Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

This is the Topic PoliceStep away from the interesting side-discussion about civilisation and ChristianityYou have the right to open a new topic

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Thanks Mangy, I know you've been trying to police your own thread, its much appreciated...As for everyone else:
Please take other interesting discussions to another thread. Failure to do this will result in this thread being closed for a bit 'till you move it along.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

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

Why can't anybody get that I have not said Word One about "how anybody lives their lives" and have specifically said that the worldview and ethics based on this worldview that are logically deduced from the ToE are kept in a separate compartment from how most people live their lives? So you are not living by the implications of evolutionism -- as far as you are aware anyway (I doubt anyone is completely immune to it). Those implications nevertheless exist and SOME people DO live by them. It's not rocket science, though it may take a little more of a serious attempt to follow the argument than I've seen here so far.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-30-2005 03:23 AM

is that any implications are amoral and not immoral, and have nothing to do with ethics.ABB

Then go back and read my first post on the subject. Message 56 Carefully please. Do you think that extermination -- or sterilization -- of the "unfit" is a merely amoral idea?Please FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT. Nobody here seems interested in doing that basic task. JUST FOLLOW THE ARGUMENT. Good grief.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-30-2005 03:40 AM

The concepts of evolution being amoral... all subsequent justification of heinous acts (or any acts) using evolution is misusing it. Evolution isn't ethics.ABB

quote:

---

You only have to look at pedigree dog breeds to see what a mess the Kennel Club breed standards have made of them.

---

The worst is the English Bulldog.Their heads are so large that they ALWAYS have to be delivered via caesarian section.Talk about unfit from an evolutionary standpoint.Humans almost invariabley screw up animal breeds WRT fitness.The American Quarter Horse breeders started breeding to put 1,500 pound, incredibly muscular bodies on top of teeny, tiny little hooves. They thought it looked pretty. This course of action has resulted in almost 50 years of widespread terrible degenerative arthritic bone diseases in the feet and legs very young horses. They are lame and unable to be ridden by the age of 6 or 7.There's a reason draft horses have huge feet.

deletedThis message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-30-2005 09:35 AM

Nope, they were good old Christian ideas.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Historically it has been the basis for certain social programs, rightly or wrongly, doesn't matter. Very very popular ideas at one time, a very LONG time, through the 50s at least, and my point is that if it is going to be used for such a purpose, it's interesting that the ethical position that it generates is incompatible with the compassion that is the usual social moral standard. It supports all the Nazi programs and the Communist programs of extermination of anyone who is unsuited to their utopian ideal. There is no way evolution could lead to a compassionate moral standard, the ideas are simply contradictory. Everybody has danced around this simple fact.

I think you need to read and address the points I raised on the first page. Message 5 and Message 12 are the most important. But the points in Message 3 and the examples in Message 4 are also relevant.This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-30-2005 03:13 PM

It appears that you don't like eugenics, but I don't expect evolutionists of these days to like eugenics. It was part of my point that we are now committed to a compassionate ethic, but that this ethic contradicts the ethics that have been derived from evolutionism -- and my claim is that no OTHER kind of ethics CAN be derived from it for those who have a mind to think in that direction.As for Mendel versus Darwin, it isn't a matter of "blaming" anyone, it's a matter of the kind of thinking that followed on the Darwinian revolution as a matter of historical fact.Interesting that you would reconsider eugenics in the case of a "mutational meltdown." That's where I believe we're headed too, but we're ALL headed there, one genealogy at a time I suppose, but nobody is going to be left out. It won't do any good to eliminate/sterilize the first who suffer from this because it's going to get everybody.

Doesn't matter if it's a misuse. There's only one kind of social program that can come out of the evolution worldview whether you personally are inclined to develop such programs or not, and historically this is in fact what people dreamt up based on evolutionism. And again, no OTHER kind of ethics can develop out of it. Like it or not.

Deriving ethics from evolution makes as mucb sense as deriving ethics from gravity. Both are descriptive theories - like all scientific theories, and they have no ethical content. If you disagree then you need to explain why instead of ignoring the point.As for your assumption that a "mutational meltdown" is going to get everyone, that's just an assumption. And if one was on the way eugenics could slow it down even if you were right.