Nemesis, which of the following statements about your country would you agree with:
(a) Levels of belief in Christianity have increased in the U.S.A. over the last century, and levels of racism have also increased.
(b) Levels of belief in Christianity have declined over the last century, and levels of racism have also declined.
(c) Levels of belief in Christianity have increased over the last century, but racism has declined.
(d) Levels of belief in Christianity have declined over the last century, but racism has increased.
I think that (b) is the correct statement. If you disagree, I'd be happy to debate the point on a new thread, and find some statistics that'll back up my view.
In areas of the world where superstition is still rife, you can still find very strange attitudes towards race. Generally speaking, the decline in superstition in the west has coincided with a decline in racism.
I lived in the U.S. from 1969 to 1973. At that time, many conservative Christians like yourself showed obvious signs of racism, and I'm glad to see that you are now making arguments that assume racism to be a bad thing.
More directly on the O.P., I don't really agree with Jar that the ToE itself has helped against racism. Practical knowledge in genetics has, certainly, because it shows that the biological differences between human groups are trivial. What really makes "us and them" differences is culture, and religious divisions have been a far greater problem throughout the history of the world than racism, and they still are.
That's all eugenics really is, it's animal husbandry applied to humans.
Exactly. No theory of evolution is required to do eugenics.
Humans would have recognized hereditary features in themselves ever since there were humans. No-one needs a sophisticated culture to figure out that if a couple, one of whom has a leg shorter than the other, produces a child with that same peculiarity, then it's not just coincidence.
Ideas similar to eugenics go back a long way. Aristocrats tended to believe that they were of superior breed, and the idea of their children marrying someone too far down the social class structure meant diluting their superior blood.
What they didn't know too much about, the European royalty being a great example, was inbreeding, which may explain why Prince Charles is a bit of a chinless wonder.:)
Can you give an hypothetical eugenics scenario which would clearly not be racist?
Yes. You select out all short sighted individuals.
quote:American Heritage Dictionary - racÂ·ism (rÄ'sÄz'É™m) n. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
quote: American Heritage Dictionary - euÂ·genÂ·ics (yÅÅ-jÄ›n'Äks) n. (used with a sing. verb) The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
Like animal breeding for humans, as has been pointed out to you. If you think that eugenics means racism, then you must think that some races are genetically superior to others. Figure it out.
The Huxley quotes you're giving us are from "Evolution and Ethics", a book in which Huxley argues strongly against the ideas which became known as social Darwinism, and later, eugenics.
Darwin agreed with him, and touched on the subject in "The Descent of Man".
quote:Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless; it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. - Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871
That's about the ideas that became eugenics.
Closer to the topic, Darwin believed that sympathy was an advantageous trait that had been selected for in humans. Here he touches on sympathy for others, including other races, describing racism as an "artificial barrier", interestingly, as we now know him to be right.
quote:As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. - Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871
Why you're trying to pretend Huxley's stuff against social Darwinism is in some way pro-racist, I don't know. I think you're a bit out of your depth.
You also seem to have trouble understanding what an explanatory theory is. I'll give you a clue.
The theory of plate tectonics does not tell us that we should go and push the earth's plates across its surface. It explains how they move on their own.
Evolutionary theory does not tell us to go out and make life forms evolve. It explains how they do it on their own.
Evolutionism says that countless entire populations of species have proven themselves to be inferior by going extinct.
Different human races are not different species.
You say "eugenics/racism". Only racists think that eugenics and racism are the same thing. See my last post. You have to believe that some races are superior to others in order to equate racism with eugenics.
Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.
Jar's claim that evolutionary theory is antithetical to racism is incorrect, as a number of people point out early on in the thread. That's because scientific theories explain things, but do not give moral or political guidance.
The study of genetics does come up with strong ammunition against racism, and why not guess who discovered this? Preachers? Biologists?
You use the word evolutionism above, popular amongst creationists, but , whatever it means, not used in the O.P.
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.
Of course, there was a lot less racism in your country before Darwin published his theories in 1859, wasn't there? Nowadays, with evolution having been taught in schools for so long, you have to put up with the symptoms of racism like African slavery, and race separation laws, something you never had in the good old days before the theory of evolution.:rolleyes:
You need to stop confusing your desires with reality, my child.
Religiosity, interestingly enough, has been declining alongside racism.
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.
The Huxley quotes you use are about eugenics (which he was against), not racism. If you still think eugenics is racism, then you'd better start writing to dictionaries complaining about their definitions, and promoting the CTD language in place of English.
Oh yes, and calling me a racist is what I predicted. Ooooh what a clever trap. And how clever of you to step into it yourselves! You stinking eugenecists are the racists.
It isn't a question of calling you a racist. It's more likely that you're confused about what the words "eugenics" and "racism" mean. If someone thinks that eugenics and racism are the same things, then they must think that some races are genetically superior to others. Look at the dictionary definition I gave you of eugenics, and it should be easy for you to understand this.
As for the rest of your post, making assertions and calling people names won't make the existence of the creator God of your desires, the needed father figure, any more likely!
You need to try and find mud to sling at evolutionary biologists, because you have no scientific arguments against the theory of evolution.
If you'd like to point out one post that you've made on these forums in which you think you've made a reasoned scientific argument against the theory of evolution, please do it. I'd enjoy a good laugh.
Arguing the case for the truth of an ancient mythology isn't easy, I'm sure. In fact, it's impossible.:)
I asked quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Can you give an hypothetical eugenics scenario which would clearly not be racist? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bluegenes' response from Post #163:
Yes. You select out all short sighted individuals.
You asked for a hypothetical example, and I gave one. Eugenicists, in this case, would select out individuals for breeding on the basis of faulty eyesight only when the origin of that faulty eyesight can be shown to be genetic. If you did this for any particular racial group, you'd end up after some generations with the same racial group, but virtually no people who are genetically inclined to shortsightedness in it. Do it for all the world, and you end up with all the world's racial groups minus shortsightedness.
Your quote from the wiki article is selective, and gives me a chance to show how you seem to be attempting to deliberately mislead.
I can selectively quote from the same article:
quote:Environmental factors â€” It has been suggested that a genetic susceptibility to myopia does not exist.
And better, an example of a survey on two racial groups in virtually identical circumstances:
quote:A recent study involving first-year undergraduate students in the United Kingdom found that 50% of British whites and 53.4% of British Asians were myopic
Your original quote says vaguely, "has been reported", meaning different surveys with different criteria for how far off 20/20 vision they will call "myopia" done on people living in different circumstances.
I'd suggest that people reading down the thread read the article for themselves, and read critically.
More importantly, you asked for a hypothetical example. You then want to call someone giving one a "gutter racist".
You were not asking people for an example of something that they thought should actually be implicated. So even "gutter eugenicist" would have been silly and childish. Then, as I've explained to you, eugenics and racism are not the same things. Try your dictionary again.:rolleyes:
In no definition of human racial groups will you find "myopic people" listed as one of them.
So, "gutter racist" was worse than childish, wasn't it? So stupid, in fact, that it could be described as typically creationist.