Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

Not that I agree with Faith's main point, but I do think it's true that scientific ideas, when popularized, are often lifted out of their scientific context and made to apply in a non-scientific way to ethics or whatever. That's obvious, I think (for example, "social Darwinism"). It's not the fault of the scientific theory but it happens.

To follow up on that, having perused Mein Kampf, I can conclude that the idea of "natural selection" is certainly in the book. However, Hitler uses the concept of "race" as though it meant "species."He applies the concept of natural selection to races rather than species.

No, what you have done is print the unsupported assertions of others. You have also switched to Marxism when you originally said Communism.Please explain how "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is different from "Love others as you love yourself".You also somehow skipped over your Nazi assertion when it is well documented that Hitler's elimination and sterilization of the unfit was based on Christian Principles, not Evolution.Once again, please stop making mistatements.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh yeah, I know Marxists refuse to own up to the fact that their theory ONLY issues in murderous tyrannies. Don't bother with the apologetics, I know the rap, sheer denial. Easy, the first is stealing enforced by government power, the second is a call to love freely given. {Edit: Coercion, tyranny, bondage, oppression, versus voluntary giving from the heart.} You love that idea but Hitler's religion was the worship of Hitler. He despised Christianity, similar to Nietzsche's despising of Christianity. He was big on the Will to Power, not the "religion of slaves."This message has been edited by Faith, 05-30-2005 10:54 PM

Faith you can deny all the evidence just like you do with the age of the universe, that fact that there was never as flood, the fact that the Exodus didn't happen as described in the Bible, but that doesn't change reality.I'll be happy to publish what Hitler said. What a totally stupid statement. Please point out where government is even mentioned in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's what I thought after reading Allan Bullock's book "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny," but actually the matter is rather complicated. If you read Mein Kampf, you will find out that he certainly believed in God. And Jar has all these quotes from his speeches where he talks about his Christian faith, apparently. Of course he might be lying just to keep the Church on his side but you can't just assume that.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it's complicated but Hitler said many anti-Christian things, and he sent Christians who opposed Nazism to the concentration camps. Believing in God is NOT being a Christian. Even the devils believe in God as the Bible says.

Shall I continue?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar,This is interesting topic and I'd like to see more. It's been a long time since I've thought about Hitler. The last time being a book on the impact syphlis had on western society. The author made a strong case that Hitler was syphilitic with brain involvement particularly in the later years of the war. The brain thing resulting in major irrationality.The thing is as I recall he was very good at strategic diplomacy. He was "friends" with Stalin and Russia right up until he invaded. So it's hard to tell if this was a personal belief or a political diplomatic ploy for some advantage or another.lfen

OK, that's a start. YOu are confusing the theory itself with what you think evolution says evolved. The theory itself about how we got where we are, as a mass of meaningless chemicals just randomly tossed together over aeons is a what I was referring to as a mechanical and physical understanding of human nature that leads to the devaluation of life.You say evolution predicts morality, but that's because you know morality exists. It's all too easy to look at the history of humanity and just subsume whatever you find there under evolutionism. So the Ten Commandments and morality "must" have had an adaptive purpose simply because we see that it exists. This kind of thinking is endless. But it is also empty, it's also part of the meaninglessness. It makes of morality, makes of the Ten Commandments, nothing but a blind mechanical meaningless instrument of survival. Always mere survival is the highest value from the evo perspective, a very empty value. A bunch of chemicals live and die. Big deal. Who cares. You might read up on the Existentialists, who express a different reaction to evolutionism than the optimistic types who thought it would lead to human progress. Meaninglessness or the "absurdity" of existence was immediately recognized as the social and moral fruit of Darwinism by the Existentialists. Kierkegaard grappled with it, Nietzsche grappled with it. They recognized in it the Death of God, the abolition of any ground for morality (see, they grasped the true implications. People may go on living by some moral rules or other but this is in spite of the theory, which pretty much says there's no ground whatever for any particular morality. You say evolution predicts morality, and I guess this is a way to patch up the glaring gap, but this morality is still only a meaningless instrument of survival, not intrinsic to life as we experience it.) Sure it does. Absolutely leads to it, and to euthanasia and to all kinds of social and genetic engineering. But these ideas are just one kind of the ways this cynicism is expressed. A general demoralization is another, and the state of despair and meaninglessness the existentialists wrote about. But most people just ignore its implications and go on living as if they didn't exist. It's the serious thinkers it gets to. Dream on.

In eighth grade we had the "chose 10 people from 20 on this list to go into the bunker" problem. As a commitee who chose from racist survivalists,religious figures, young/strong/fertile/andor stupid, and others. By compromise we had a goofy group unsuited to survival I bet.ABB

True, it is but I just want to finish this off-topic topic: I knew what I THOUGHT I said, and MEANT to say in Message 70, but rereading it I see it was ambiguous, so I apologize to everyone for insisting it was clear.But it's ALMOST clear. Here is what I wrote, with the clarification added in bold: End of off-topic topic.

