applied, though I'm not sure it necessarily is. Even without the distortions, I see no logical way to get from the idea that we are all the result of aeons of random mindless chemical and biological processes to compassion toward the accidental products of such a system. Compassion must be imported into the system from outside it. Also from your Message 60:
LOGICALLY there is no other ethic that comes out of evolutionism. Compassion is logically incompatible with it. The task on this thread, as I understand it, is to show that it is not incompatible with it, but perhaps the incompatibility has been tacitly conceded? Could you expand on why you think compassion is incompatible with the ToE? Personally I would contend that compassion is an evolved trait - something that has a survival advantage for humans. That being the case our compassion is not only compatible with the ToE but is, to some extent, explained by it. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
jar and Faith...
Many primitive cultures, the entirety of European tribes for starters, were supplanted by Christianity over the centuries, MOST OF THEM BY CHOICE. They were all tribal cultures whose religion was some form or other of witchcraft. Civilization didn't even begin to happen until Christianity supplanted all those delightful tribal cultures that lived by raping and pillaging. This would make a great thread - a great different thread Same for:
I used the term "bloodlines" I understand the term. YOU don't understand that it has not MEANT what you impute to it except in the most limited contexts. You are misusing the words. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
No I was not. I was speaking of EUROPE. ONLY EUROPE. Message 70 Read the thread. Learn to read. I've already answered this. Message 70:
Many primitive cultures, the entirety of European tribes for starters So if we're talking about "ONLY EUROPE" and the "the entirety of European tribes for starters" where were we going for the main course? Somewhere in Europe that isn't covered by the entirety of European tribes??? And this is all off topic Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
This is the Topic Police
Step away from the interesting side-discussion about civilisation and Christianity You have the right to open a new topic Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6384 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
The idea that we came up out of primitive life simply devalues everything about us as human beings. It devalues life itself. It makes a mechanical empty meaningless thing out of it. It makes us one big nothing. It makes us a product of a blind process that is subject to any kind of engineering or manipulation we might dream up because it is a process utterly devoid of meaning. We are just bits and pieces of chemicals. Why bother about something that was simply concocted in a giant chem lab? You seem to think that if we don't have a (your?) mystic view on how we got here then we must live terrible bleak, empty lives. I can only speak for myself, but let me tell you how it works for me. The fact that I accept that the Theory of Evolution is the best current explanation for how life evolved and ultimately how humans got here has the following effect on how I live my life and interact with those around me:
The Theory of Evolution is part of the scientific discipline of biology. It has no bearing on my life, my relationships, my beliefs or anything else. It doesn't even affect how I earn my living as a Software Engineer. Despite the perverse view you seem to have of people who don't subscribe to your beliefs:
My life is just as full or empty as it would have been if me and everyone I've ever known had never heard of evolution. Is that so hard to understand or accept? P.S. I'll probably be away until Tuesday, so everyone be gentle with my thread. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024