EvC Forum: Is eugenics the logical result of Darwinism?

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:

Live long enough to have offspring
Have more offspring than your peers (your offspring must live long enough to have their own offspring)
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*

1 online now:	LamarkNewAge
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0