First off, you're wrong about the randomness. Selection occurs at the chemical level as well as the biological level. So your false premise here does not lead to your conclusion. Don't confuse history with logic. Obviously we can't predict what evolution will do before the fact. What I am saying is that "survival of the fittest" logically predicts altruistic behaviour.A species benefits from protecting the young, weak, etc. because it makes them more likely to reproduce. Eugenics, on the other hand, arbitrarily chooses certain characteristics to preserve. It is diametrically opposed to natural selection. The Ten Commandments are a codification of what every society has known instinctively since the beginning of time. "Thou shalt not kill" = don't mess with natural selection. "Thou shalt not steal" = leave everybody enough to survive on. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" = take care of your own children. They make more sense in the context of survival than as the whims of God. There's no need to project your own bleak outlook on everybody else. I've never met an "evo" who didn't see the beauty in life and have a purpose in life. Now you're confusing philosophy with logic. Some philosophers may see a connection but the topic here is "Is eugenics the logical result...." Not "Can Darwinism be interpreted by Hitler, Nietzsche, Faith, etc. in a certain way...."As others have tried to show you, Christianity can be perverted too, but slavery, etc. are not the logical result of Christianity. That is what you have failed to show, and repeating it over and over doesn't strengthen your argument. Now you lost me. You say that Darwinism leads to a state of despair and meaninglessness. Then you immediately say that people go on living as if the implications didn't exist.Which is it? Are we in a state of despair? (Personally, I am not. I think your outlook on life is much more bleak than mine. ) Or do we just not reallize how desparate Darwinism has made us?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Ringo,William James in his book THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE (the text of which is available online) talks about the different personality types as having different orientations to religions. Faith has objected to my introducing psychology as being "ad hominum" arguments, but I think when we start talking about "dispair" we are talking of the psychological experiences of individuals.I am currently reading Jonathan Kirsch's book GOD AGAINST THE GODS as he examines the impact of monotheism on human cultures. I think that with the emergence of science we are seeing a comparable transitional impact in the last few hundred years. This is very complex. There is another book I've seen (I forget the title, could it have been DARWIN'S GOD? something like that) that asserted Darwin had a deist theological agenda to redefine God as more removed and impersonal. I just skimmed the book and have no idea if that thesis is something I would accept or not.Certainly these issues of the meaning of life are of greater importance to some people but have been the subject of human scrutiny for several millenniums. Clearly the ToE, geology, and questions of origins has been distressing to many people, particularly those who are capable of finding consolation in fundamentalist Abrahamic religions.I don't know the current status of the eugenics movement. The ability to make selection among DNA and select fertilization not to speak of gene splicing means the challenges will increase. Faith also seems to be objecting to the reductionism of the ToE, or the perceived reductionism anyway. There are some significant issues here but the idea that the ToE should be condemned because it logically led to eugenics is a quixotic detour. The industrial revolution led to the horrors of the sweatshops. The Amish have avoided those horrors by their choice of lifestyle.Basically I get that Faith doesn't like eugenics and the ToE. ToE, or Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner's behaviourist psychology can lead to a feeling of overwelming meaninglessness. Some people still deal with the spectre of nihilism and that won't change but I think most people don't.Enjoy the good life up there in Canuckistan, Comrade Ringo.lfen

Didn't you say my premise was just fine last post? In any case, ho ho ho, selection sure does put a lot of PURPOSE and MEANING into the process. Right, based on the fact that you know it did in fact produce it. As I said. And I'm no fan of Sociobiology. Blech. Hated it before I was a Christian. Science has some gall trying to explain the human condition if you ask me. Yup, survival, reproduction, exactly as I said. What a LOVELY value, a LOVELY purpose to life. To think we're reduced to this after 5000 years of development toward civilization. Natural selection is a blind process. It chooses what happens to be favored in a particular environment. If there's a newt-loving snake in the neighborhood, a poisonous form of the newt may be selected so that the species survives. There is nothing purposive in natural selection beyond immediate adaptation. The appeal of human-directed selection, on the other hand, is obvious -- it would be guided by intelligence to supposedly ideal purposes. And certainly your opinion trumps that of millions of others who disagree with you. You personalize this. I don't personalize it. This is not about you and me or anybody personally, this is about the natural tendency of the idea of evolution, and I've made it clear that the serious thinkers are the ones it affects most strongly, but that also its effects are insidious and not necessarily easily recognized. Most people go on as if it didn't define their existence, following whatever habits they grew up with. You are simply ignoring the argument, as others here do too. Oh brother. What's this, the latest defense against having to think about what your opponent is actually saying? OBVIOUSLY I lost you -- long ago. You aren't trying to follow the argument, just looking for any old stupid objection you can find to it. Not that you give a damn, but I recommend you read all my posts on this thread and THINK about them for a change. I've answered this stupid objection I don't know how many times how.========
{Edit: I apologize for being insulting. I forget that it's fine for you to insult me with your callow mindlessness, and all the evos here to insult me, but I mustn't point out your stupidities in return. Mea culpa. I will try to do better in the future.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-31-2005 02:32 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-31-2005 02:33 PM