Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6384 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 1 of 231 (211348)
05-26-2005 12:03 AM


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:
  1. Live long enough to have offspring
  2. Have more offspring than your peers (your offspring must live long enough to have their own offspring)
  3. Repeat the two above ad infinitum - or until a really big meteor impacts
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*

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2005 8:23 AM MangyTiger has not replied
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-26-2005 11:44 AM MangyTiger has replied
 Message 8 by macaroniandcheese, posted 05-26-2005 12:54 PM MangyTiger has not replied
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 05-26-2005 2:09 PM MangyTiger has not replied
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 05-29-2005 6:01 PM MangyTiger has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6384 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 9 of 231 (211491)
05-26-2005 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
05-26-2005 9:19 AM


Re: Two examples
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 05-26-2005 9:19 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by nator, posted 05-30-2005 9:28 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6384 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 10 of 231 (211494)
05-26-2005 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
05-26-2005 11:44 AM


Re: On the Holocaust, Nazis and Evolution.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 05-26-2005 11:44 AM jar has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6384 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 71 of 231 (212438)
05-29-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
05-29-2005 6:01 PM


Have a heart
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 05-29-2005 6:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-29-2005 10:11 PM MangyTiger has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6384 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 74 of 231 (212442)
05-29-2005 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
05-29-2005 10:00 PM


Show some compassion to the topic
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-29-2005 10:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6384 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 104 of 231 (212512)
05-29-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
05-29-2005 11:27 PM


Re: Still resorting to misrepresentation.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 05-29-2005 11:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 05-31-2005 4:13 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6384 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 106 of 231 (212517)
05-29-2005 11:56 PM


Step away from the interesting side-discussion about civilisation and Christianity
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by AdminAsgara, posted 05-30-2005 12:32 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6384 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 108 of 231 (212533)
05-30-2005 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
05-29-2005 10:11 PM


Re: Have a heart
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:
  • None
  • Nada
  • Zero
  • Zilch
  • Not a sausage
  • Bugger All
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:
  • I can still be awestruck by the majesty of the Grand Canyon
  • I can still grieve over the death of a good friend a couple of months ago
  • I can still enjoy the unique joy of playing with a pet cat or dog
  • I can still experience the almost unbearable pleasure of falling in love
  • I can still experience the almost unbearable pain of falling out of love
  • I can still marvel at a great work of art
  • I can still be moved to tears by the pain of someone I care about
  • I can still be moved to tears by the pain of a stranger
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-29-2005 10:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 05-30-2005 3:21 AM MangyTiger has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024